mike danny
Bionic Poster
It's the manner in which he lost to Djokovic, not the loss itself.
The last time a 20-year-old had physical issues in a Slam SF...
- Thread starter Kralingen
- Start date
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
I imagine your crying had he collapsed after just 2 sets against Nadal.
UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
Oh give me a break. For you especially, "the manner" doesn't really matter.
In your eyes, Djokovic should be always beaten just because he's past 29. Alcaraz loses to Djokovic in 4, he is bad. Tsitsipas loses to Djokovic in 3, he's bad. Sinner loses to Djokovic in 5, he's bad.
UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
Lol I'm not you. I'd feel for him and that's it. I mean it just happened last year with Zed against Dull, no?
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, it's absolutely pathetic when young players are not physically good enough to play for longer than 2 hours against a 36 years old in BO5. But seems like Djokovic fanboys don't care about the game, as long as Djokovic is the one who is vulturing in this asterisk era.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Carlos wilted after only 2 hours, I don't care that it's Djokovic on the other side of the net.
UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
That's the point of this thread. Many ATGs have wilted after a few hours in some matches. It happens.
As Djokovic said in his presser, it’s a part of the learning curve and experience. Karl will be fine. Djokovic himself used to be called a "joke" for his retirements and look at him now, the ultimate warrior.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Please, if you can't even play more than 2 hours against a 36 year old, it's embarrassing.
I don't remember even Youngovic wilting like this against Fedal.
He was losing anyways with 1-6 2-5 down.
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
The problem is whether Carlos wins 40 slams.. it will be "You know the time you got embarrassed off court by a way past prime , part-timer 36 year old on his WORST surface?" LOL . Losses like this will destroy him forever with public perception.. I know I will LOL!!!!!
Rattie
G.O.A.T.
His age is irrelevant. you play your opponents game and level of tennis not their age.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Age is very much relevant. Djokovic is not even close to what he used to be in his prime, but even this version is too tough for the next gen. Last year close to retirement Nadal beat exactly the same Djokovic in 4 sets.
itrium84
Hall of Fame
This is the match I thought of yesterday, when people started bashing Carlos.yes, it has happened before.
Nadal reaches final after Djokovic retires
Novak Djokovic handed second seed Rafael Nadal a Wimbledon final encounter with Roger Federer after retiring injured with the Spaniard leading their semi-final 3-6 6-1 4-1 on Saturday.www.reuters.com
A lot of people wrote 20-year-old Novak Djokovic off back then - and a lot of people looked very very stupid. I would caution anyone who writes off Alcaraz for doing the same.
Rattie
G.O.A.T.
Lol if you have a physical issue that prevents you contesting a match, then there is no evidence that Djokovic would have won the match had that not happened.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Somehow it "happens" to the next gen every time when they meet a very old Djokovic in BO5.
Biotic
Legend
There are many of us who do. Not once. And I'm sure Fedalites remember those occasions every time they argue Djoko started winning "only because Fedal declined". Just the result, not the match itself. Such is the circle of deplorable muggery.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Show me one match where Djokovic just gave up after 2 hours against non 36 year old Fedal. Even at 2009 USO, Djoker still kept fighting against a 28 year old Federer.
UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
As I told you, that has always been your issue. For you, Djokovic is an old has-been player who should be outlasted and crushed just because he's a 30s years old, while in reality Djokovic is supreme athletes and one the fittest players on tour regardless of his age and that's how he is seen by his peers. Why? Because that's what they do experience firsthand when they play him on court. They would laugh on your face if they heard any of your takes, really.
Also, what are you arguing exactly? What's your point? Karl is an overrated mug who will never amount to anything?
Biotic
Legend
You kidding me?
2007 RG SF, 2007 W SF vs Nadal, also 2008 USO SF vs Federer was over after 2 hours (3 sets). That's just a start.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Dude, any athlete worth his salt should last for more than 2 hours against a 36 year old Djokovic. That was bad from Alcaraz no matter how you put it. This wasn't 2011 or 2015 Djokovic he was up against.
Alcaraz will end up with a great career, but yesterday was embarrassing to watch.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I mean, he was up against peak Claydal not 36 year old Nadal at 2007 RG.
2007 W SF was physical, not mental.
2008 USO SF he still played Fed close for 3 sets which is more than Carlos managed yesterday against 36 year old Djokovic.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
You said before the match (and months ago, in fact) that you’d be disappointed if he lost. The manner certainly may add to it for you but don’t you think you’d be on his case even if he had lost a five-set epic?
I actually think you’d be critical of him even if he won, perhaps not if it were in three.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, it would've been disappointing if he'd still lost, sure, but his performance yesterday surely beats everything else I've said, right?
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
It was a disappointing performance, for sure. I edited my reply to note I think you’d have been critical of him even if he won, although perhaps not if it were in straight sets.
Biotic
Legend
Man, i just gave you what you asked for, just like yesterday, and still you can't accept that you were wrong. Those 3 sets lasted for 2 hours and he gave up right after that. You just want to have your cake and eat it too.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I agree I would've been critical of him if he'd lost (not if he had won though), but this was just appalling.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, they were playing on a quick HC, not slow clay. But Djokovic still didn't give up after levelling the match like Carlos did yesterday.
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic had officially arrived in early 2007 and was catching the attention of everyone, having made SF of Indian Wells, then beating Nadal in Miami and going on to win it against Canas in the final for his very first Masters title. People were definitely talking about him. It was right after Wimbledon where Djokovic was making waves, having beaten the top 3 in succession to win Montreal Masters and then making the US Open final. People really took notice and saw him as a real threat to the likes of Federer and Nadal. He had a good run at Wimbledon too that year, making the SF and giving Nadal a test before pulling out. Probably from injury or anxiety or cramping or whatever it was.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
So if he had won in five sets in an epic, you wouldn’t have said something like, “It is still not a great performance because any atg in his prime should beat a 36-year-old grandpa easily”?
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Uhhhmmm....I highly doubt that. Nobody's gonna care in the year 2033, especially if Alcaraz is sitting on double digit majors.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Not really. Any win over old Djokovic at this point is better. It's why I'm still giving Thiem some credit for beating him at RG 2019 and Nadal at AO 2020.
Biotic
Legend
Doesn't matter. I just gave you "one match where Djokovic just gave up after 2 hours against non 36 year old Fedal".
And i can give you quite a few more. Own it and move on.
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Thiem 2019 would've won this RG with Nadal being absent.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Fair enough. I am glad to hear that.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Quite easily in fact.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
After seeing Next Genners fail to win from even 2-0 up, of course my perceptions have changed
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Out of interest, if he had beaten Djokovic and then played Nadal in the final and lost but taken it to five sets, would you be critical of him for losing to a 37-year-old or would you think it was a good effort given how good Nadal is on clay?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Obviously I didn't look at the duration of matches as I assumed the match had passed the 2 hour mark after 3 sets.
Point still stands though. And he was playing 27 year old Federer, not 36 year old Federer. This distinction will forever mean nothing to you Nole fans
Biotic
Legend
In other words you realized you are wrong, but you won't admit it.Obviously I didn't look at the duration of matches as I assumed the match had passed the 2 hour mark after 3 sets.
Point still stands though. And he was playing 27 year old Federer, not 36 year old Federer. This distinction will forever mean nothing to you Nole fans
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Considering the standard of youth today, good effort I'd say.
Alcaraz for now isn't any different unfortunately.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I was wrong, but I can also understand that a 27 year old Fed on a quick HC can be more overwhelming than a 36 year old Djokovic on clay.In other words you realized you are wrong, but you won't admit it.
Biotic
Legend
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fair enough. But I can still say he gave up after only 2 sets when there was still a match to play for
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
So you do admit, then, that your criticism is only partly based on Djokovic’s age and also partly because you don’t think he is that good on clay to begin with? This seems clear, given that you would be sympathetic to failure against an even older player. I am more sympathetic to this claim because I think a lot of the criticism of Alcaraz focuses too much on Djokovic’s age.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Sour grapes
mike danny
Bionic Poster
And for good reason. Djokovic is still 36, he's not playing at 2011 or 2015 level anymore. Wilting physically after only 2 hours as a 20 year old is inexcusable.
Tennisbg
Professional
If its at the level of Suresh, you can play 10 sets, what matters is you can't play even 1 minute of the level of Djokovic - Alcatraz.
norcal
Legend
TTW where 3.0's compare themselves to #1 in the world.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Djokovic didn't even beat Alcaraz fair and square so what's with this moral high-ground?
