The real reason why Djokovic won two slams? Two words. John Isner.

[DreddyTennis45]

Before everyone starts attacking me, I just want to say that while most of what I'm about to say hypothetical, this is not a hate or troll thread.

Let us begin by casting our minds back to the first wimbledon semi final. It's 1 set each and Anderson is serving for the 3rd set at 5-3. At 30-40 Anderson has an easy put-away, instead of hitting into the open court, he tries (and ultimately fails) to wrong-foot Isner by hitting it straight at him. Isner then smashes a backhand down the line to break back. He goes on to win the set 7-6.

You'll probably be wondering, what has this got to do with Novak winning back-to-back slams?

Well, you see, if Anderson held his serve he would have been up 2 sets to 1 meaning it was very likely would have won the next set 6-4 (which was what actually happened); hence Anderson wins comfortably and there is no marathon 5th set.

Thus, the second semi final featuring Novak and Nadal would not have to be played under the roof; meaning it was pretty likely Nadal would have won- if he pushed Novak all the way to 11-9 in the fifth with the roof closed, what do you think he could have done with it open?

Of course, I'm not saying Nadal would definitely have won had the roof been open, but the way the two of them were playing up until that match, it would have been likely.

As you know, Novak is a confidence player; he thrives off of momentum. Had he lost the semi final, I think he would have been pretty demoralised- after all he has had a pretty rough year. I think he would have lost in Cincy to either Dimitrov or Cilic.

So let's say he does lose in Cincy; he goes into the USO with his confidence potentially shot to pieces. His first match is against Fuscovics; after winning the first set he struggles in the heat and loses the next set. In the third set he loses his serve and is in real trouble. Fuscovics holds his serve and is up 2 sets to 1. Succumbing to the heat and a lack of confidence, Djokovic eventually loses his opening round match and questions are raised as to whether we will see him win a slam at all.

Like I said, while most of this is merely hypothetical, it is pretty believable considering how poorly Novak played from June 2016-June 2018.
However, it is still kind of crazy how one easy chance missed by Kevin Anderson has potentially revived Novak's career whilst snatching away GOAThood from Nadal.

 

[Gary Duane]

The real reason why Djokovic won two MORE slams? Three words:

ALL
TIME
GREAT

 

[Plamen1234]

The real reason

 

[True Fanerer]

Isnr

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Knowing TTW this could become the new reason to hate Isner now.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Knowing TTW this could become the new reason to hate Isner now.

There’s enough already.

 

[NoleFam]

So OP goes from making a "Vulteric" thread by saying he lucked out to win his last two Slams and implying he shouldn't have won them, to now claiming Novak's comeback and destiny was dependent upon Isner? Lmao.

 

[GabeT]

Gotta love all the connections. Can you draw a diagram?

 

[TheAssassin]

Actually, the umpire in Djokovic's 3rd round match at Wimbledon was the man behind this resurgence. He screwed up three times on one important point which finally woke up the beast.

Cheers, Jake Garner. A trophy for your contribution.

 

[Federev]

Novak has done way more than enough to prove that when he wins it's cause he should.

 

[True Fanerer]

When they gave him Centre Court at Wimbledon over Federer he felt loved again.

 

[TheAssassin]

Actually, the umpire in Djokovic's 3rd round match at Wimbledon was the man behind this resurgence. He screwed up three times on one important point which finally woke up the beast.

Cheers, Jake Garner. A trophy for your contribution.

And lets not forget how Djokovic beautifully catapulted Federer to the Court 1 for a change. *Kandy fist pumps*

 

[tennisaddict]

Nadal choked in the 3rd set TB. Otherwise Nadal is at 19 majors now.

 

[Plamen1234]

Nadal choked in the 3rd set TB. Otherwise Nadal is at 19 majors now.

Agreed. If Nadal won the 3rd set he would have won the match then Wimbledon and go into US Open with a lot more confidence and his chances of winning it would have been a lot more higher.So it is interesting to see how few points can change a lot of things.Not only that Djokovic is now on 14 Slams but also these few points affected the Year End Number one battle.Nadal needed only to convert one of his BP in the fifth set to seal off the Year End Number one position.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

Ok thanks for enlightening us. I was wondering how Djokovic managed to win 2 slams in 2018 out of nowhere.

Cool story bro!

 

[Sudacafan]

The real reason

If it’s the Fed type, It’s a 4 and a half year curse. So Nadal may end it in AO 2023.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Nadl!

It seems that 18 is a difficult number - Fed came close quite a few times before he finally broke through. Hope full Rafa doesn't have to wait quite as long though.

 

[Milehigh5280]

 

[jm1980]

Haters still in ruins over the roof, nearly two months later

 

[wim2015]

Nadal choked in the 3rd set TB. Otherwise Nadal is at 19 majors now.

This is why I believe most GOAT discussions on the forum are silly. Many people believe the player with the highest slam counts is the GOAT, but the race among Fed/Nadal/Djokovic is so tight that some minor issues like roof, rain, a couple key points and good draw can make the slam tally completely different. In other word, a player needs good luck to be GOAT. But how could a GOAT be a GOAT if good luck is a component of the GOAThood?

 

[Mr.Lob]

Before everyone starts attacking me, I just want to say that while most of what I'm about to say hypothetical, this is not a hate or troll thread.

Let us begin by casting our minds back to the first wimbledon semi final. It's 1 set each and Anderson is serving for the 3rd set at 5-3. At 30-40 Anderson has an easy put-away, instead of hitting into the open court, he tries (and ultimately fails) to wrong-foot Isner by hitting it straight at him. Isner then smashes a backhand down the line to break back. He goes on to win the set 7-6.

You'll probably be wondering, what has this got to do with Novak winning back-to-back slams?

Well, you see, if Anderson held his serve he would have been up 2 sets to 1 meaning it was very likely would have won the next set 6-4 (which was what actually happened); hence Anderson wins comfortably and there is no marathon 5th set.

Thus, the second semi final featuring Novak and Nadal would not have to be played under the roof; meaning it was pretty likely Nadal would have won- if he pushed Novak all the way to 11-9 in the fifth with the roof closed, what do you think he could have done with it open?

Of course, I'm not saying Nadal would definitely have won had the roof been closed, but the way the two of them were playing up until that match, it would have been likely.

As you know, Novak is a confidence player; he thrives off of momentum. Had he lost the semi final, I think he would have been pretty demoralised- after all he has had a pretty rough year. I think he would have lost in Cincy to either Dimitrov or Cilic.

So let's say he does lose in Cincy; he goes into the USO with his confidence potentially shot to pieces. His first match is against Fuscovics; after winning the first set he struggles in the heat and loses the next set. In the third set he loses his serve and is in resl trouble. Fuscovics holds his serve and is up 2 sets to 1. Succumbing to the heat and a lack of confidence, Djokovic eventually loses his opening round match and questions are raised as to whether we will see him win a slam at all.

Like I said, while most of this is merely hypothetical, it is pretty believable considering how poorly Novak played from June 2016-June 2018.
However, it is still kind of crazy how one easy chance missed by Kevin Anderson has potentially revived Novak's career whilst snatching away GOAThood from Nadal.

You spend the last 2 months thinking all of this up?

Isnr goat!

 

[TheGreatOne1997]

Djoker won 2 slams this year caused they closed the Wimbledon roof. Simple as that. Not sure why they did (Wasn’t the weather fine?). Nadal would have beat Nole in 5 then went on to beat Anderson in maybe 4 sets in the final

 

[EloQuent]

And yet only Novak got lucky, not any of the other 126 players.

 

[True Fanerer]

This is why I believe most GOAT discussions on the forum are silly.Many people believe the player with the highest slam counts is the GOAT,

LOL

 

[Sentinel]

The real reason why Djokovic won two MORE slams? Three words:

ALL
TIME
GREAT

Can't be that simple.

Can it ?

 

[Mainad]

Djoker won 2 slams this year caused they closed the Wimbledon roof. Simple as that. Not sure why they did (Wasn’t the weather fine?). Nadal would have beat Nole in 5 then went on to beat Anderson in maybe 4 sets in the final

They did so because the match had been started under the roof. Absurd reasoning (given that many matches start outside and are completed under the roof) but there it is.

 

[MeatTornado]

This name keeps coming up, every day. John Isner, John Isner, John Isner. I GOT BOXES FULL OF ISNER!

 

[Deleted member 716271]

They did so because the match had been started under the roof. Absurd reasoning (given that many matches start outside and are completed under the roof) but there it is.

Because they don't have a choice in that instance

 

[Mainad]

Because they don't have a choice in that instance

Of course they do, they could wait until conditions allow the match to be resumed the way it started (which was the case before the roof was installed).

 

[NoleFam]

Of course they do, they could wait until conditions allow the match to be resumed the way it started (which was the case before the roof was installed).

No they don't. That is the default rule. Once a match goes under the roof, it must be finished under the roof.

 

[Mainad]

No they don't. That is the default rule. Once a match goes under the roof, it must be finished under the roof.

So why doesn't the reverse situation apply: matches that start outside must be finished outside?

 

[NoleFam]

So why doesn't the reverse situation apply: matches that start outside must be finished outside?

That's not a question for me but for the ITF and ATP. I think it's somewhat baffling that people are still talking about this like it was some sort of injustice. It's not Novak's fault that he is more versatile and can play just as good under the roof as he can without it. He still would have been the favorite with the roof open anyways because he's the better grass court player.

 

[Indio]

In the end, when all three of these GOAT candidates are retired, there will be no asterisks beside any of their totals.

 

[Mainad]

That's not a question for me but for the ITF and ATP. I think it's somewhat absurd that people are still talking about this like it was some sort of injustice. It's not Novak's fault that he is more versatile and can play just as good under the roof as he can outside. He still would have been the favorite with the roof open anyways because he's the better grass court player.

I'm not blaming Djokovic for anything but I believe that matches that are meant to be played outside should be played outside and matches that are meant to be played indoors should be played indoors. But if we're going to argue that matches should finish in the same conditions they began then that shouldn't just apply to roof matches but to outside ones too otherwise the principle just becomes arbitrary and one-sided.

 

[NoleFam]

I'm not blaming Djokovic for anything but I believe that matches that are meant to be played outside should be played outside and matches that are meant to be played indoors should be played indoors. But if we're going to argue that matches should finish in the same conditions they began then that shouldn't just apply to roof matches but to outside ones too otherwise the principle just becomes arbitrary and one-sided.

It's not that matches should finish in the same conditions that they started. That's not the rule. The rule is once a match goes under the roof, then it will be finished under the roof. Most of the time, matches that go under the roof are finished on the same day anyway but this was a rare occurrence because of Wimbledon's curfew. Any other tournament like at AO or USO, it would have had zero chance of not getting finished on the same day anyway and would have been completed under the roof, so this whole argument would be pretty moot.

Either option of the rule is ok with me because I think in most circumstances, it has little to no relation to the outcome of the match. I think Djokovic would have beaten Rafa with the roof open or closed so I don't understand the outcry about this match.

 

[Mainad]

It's not that matches should finish in the same conditions that they started. That's not the rule. The rule is once a match goes under the roof, then it will be finished under the roof.

Well if there is no rule that matches should finish in the same conditions that they began then that just makes the roof rule even more strange and inexplicable. What's so special about having to finish a match under a roof if it can be played outside where it is meant to be?

I think Djokovic would have beaten Rafa with the roof open or closed so I don't understand the outcry about this match.

I agree.

 

[weakera]

Isner marathon matches are bad for tennis.

 

[Mainad]

Isner marathon matches are bad for tennis.

They might be bad for Isner too.

 

[Badabing888]

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a very merry Christmas.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

True

 

[NoleFam]

Well if there is no rule that matches should finish in the same conditions that they began then that just makes the roof rule even more strange and inexplicable. What's so special about having to finish a match under a roof if it can be played outside where it is meant to be?

If a match is suspended while under the roof then it must resume under the roof in those same conditions. I think they do that to not disrupt the conditions after the roof is closed, or something to that effect. I don't have a problem with the rule either way really. If this was in Australia or NY, it never would have been under the roof anyway because they have lights without having to close the roof. And if it was closed, it would have been completed that night. This was a rare scenario.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

So why doesn't the reverse situation apply: matches that start outside must be finished outside?

Because then theres no point in having a roof. The roof is so they can complete bad matches because as I said in a previous statement "they have no choice". If its raining for example and they want to get play in they HAVE to move it under the roof. At that point it stays under to maintain conditions as much as possible regardless of what happens that point forward.

There are conflicting principles at play here that the ATP ranks in this order of importance.

1. Get play in when scheduled (so move match under roof when needed due to weather)

2. Maintain conditions as much as possible from start of match to end of match so the match retains continuity.

3. Play outdoors matches outdoors when possible.

You can disagree with these priorities but I'm confused as to why this is still hard to grasp months later. There's not much to it.

@NoleFam

 

[CYGS]

Fedr

 

[ak24alive]

Djoker won 2 slams this year caused they closed the Wimbledon roof. Simple as that. Not sure why they did (Wasn’t the weather fine?). Nadal would have beat Nole in 5 then went on to beat Anderson in maybe 4 sets in the final

Is this actually THE GREAT ONE?
Is this you my lord?
Is this 90s Clay?

 

[Backspin1183]

Nishikori. Taking out Kyrgios at Wimbledon and Cilic at US Open for Djokovic.

 

[Tennease]

The real reason is a daughter, who is Isner's mother. Without her, Isner wouldn't exist.

 

[tennisfan2015]

Before everyone starts attacking me, I just want to say that while most of what I'm about to say hypothetical, this is not a hate or troll thread.

Let us begin by casting our minds back to the first wimbledon semi final. It's 1 set each and Anderson is serving for the 3rd set at 5-3. At 30-40 Anderson has an easy put-away, instead of hitting into the open court, he tries (and ultimately fails) to wrong-foot Isner by hitting it straight at him. Isner then smashes a backhand down the line to break back. He goes on to win the set 7-6.

You'll probably be wondering, what has this got to do with Novak winning back-to-back slams?

Well, you see, if Anderson held his serve he would have been up 2 sets to 1 meaning it was very likely would have won the next set 6-4 (which was what actually happened); hence Anderson wins comfortably and there is no marathon 5th set.

Thus, the second semi final featuring Novak and Nadal would not have to be played under the roof; meaning it was pretty likely Nadal would have won- if he pushed Novak all the way to 11-9 in the fifth with the roof closed, what do you think he could have done with it open?

Of course, I'm not saying Nadal would definitely have won had the roof been closed, but the way the two of them were playing up until that match, it would have been likely.

As you know, Novak is a confidence player; he thrives off of momentum. Had he lost the semi final, I think he would have been pretty demoralised- after all he has had a pretty rough year. I think he would have lost in Cincy to either Dimitrov or Cilic.

So let's say he does lose in Cincy; he goes into the USO with his confidence potentially shot to pieces. His first match is against Fuscovics; after winning the first set he struggles in the heat and loses the next set. In the third set he loses his serve and is in resl trouble. Fuscovics holds his serve and is up 2 sets to 1. Succumbing to the heat and a lack of confidence, Djokovic eventually loses his opening round match and questions are raised as to whether we will see him win a slam at all.

Like I said, while most of this is merely hypothetical, it is pretty believable considering how poorly Novak played from June 2016-June 2018.
However, it is still kind of crazy how one easy chance missed by Kevin Anderson has potentially revived Novak's career whilst snatching away GOAThood from Nadal.

I've read this message 17 times and finally found a major issue that got the whole theory in fact slightly wrong! Yes, the methodology used in this magnificent research was correct.The author has displayed a great skill and dedication to the subject. The problem was correctly identified. BUT it was not Isnr!!

It was another American's fault!

It was Mackenzie McDonald's fault! Had Milos Raonic won his third set in the match against McDonald he would have won it in 3 not in 4 sets and went on to play against Isnr fresherer! You could see that he started off nicely by taking Ishnr's first set and then his performance dropped as he was too tired from the previous match he fought to win in 4.

Let's correct this please.

 

[mike danny]

Well if there is no rule that matches should finish in the same conditions that they began then that just makes the roof rule even more strange and inexplicable. What's so special about having to finish a match under a roof if it can be played outside where it is meant to be?


I agree.

If both players are used to one set of conditions, why make them play under completely different ones?

And to answer your question regarding the reverse, the roof has been built to avoid situations like a lengthy rain day or forcing 2 players to play 2 full matches in consecutive days.

 

[Steve0904]

Gotta love all the connections. Can you draw a diagram?

Flow chart would be nice. Or maybe a Venn diagram?

 

[Steve0904]

Haters still earn ruins over the roof, nearly two months later

That's Nadal fans for you. They don't like roofs. Just ask us Federer fans. We would know.