duaneeo
Legend
Why is it laughable ?
He barely beat a past-prime 32-33 year old Federer who was suffering from slamidous, but he would beat a peak 24-25 year old Federer who wasn't?
Why is it laughable ?
If you think this is an inflation era chances are you know little about tennisbut hey you are not sorry for tennis fans about the darkness of the inflation era that has been going on for like 7 years (2016-2022) because it helps your boy Djoko, right?
Djoko fandom > the game of tennis, no?
Would you say Nole barely won in slam matches?He barely beat a past-prime 32-33 year old Federer who was suffering from slamidous, but he would beat a peak 24-25 year old Federer who wasn't?
Err... Bluff?If you think this is an inflation era chances are you know little about tennis
If you think this is an inflation era chances are you know little about tennis
This may be your most cogent argument yet
This may be your most cogent argument yet
Except abmk is like UTS in human form, recalling matches point-by-point from the freaking 80s. If you two were to face off as far as tennis knowledge goes, pretty sure you'd have to take your words back really quickly.If you think this is an inflation era chances are you know little about tennis
Nadal plays a claycourt game on grass (everywhere, really) and once his physicality declined he was much more vulnerable in early rounds. Yes, there is a factor of sour grapes here but his game is antithetical to how grass court tennis should be played. Pounding endless loopy topspin shots from well behind the baseline; is this clay? Even in the 2008 final, arguably his best match on the surface, he played 8.5% of his points at the net, which is exactly his career number. It's a small miracle he's accomplished as much as he has on the surface.There isn't much you could contest. It was a ridiculous argument to try and lessen prime Nadal's quality on grass because he played a couple 5-set matches in earlier rounds, most of which he was winning comfortably in the end.
Djokovic was a point away from having 2 USO titles. And I think only one final he lost at the USO went to 5 sets. Why is the cosmic correction for Nadal struggling a little on grass is for him to lose more, but the cosmic correction for Djokovic always struggling in the USO finals is for him to win more? It's a rhetorical question. There's no cosmic correction for anything. Nadal's prime on grass was just short-lived because once his speed on the baseline declined, he became that much more vulnerable on faster grass as his rallying quality was the biggest advantage he had, given lack of spectacular serve or return to rely on.
Sigh, this is what ttw is left to. Idiotic claims of weak and inflation eras and never ending discussions of time travel tennis and prediction of hypothetical matches by posters that can’t predict a real match that is halfway through.
Except that endlessly reciting obscure data points provides no advantage in predicting actual matchesExcept abmk is like UTS in human form, recalling matches point-by-point from the freaking 80s. If you two were to face off as far as tennis knowledge goes, pretty sure you'd have to take your words back really quickly.
Sigh, this is what ttw is left to. Idiotic claims of weak and inflation eras and never ending discussions of time travel tennis and prediction of hypothetical matches by posters that can’t predict a real match that is halfway through. And these same posters are so deluded they’ve convinced themselves they actually are good analysts![]()
You questioned his knowledge here, not the ability to predict matches.Except that endlessly reciting obscure data points provides no advantage in predicting actual matches
I questioned his ability to predict hypothetical matches and recognize weak and inflation erasYou questioned his knowledge here, not the ability to predict matches.
Except that endlessly reciting obscure data points provides no advantage in predicting actual matches
I questioned his ability to predict hypothetical matches and recognize weak and inflation eras
Remember when a few years back you predicted Novak wouldn’t reach 12 slams and someone recently found and bumped that thread? Lucky for you that thread was deletedexcept actual data points about actual matches gives lot of advantage in actual analysis of what happened : for example 16-22 being the weakest period in open era by far (even more so post-COVID)
Remember when a few years back you predicted Novak wouldn’t reach 12 slams and someone recently found and bumped that thread? Lucky for you that thread was deleted
I’d focus on reciting obscure data points, that seems to be your thing
Did the actual data points tell you Djokovic would never reach 21?except actual data points about actual matches gives lot of advantage in actual analysis of what happened : for example 16-22 being the weakest period in open era by far (even more so post-COVID)
Dude, you can’t predict anything. That’s why you resort to hypothetical matches, because you can’t be proven wronglol, when did that happen?
like 2009 or something?
I never claimed to be that great at predicting matches without form being known/long term prediction by the way,
You can't deal with actual analysis.
So run around desperately like crazy with criticisms of hypotheticals/predictions to avoid admitting reality/doing actual analysis.
Did the actual data points tell you Djokovic would never reach 21?
Nevermind, Gabe just said you said he'd never reach 12. Lol. Something tell me, you were one of the Fed
You keep using these words, but they don't mean what you think they meanyes, ignore actual analysis and evidence of 16-current being immensely weak.
and then whine about hypotheticals to avoid the above.
rinse and repeat.
yeah, I don't recall that happening at all.
Let me also invent some fairy tale to bolster my point and avoid actual analysis of what happened. Oh wait, that's @GabeT and not me.
except actual data points about actual matches gives lot of advantage in actual analysis of what happened : for example 16-22 being the weakest period in open era by far (even more so post-COVID)
It would be a small miracle in the 90s. After the homogenization of courts, it was par for the course that Nadal was going to do well on grass too with his amazing movement and baseline game, plus actually being good at the net when he needed to be. Nadal also used to return more aggressively on grass. Djokovic benefitted from the surfaces being slowed down so what should we call his 7 (jfc) Wimbledon titles?Nadal plays a claycourt game on grass (everywhere, really) and once his physicality declined he was much more vulnerable in early rounds. Yes, there is a factor of sour grapes here but his game is antithetical to how grass court tennis should be played. Pounding endless loopy topspin shots from well behind the baseline; is this clay? Even in the 2008 final, arguably his best match on the surface, he played 8.5% of his points at the net, which is exactly his career number. It's a small miracle he's accomplished as much as he has on the surface.
Regarding Djokovic at the USO, of course he a fair share of the blame with some of the massive eggs he laid in the later stages of the tournament. But I'd say he's also been a little unfortunate here. 2021, he plays a tough 5 setter in the semis against Zverev while Medvedev breezes past FAA, so he has little left in the tank for the final. Similar story in 2013, tough 5 sets vs Wawrinka while Nadal gets Gasquet. Hurricane conditions against Murray in 2012. Freak disqualification in 2020 with a depleted field. Add high heat and humidity and you have a recipe for Djokovic's woes at the USO
I remember when you looked at the stats of Wimbledon 2019 final and said that Djokovic played better overall. What's you thing? Being wrong?Remember when a few years back you predicted Novak wouldn’t reach 12 slams and someone recently found and bumped that thread? Lucky for you that thread was deleted
I’d focus on reciting obscure data points, that seems to be your thing
You do know that if Djokovic gets 9 Wimbledon titles, the general consensus in the bigger world that don't look at these things in the level of detail that a very small portion of people do, is that he is the greatest Wimbledon champion of all time, and as time continues to pass by, his titles will be remembered. Of course, IF Djokovic gets to 9, which he does seem to have an outside shot at.
Who won that match? That’s the guy that played betterI remember when you looked at the stats of Wimbledon 2019 final and said that Djokovic played better overall. What's you thing? Being wrong?
You mean the “no player from years X won a slam” argument ? If so, no, it doesn’t prove anythingFederer fans have a valid point with the generations. That is actually backed by some numbers.
It's better than the Roddick and so on played better than or would beat the Fed's/Nadal's/Djokovic's etc etc etc or would beat them which is sometimes pushed a lot.
I don't think I meant this but now I think of it that may come into it a bitYou mean the “no player from years X won a slam” argument ? If so, no, it doesn’t prove anything
That's the level of your analytical skills, and you deride abmk for his? Talking about knowledge and whatnot. lolWho won that match? That’s the guy that played better
It would be a small miracle in the 90s. After the homogenization of courts, it was par for the course that Nadal was going to do well on grass too with his amazing movement and baseline game, plus actually being good at the net when he needed to be. Nadal also used to return more aggressively on grass. Djokovic benefitted from the surfaces being slowed down so what should we call his 7 (jfc) Wimbledon titles?
Lol at you. If I claim I am a better player than you at tennis the way I would prove it is by beating you in the tennis court. If I lose to you me claiming that I was the better player because of “stats” would have everyone around us laughingThat's the level of your analytical skills, and you deride abmk for his? Talking about knowledge and whatnot. lol
Federer fans have a valid point with the generations. That is actually backed by some numbers.
It's better than the Roddick and so on played better than or would beat the Fed's/Nadal's/Djokovic's etc etc etc or would beat them which is sometimes pushed a lot.
Yeah, how unlucky he was to run into… Djokovic that yearBaggy Wim 07 pre final could take Wim 11 Djokovic 5![]()
pushed a lot where? in the threads you make?![]()
Baggy Wim 07 pre final could take Wim 11 Djokovic pre final 5?![]()
"Stats" show the details of the match, the result doesn't do that. Tennis has an unique scoring system that makes some points more significant for the result than others. But when you talk about overall level, which would include play over all points in the match, Federer was the better player. You and the imaginary everyone can laugh all you want, I'm laughing right back at you. Everyone is having fun.Lol at you. If I claim I am a better player than you at tennis the way I would prove it is by beating you in the tennis court. If I lose to you me claiming that I was the better player because of “stats” would have everyone around us laughing
This might be the problem."Stats" show the details of the match, the result doesn't do that. Tennis has an unique scoring system that makes some points more significant for the result than others. But when you talk about overall level, which would include play over all points in the match, Federer was the better player. You and the imaginary everyone can laugh all you want, I'm laughing right back at you. Everyone is having fun.
The “better” player is the one who wins the match. Fed’s stats in that match reflect the great results of sets 2 and 4. But as Tsitsi pointed out you need to win 3 sets. And Fed had 3 TB opportunities and couldn’t win a single one. Better player? Don’t think so"Stats" show the details of the match, the result doesn't do that. Tennis has an unique scoring system that makes some points more significant for the result than others. But when you talk about overall level, which would include play over all points in the match, Federer was the better player. You and the imaginary everyone can laugh all you want, I'm laughing right back at you. Everyone is having fun.
You're telling me. It should be against the law for the player who won more points to be the loser. Split the trophy in half or something.This might be the problem.
Added SF for the sake of it because it's pre final but yeah I worded it a bit wrong.pre semifinal? yes, its a possibility.
Wim 11 djoko played excellent in both semi vs Tsonga and final vs Nadal.
not sure why you would put pre-final and not pre semifinal
Added SF for the sake of it because it's pre final but yeah I worded it a bit wrong.
A better question may have been Baggy 07 SF vs Djok 21 or something
My loopy memory wtf.It was 07 Wim QF baggy vs djoko, not semi. Semi was between Nadal and Djoko remember?