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

Djokodal Fan

Hall of Fame
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.
Conditions have to remain the same unless weather interfered. If you start indoors, you end indoors.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
Hypotheticals! Hypotheticals galore!

Lotsa stuff could have happened, that’s just life.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Not a Nadal fan but you do have to admit the whole roof situation is a bit dodgy
Dodgy as in you don't like the rule? Or dodgy as in you don't understand it? If you don't like it, fine, but it is easy enough to understand. The match started under a roof so it finishes under a roof. It's pretty simple, IMO, but for what it's worth I didn't know the rule either until this Wimbledon. I also assumed they would finish in outdoor conditions if it was nice enough.

At the AO, that was a heat index decision so again, easily understandable even if not everybody will like it.
 

DreddyTennis45

Hall of Fame
Dodgy as in you don't like the rule? Or dodgy as in you don't understand it? If you don't like it, fine, but it is easy enough to understand. The match started under a roof so it finishes under a roof. It's pretty simple, IMO, but for what it's worth I didn't know the rule either until this Wimbledon. I also assumed they would finish in outdoor conditions if it was nice enough.

At the AO, that was a heat index decision so again, easily understandable even if not everybody will like it.
This whole " the match should end in the same conditions it was started with" thing
doesn't make sense because if you start a match without a roof, but then it rains, you've technically finished the match under different conditions, no?

Lets assume the rule is only specific for a match that runs into the next day; lets also assume a situation where there has been heavy rain on-and-off throughout the week at Wimbledon, so let's say you have a match on Centre Court that is played without a roof before daylight begins to fade (around 7/8PM) however it starts to rain and the roof is closed and then play is stopped due to the curfew. So what happens if the rain continues throughout the next day? If they have the roof closed then the match won't end in the same conditions it has begun with, so do they wait all day for the rain to stop then?

This is why the rule is dumb, it sounded pretty arbritary.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
This whole " the match should end in the same conditions it was started with" thing
doesn't make sense because if you start a match without a roof, but then it rains, you've technically finished the match under different conditions, no?

Lets assume the rule is only specific for a match that runs into the next day; lets also assume a situation where there has been heavy rain on-and-off throughout the week at Wimbledon, so let's say you have a match on Centre Court that is played without a roof before daylight begins to fade (around 7/8PM) however it starts to rain and the roof is closed and then play is stopped due to the curfew. So what happens if the rain continues throughout the next day? If they have the roof closed then the match won't end in the same conditions it has begun with, so do they wait all day for the rain to stop then?

This is why the rule is dumb, it sounded pretty arbritary.
To me it sounds pretty simple: in the event of rain, the roof has to be closed as this was the reason why it was built, so we don't have to wait for the rain to stop. In the event of a match starting under the roof, it must continue as such in order ro maintain the same conditions. The reverse doesn't apply, because they built the roof in order to play the matches in faulty weather conditions.
 

OhYes

Legend
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.
This is not hate or troll thread ???
You have been attacking Djokovic the minute he won US Open.
You can get on with your tirade, just shows how tough it is for you.
 

DreddyTennis45

Hall of Fame
The reverse doesn't apply, because they built the roof in order to play the matches in faulty weather conditions
Yes but having a roof is not a requirement for any tournament, meaning this "rule" is not actually a rule but some arbritary decision that is made; Wimbledon managed fine for 120 odd years without a roof.

I still have not heard any actual reason why a match should be ended in the same conditions when the roof is closed to begin with, but not when it's open to begin with.
 

OhYes

Legend
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.
Ok so basically you are saying Novak won because roof was on ?
Tell me again what conditions favor Murray, so I can pull that out if he wins something.
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
Yes but having a roof is not a requirement for any tournament, meaning this "rule" is not actually a rule but some arbritary decision that is made; Wimbledon managed fine for 120 odd years without a roof.

I still have not heard any actual reason why a match should be ended in the same conditions when the roof is closed to begin with, but not when it's open to begin with.
Because the priority of a consistent environment is superior to the priority of the game outside. Both priorities are supordinate to the highest priority - avoiding program delays.
So, when the match in going on in the outdoor environment and it will start to rain, the roof retracts and the match changes the environment from outdoors to indoors, the organizers act in the interest of the highest priority - avoiding program delays.
When the roof is closed, but the weather improves and allows the duel to continue in the outdoor environment, the match is still under the roof. The organizers act in the interest of the second highest priority - maintaining a constant environment.
Similarly, as the match completes on the same court on which it was started, it will take place in the same environment unless the organizers are forced to change it.
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
Can't believe nadal fans are still crying over the roof 2 months after the championship
Probably because they are frustrated with the success of Nadal's Nemesis in last two months. If Nadal won the match, the closed roof would not be talked about. Ultron is back in full strength, that's the reason, why Nadal fans are annoyed about.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
I still have not heard any actual reason why a match should be ended in the same conditions when the roof is closed to begin with, but not when it's open to begin with.
The roof is closed so the matches can continue in spite of rain or darkness. I hope at least this part is obvious.

Now once closed, the roof cannot be reopened unless both players agree to it. The reason is simple. It takes quite some time for the roof to open or close. We don't want players demanding the roof to be reopened as soon as there is a momentary relief in the rain, and use that as a tactical timeout.

The fact that the rule doesn't account for matches spanning multiple days is a bit of a quirk; they couldn't have anticipated all the possible scenarios when they put the rule together. I think it's fine as it is.
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
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.
Not just the 18th GS title. Barrier of 3 GS titles between Fedex and Bull has never been broken. And it is possible that this barrier will never be broken.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
The real reason is - hard work and determination! There is no evidence to suggest, that Novak would have been morally broken if he kept on failing at the Wimbledon and USO! If you listen to what he says in the interviews he always says that nor he neither Vajda expected that they would win Wimbledon at very least! And while first round defeat at US Open following would be demoralizing, i don't think that it would happen anyway...on the contrary previous loss at the Wimbledon would make Novak work harder to be prepared for USO, than if he won the W (which he did!)...i don't think there is even a hypothetical situation where he would lose to Fucsovics right of he bat! Lol
 

Djokodal Fan

Hall of Fame
So why doesn't the reverse situation apply: matches that start outside must be finished outside?
if you play outside it ends outside. That's the norm until weather interferes. If it rains, do you want the organizers and players to wait? This was what has been happening until wimbledon organizers decided to install a roof to avoid rain delays and loss of TV revenue.

So who is going to pay for loss of revenue. At the end of the day, money speaks and that dictates what happens.
 

StannisTheMannis

Hall of Fame
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.
So in all your wisdom and knowledge, what you are saying is that if Nadal would have won...he would have won? But he didn’t, so he didn’t.

Amazing analysis from TTW once again
 
Mankind managed several million years without internet, mobiles and hehk even clothes...
So what? Does Forsaking them today make sense??
Not at all...
So stop making excuses.
Yes but having a roof is not a requirement for any tournament, meaning this "rule" is not actually a rule but some arbritary decision that is made; Wimbledon managed fine for 120 odd years without a roof.

I still have not heard any actual reason why a match should be ended in the same conditions when the roof is closed to begin with, but not when it's open to begin with.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Conditions have to remain the same unless weather interfered. If you start indoors, you end indoors.
My take on this is that they did not envisage that a match started with closed roof would have to be interrupted. Roof was put at first place to allow play from start to finish. Therefore, in their rules they stated that match with closed roof will finish with closed roof. The idea behind this rule was to avoid situation where players ask to open the roof after rain stopped and waste ~30 mins. As this city council 11 pm rule is a new one, they did not adjust their rules to a possibility that a match with closed roof can also be interrupted and played a day later.
 

FHtennisman

Professional
Not just the 18th GS title. Barrier of 3 GS titles between Fedex and Bull has never been broken. And it is possible that this barrier will never be broken.
Let's be real here - unless Novak displays peak form at RG, Rafa is pretty much a lock there next year.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
The real reason is - hard work and determination! There is no evidence to suggest, that Novak would have been morally broken if he kept on failing at the Wimbledon and USO! If you listen to what he says in the interviews he always says that nor he neither Vajda expected that they would win Wimbledon at very least! And while first round defeat at US Open following would be demoralizing, i don't think that it would happen anyway...on the contrary previous loss at the Wimbledon would make Novak work harder to be prepared for USO, than if he won the W (which he did!)...i don't think there is even a hypothetical situation where he would lose to Fucsovics right of he bat! Lol
Well said Djokodalerer. And welcome to TTW. :)
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
He means Nadal never got closer than 3 titles from Fed since Rafa got his first Slam:



Incredibly, the 3 Slam differential that was there after the 2014 French Open remains. At the time, Federer was almost 33 while Nadal had just turned 28.
Ah ok, thanks - I know what you mean now
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
This name keeps coming up, every day. John Isner, John Isner, John Isner. I GOT BOXES FULL OF ISNER!
Isner is already the hands down favorite, sorry
Great minds think alike. ;)
...about great players!

Isnr
lol - this is getting out of hand hahaha
I may be overreacting but

ISNER IS THE GOAT
Get with the GOAT train:

ISNR
I think y’all on to something
All aboard!!!!

In JSNR we trust.

Isner-related threads urgently need sarcasm detectors.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
The real reason

Going from 17 to 18 slams always seems like mission impossible. Fedr had to wait almost 5 years to get from 17 to 18, Jack Nicklaus had to wait many years to get from 17 to 18, Navratilova had to wait almost 3 years to do so, Evert and Serena waited a full year, and now Rafa's road to 18 has been put on hold
 

Plamen1234

Hall of Fame
Going from 17 to 18 slams always seems like mission impossible. Fedr had to wait almost 5 years to get from 17 to 18, Jack Nicklaus had to wait many years to get from 17 to 18, Navratilova had to wait almost 3 years to do so, Evert and Serena waited a full year, and now Rafa's road to 18 has been put on hold
Nah he will win his 18th Slam at RG 2019.I dont see anybody stopping him there.But I have to say he was very close to getting his 18th Slam at Wimby.
 
Top