Roland Garross losers: Highest level
- Thread starter lud
- Start date
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
2016 Murray obviously.
If only Federer and Djokovic brought their A game in Slam finals as often as Murray (their hybrid) did, they'd be the Kings of Clay and even more successful on their favorite surfaces too.
If only Federer and Djokovic brought their A game in Slam finals as often as Murray (their hybrid) did, they'd be the Kings of Clay and even more successful on their favorite surfaces too.
lud
Hall of Fame
Oh pls, he was 2 points close to lose against infamous womanizer Radek Stepanek.2016 Murray obviously.
If only Federer and Djokovic brought their A game in Slam finals as often as Murray (their hybrid) did, they'd be the Kings of Clay and even more successful on their favorite surfaces too.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
Rafa the King
Hall of Fame
I was 95% he had bagged the title
Everything might happen. What people said before AO 2014 final...
C
Charlie
Guest
Murray in a final - it's a walkover for Djokovic!
FERRER in a final - everything might happen...
Rafa the King
Hall of Fame
AO2014 was like a 70% case, everyone that stan could win if he played his best. Eventually he didn't need to.
Ferrer is a more talented player than Murray. The problem is both are mental midgets.Murray in a final - it's a walkover for Djokovic!
FERRER in a final - everything might happen...
The 2016 final was NID and you know that. There is nothing worse than Djokovic-Murray in a slam final.
C
Charlie
Guest
LMAO no he is not, Murray all the way in that category. If anything Ferrer is the one that maximized his potential considering the strength of his weapons.
I am not a fan of Djokovic-Murray finals despite being a big fan of Djokovic. But to claim that 2016 final was NID (when considering Djokovic's FO struggles and the fact that he lost the first set) while saying Ferrer and Wawrinka against Nadal in FO final wasn't NID just shows that you are a massive hypocrite with a sick desperate need to attack Djokovic at every opportunity. Get some help.
Djokovic fans says ANY final against Wawrinka is NID?
Djokovic had no struggles. Every time he lost in RG he was just outplayed. Federer and Wawrinka played great matches. Nadal is the king of clay, even though in 2014 he was far from his best. Djokovic wasn't unlucky, he just lost to strong players in specific matches. But in 2016 he was lucky and met his slave in the final instead of a normal opponent. Yes, it was NID.
C
Charlie
Guest
Ignoring the net touch in 2013 and MIA on most big points in 2015, nice.Djokovic fans says ANY final against Wawrinka is NID?
Djokovic had no struggles. Every time he lost in RG he was just outplayed. Federer and Wawrinka played great matches. Nadal is the king of clay, even though in 2014 he was far from his best. Djokovic wasn't unlucky, he just lost to strong players in specific matches. But in 2016 he was lucky and met his slave in the final instead of a normal opponent. Yes, it was NID.
So let me get this straight. A French Open virgin has a NID FO final against Murray who beat him in the last meeting on clay AND took the first set but the King of the French Open has a "everything could happen" FO final against FERRER whom he owned in 8 previous meetings. Congratulations, you are the definition of hatred and hypocrisy.
S
Sirius Black
Guest
2013 David Ferrer. A true test for El Rey del Clay. Once he got that first break, we knew it was over for RN
No one could have foreseen that comeback
No one could have foreseen that comeback
Last edited by a moderator:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I wasn't... I thought he'd be tired.
What are you talking about in the bold part?
In 2013 say thanks to Nadal for choking away 2 sets (especially the fourth) in this match. There should have never been a fifth set and you know that. And touching the net isn't any different than any other mistake. The 2016 final was NID, everybody knew this loser Murray is going to collapse like always.
kOaMaster
Hall of Fame
Federer 2006/07 was "pretty good" on clay...I really though he'll take Nadal and he was close. In 2007 he was at least as good as Nadal but somehow never managed to find a way to convert break points.
He reached the final in 6 out of 7 tournaments (5 masters, 2 grand slams) and lost just once to somebody other than Nadal.
The only player coming close would be Djokovic in 2013/14 maybe.
He reached the final in 6 out of 7 tournaments (5 masters, 2 grand slams) and lost just once to somebody other than Nadal.
The only player coming close would be Djokovic in 2013/14 maybe.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Djokovic was getting wrecked in that match before the rain drastically changed the court conditions. He proceeded to get bumped off in a relatively straight forward manner the next day.
MatsPhilander
Legend
Djokovic 2013-the semi should have been the final.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Well yea he was getting handled before the conditions changed but Soderling beat Nadal in those heavy type of conditions. It was actually good that the rain got heavier and the match had to be suspended because Djokovic got red hot and Nadal couldn't seem to stop his momentum. I'm just pointing out that both of their forms were better in that match and I remember Djokovic having a sick stomach in the 2014 match, and he did not play that well and neither did Nadal. I would choose his 2012 performance over 2014.
abmk
Bionic Poster
the conditions were not similar in the soderling match in 2009.
the bounce was not deadened in that match unlike in this stretch of games.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It was way heavier in that 2012 match than in 2009 man. I thought Djokovic started that 2014 encounter a lot better, but he got worse as it went on due to his stomach. My point was that 8 stretch of games is way overblown, the bounce on the court died and it allowed Djokovic to tee off - otherwise Nadal that year was just too ridiculous on clay to hang with.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yes it was heavier but heavy conditions on clay is Nadal's weakness. Regardless, his performance was better against a better version of Nadal. The 8 straight games is not really overblown if it had never happened to Nadal at RG and hasn't happened since.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Djokovic was playing Nadal in the absolute perfect conditions for him. Not sure I've ever seen Nadal playing in rain like that before or after. The court was no longer playing like a clay court. It was still impressive but I don't see it as some never before seen level of play in a FO final against Nadal.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Well it's usually always sunny and hot when they play at RG. The last time I can remember them playing in heavy conditions like that before that was in 2008. 2013, 2014 and 2015 were all warm, sunny days. He likes it hot, dry and sunny so his bounce is high and kicking, pushing the opponent back. So Nadal usually gets Djokovic in the best conditions for him so this is just one occurrence when that was reversed, even if it was only part of the match. Also, I never said it was the best level in a FO final. I just thought it was a better option than 2014.
Last edited:
K-H
Hall of Fame
One of the reason why I think these 3 are the best ever. Even though Djokovic has less slams than Pete, Pete never came up against a 19 time and 15 time grand slam champion. He only came up against one great and he was an 8 time GS champion.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
against freakin Ferrer? lol
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
225% certain I was. And rising.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
so they are greater than Pete because Djokovic would have won more if you had removed all the ATG from their competition, thereby making their field by far the weakest of all time and a field Pete could have won 20 in as well. Sparkling logic.
Also, how many slams did Federer really rob Djokovic of, 2 max? Really, 08 USO is the only one you can say for sure. 07 he loses to Roddick, 09 to Delpo, 11 RG to maybe Nadal, 12 Wimby to Murray. Also remove Nadal from RG and you're left with a field of complete mugs for Federer and Djokovic to snack on, guys Pete could have easily beaten in 92-94 and 96 were he to face them, especially on the much faster clay of today. In fact, you'll find that the guy who was hurt most by the presence of the other two is by far Federer. He's had to face prime versions of those guys when he was in slam winning form the most often.
abmk
Bionic Poster
well, ferrer isn't a player you would want to face when tired.
I'd say there was minor chance for ferrer, given the SF.
otherwise, no.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Ferrer in his first slam final was never a serious threat. Nadal actually was a little weary in that final but just blitzed him with the FH and Ferrer obviously did not play a good match either. Unless Nadal was seriously physically hampered there's no way in hell he was ever losing that match.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Lol at you for even daring to post that winning a pitiful 4 games is somehow more impressive than winning 13 including a set!
Mainad
Bionic Poster
He certainly has a sick and desperate need to put Murray down at every available opportunity if he seriously expects anyone to believe the utter crap he's been posting about him.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I was thinking more of a case where nadal came out like zombievic in wim 13 final after the draining wim 13 SF.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I'd say there were 3 slams in which you could argue djoko was a favorite (clearly in USO 08, slightly in USO 07, slightly in RG 11). Of course you could also argue roddick was a slight favorite in USO 07 and nadal in RG 11.
you couldn't argue for djokovic as a favorite in USO 09 or wim 12 and most definitely not AO 07.
K-H
Hall of Fame
It's my opinion against yours. I won't say yours is wrong because I'm open to it as well.
The part I think you're wrong about is when you say fed was hurt the most. You're too funny. Nadal was clearly hurt the most. Fed won so much prior to facing Nadal/Djokovic in the semis or final of majors. The only year where Nadal didn't have to deal with federer/Djokovic was 2010. For federer it was 04/05/06/07. Only after then was Nadal more of an all court player. But even then he faced Nadal in 09 as their first hard court slam. In his best years there was no Nadal/Djokovic around.
Again Fed deserves everything he's won. He's the GOAT hands down. I'm not saying otherwise, it's just that he didn't have it the hardest. You make me laugh when you say that. There's having an opinion and then there's bias. I have nothing against differing of opinion.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
cool, so I suppose you can give me the number of majors Nadal lost due to the other 2 instead of telling me a bunch of stuff that doesn't actually matter? I'm sure it'll be much higher than Federer's, oh wait there's no way that's true because Nadal was chilling from 15-16 while Fed faced peak Novak in majors a bunch of times. Also against the other version of absolute peak Novak, Fed faced him 3 times as did Nadal. Federer had to face peak Novak many more times, what's your argument again? You have none.
Also I never said something about overall competition, I just said Federer got stopped more by the other two when he was in slam winning form, you know a fact that is easily proven by counting up head to head meetings satisfying those conditions. Only bias here is on your end with your nonsense 2nd paragraph which contains zero actual match results or facts to make Nadal look better.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Yeah so net balance it comes down to around 2, but on the other hand how many slams would Fed have cakewalked to with no Djokovic? 08 AO (ok not a cakewalk against a good Tsonga but he's likely not losing that), 11 AO, 14 Wimby, 15 Wimby, 15 USO, 16 AO likely. So 4 guaranteed, 6 likely. Again, it's exceedingly clear who got hurt more by the presence of the other.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, I agree. I think he definitely wins 11 AO, 14 wim ,15 wim, 15 USO, 16 AO without djoko
AO 08, USO 11 -- pretty good shots at those too.
USO 10, RG 12 are the only ones where you can't argue he'd be the favorite.
Djokovic wins:
07-09 USO
12 Wimbledon
11 RG 50/50 but Nadal would've found a way I think.
07 USO Roddick has a shot so does Delpo in 09. Probably wins 1 or 2 out of those 3.
Fed wins:
08 AO
11 AO
11 USO (slight favourite like 60/40 vs Nadal based on their meetings on clay that year)
14 Wimbledon
15 Wimbledon
15 USO
16 AO
10 USO, 12 RG certain losses to Nadal.
Out of those I'd only doubt 11 USO due to Nadal but he absolutely owned him at WTF that year and easily hit through him on clay, so on medium-fast (that year) decoturf I'd favour him.
