Why couldn't Djoko dethrone Nadal at RG?

[BringBackSV]

Who thinks like this? It's utter insanity.

I don't care if Novak Djokovic beat 60 year old Chris Evert in the 2016 French Open final, he won it and he has no control over who is on the other side of the net. This also reflects an embarrassing lack of tennis knowledge. Using this asinine "logic," let's toss out McEnroe's 1983 Wimbledon run since he faced not a single relevant grass court player and played hapless Chris Lewis in the final. While we're at it, let's toss out Agassi's 2001 AO run since he faced Clement in the final and "did not beat a single relevant HC player."

Get over it-- Djokovic won the FO, as did Federer. Both would have won 4 or more titles each had it not been for Rafa, but their lone title is still an awesome achievement.

Have I argued that Novak's W doesn't count because he didn't play X,Y,Z? Or did I rather suggest that some tournament Ws are more impressive than others based on the kind of opposition one faces?

You are creating a strawman, along with accusing me of saying something so far from what I said it's comical.

Get over what? If you think that I have a problem with Novak or Fed winning the FO you couldn't be more clueless.

 

[BringBackSV]

Oh, you don't need to warrant anything, I GET your position very well. As I said, it is one thing having a discussion, and bits of information being repeated as a result of it, it is another to accuse someone. But, as you said, we are going around in circle here. So my question is do you want us to keep going round and round, or you ready to move on?

I said I made a mistake, what more do you want? Seriously?

When I noticed it, I corrected it. There is nothing more to be said here.

 

[Hitman]

My apologies Hitman. In in your absence, Beltsman left the order of the VB and has taken up refuge with the Sheetsters. Tis nothing but a troll thread designed to get Ultronians and RAFANS to fight amongst each other. Also, AndyM wants to know your location.

My good friend, did you not know Beltsman was is and always will be a staunch Federer fan?

 

[Hitman]

I said I made a mistake, what more do you want? Seriously?

When I noticed it, I corrected it. There is nothing more to be said here.

Then lets move on.

 

[The Blond Blur]

My good friend, did you not know Beltsman was is and always will be a staunch Federer fan?

Ah! The evidence has been there all along

 

[ADuck]

To make an analogy, would I ever claim that Istomin dethroned Novak at the AO? No, because I find the implication there to be quite silly. It is giving a false impression that this was some particularly noteworthy accomplishment when it fact it was far from it.

I feel the same way. I would reserve my usage of the word to when I feel it would be more appropriate. Like, Nadal dethroned Federer in Wimbledon 2008, because he wae actually the only guy who could have stopped him the 5x reigning champion that year. It was like a proper dethroning.

 

[octogon]

It absolutely is. That is what people say, that Soderling dethroned him that year. Federer went onto take the throne. Two different things for me.

Nah...that's just lazy logic. Nobody ever says Dustin Brown or Lukas Rosol "dethroned" Nadal at Wimbledon. They simply upset him. When you "dethrone" anyone, you don't just beat them, you have to win the title. Soderling upset Nadal...he did not dethrone him.

Djokovic didn't dethrone Nadal, as he didn't go on to win the title. Djokovic has never dethroned Nadal at RG. He beat a terrible version of him and didn't go onto win the title.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nah...that's just lazy logic. Nobody ever says Dustin Brown or Lukas Rosol "dethroned" Nadal at Wimbledon. They simply upset him. When you "dethrone" anyone, you don't just beat them, you have to win the title. Soderling upset Nadal...he did not dethrone him.

Djokovic didn't dethrone Nadal, as he didn't go on to win the title. Djokovic has never dethroned Nadal at RG. He beat a terrible version of him and didn't go onto win the title.

Facts

 

[Hitman]

Nah...that's just lazy logic. Nobody ever says Dustin Brown or Lukas Rosol "dethroned" Nadal at Wimbledon. They simply upset him. When you "dethrone" anyone, you don't just beat them, you have to win the title. Soderling upset Nadal...he did not dethrone him.

Djokovic didn't dethrone Nadal, as he didn't go on to win the title. Djokovic has never dethroned Nadal at RG. He beat a terrible version of him and didn't go onto win the title.

Nah, it is logic in my book. Your argument has already been presented to me in this thread, and I countered it, I don't need to keep saying the same things over and over again. And as I said, if you and other Rafa fans who don't think it is, are welcome to it, but for me, and many others he dethroned Nadal, because it was Djokovic who made sure Nadal wasn't winning the title, and dethroning someone is not the same as coronation. And it was no upset. Finally, no one says Rosol or Brown dethroned Nadal at Wimbledon, because he wasn't the champion during the losses, so not sure why you use that as an example.

 

[Hitman]

Novak Djokovic dethrones Rafael Nadal in French Open quarter-final – as it happened

Game-by-game report: Novak Djokovic became the second man to beat Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros, downing the nine-time champion 7-5, 6-3, 6-1

www.theguardian.com

The title of the article -
Novak Djokovic dethrones Rafael Nadal in French Open quarter-final – as it happened


This is Guardian News Paper. I'm not saying anymore on this subject.

 

[octogon]

Novak Djokovic dethrones Rafael Nadal in French Open quarter-final – as it happened

Game-by-game report: Novak Djokovic became the second man to beat Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros, downing the nine-time champion 7-5, 6-3, 6-1

www.theguardian.com

The title of the article -
Novak Djokovic dethrones Rafael Nadal in French Open quarter-final – as it happened


This is Guardian News Paper. I'm not saying anymore on this subject.

It was a poorly worded headline. It happens a lot.

Point still stands...Djokovic never dethroned Nadal at RG. To dethrone literally means to "take the throne" (ie win the title).

 

[Hitman]

It was a poorly worded headline. It happens a lot.

Point still stands...Djokovic never dethroned Nadal at RG. To dethrone literally means to "take the throne" (ie win the title).

Sure. Of course it is poorly worded, it doesn't support your narrative. Forgive me if I stick with what it says and not what you say.

This is what I got for the definition.
remove from a position of authority or dominance.
"he dethroned the defending title-holder"

That in no way states that you sit on the throne yourself, or win the title.

Now, again, you and others are welcome to whatever you think, but to me, Djokovic dethroned Nadal that year. And kudos, you got me to post on the thread subject when I said I wouldn't. So I guess you win.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Funny how you ignore that I also praised Nadal for his AO 2009 win and said it was the greatest single slam win between all three of them. Nadal chose to play in 2015, and he lost, he was not at his best, it happens, it is sport, but he was dethroned. It happens. Most of the times, champions do get dethroned when they are not in form, or getting older, it happens all the time. Nadal got caught in 2015, not sure why so many get so upset by that. Again, do not confuse form for dethroning, they are two different things.

Let me give you another example in Bodybuilding.

Ronnie Coleman was the greatest bodybuilder of all time, during his peak he simply could not be defeated on the Olympia stage, but as he got older, his shape and conditioning started to go down and he got dethroned by Jay Cutler, the same Jay Cutler, who couldn't beat him for several years. It happens, it doesn't take away from Ronnie, or Rafa, but don't confusing dethroning with peak form.

Man, Now I start liking you after you know who Big Ron and Big Jay are. Ronnie coleman BLS and BDB are simply too good for mere mortals, his 99 olympia form remain unmatched.. It was a sight to behold..same as his AC 01'... I think Olympia 2003 is overrated..huge and conditioned but with a bloated midsection.

 

[octogon]

Sure. Of course it is poorly worded, it doesn't support your narrative. Forgive me if I stick with what it says and not what you say.

This is what I got for the definition.
remove from a position of authority or dominance.
"he dethroned the defending title-holder"

That in no way states that you sit on the throne yourself, or win the title.

Now, again, you and others are welcome to whatever you think, but to me, Djokovic dethroned Nadal that year. And kudos, you got me to post on the thread subject when I said I wouldn't.

If it makes you feel better. I personally wouldn't feel great running round saying any champion got dethroned by someone unless that person wins the title. I don't think Wawrinka dethroned Djokovic at this year's US Open...he just beat him during the rounds.

It's pretentious to claim you dethroned soneone without winning the title.

And I knew you would post again. You like to have the last word

 

[Hitman]

Man, Now I start liking you after you know who Big Ron and Big Jay are. Ronnie coleman BLS and BDB are simply too good for mere mortals, his 99 olympia form remain unmatched.. It was a sight to behold..same as his AC 01'... I think Olympia 2003 is overrated..huge and conditioned but with a bloated midsection.

I know who they are, I know them personally. Especially Jay.

I do agree that in 99 Ronnie was just in insane conditioning, and yes at the Arnold 2001 also. I do think Jay was in his best shape also in 2001 at the Olympia. 2003, Ronnie did start to suffer from stomach distention, so I do agree with you on that level, but the amount of muscle he had on his frame was just insane.

 

[Hitman]

If it makes you feel better. I personally wouldn't feel great running round saying any champion got dethroned by someone unless that person wins the title. I don't think Wawrinka dethroned Djokovic at this year's US Open...he just beat him during the rounds.

It's pretentious to claim you dethroned soneone without winning the title.

And I knew you would post again. You like to have the last word

Nah, you can have the last word, but before then, just wish to say that, you can also personally go around saying whatever you want, all the more power to you. And yeah, it does make me feel better, just like you saying it wasn't a dethroning makes you feel better. See how that works?

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

If it makes you feel better. I personally wouldn't feel great running round saying any champion got dethroned by someone unless that person wins the title. I don't think Wawrinka dethroned Djokovic at this year's US Open...he just beat him during the rounds.

It's pretentious to claim you dethroned soneone without winning the title.

And I knew you would post again. You like to have the last word

If Novak dethroned Rafa at RG, Chung dethroned Novak in Novak’s best slam too! I don’t think that happened but people are entitled their opinions!

 

[Fabresque]

Well, that's the same thing as to say Thiem "dethroned" Djokovic by destroying him in RG 2017. But for some reason Djokovic fans don't like to hear it.

What is there to hear? Djokovic lost to Thiem. Thiem was simply the better player and deserves credit for beating Djokovic, regardless of how bad he was that year. Same goes for Nadal in 2015, he lost to Djokovic who was clearly the better player at the time.

You can’t take away credit for a players accomplishment just because the other wasn’t playing well.

 

[Sephiroth]

Well, that's the same thing as to say Thiem "dethroned" Djokovic by destroying him in RG 2017. But for some reason Djokovic fans don't like to hear it.

Can't dethrone Djokovic when he only won it once lol it's not like he went on to win multiple RGs to make it his throne. He didn't even have a temporary one.

Nadal's yet to be dethroned.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

I feel like we’re having an English problem in this thread. Generally when you’ve been dethroned you don’t go on to win 3 consecutive titles again, especially considering Nole didn’t even win the title the year he beat Rafa. Djokovic stopping Roger at Wimbledon 3 times as part of his 5 titles is probably a more fair thing to characterize as “dethroned”. Similarly Nole is yet to be dethroned at the AO since he’s still the heavy favorite there.

 

[aditya123]

We are talking history and to have the throne of a slam you are the King of that slam. When you have 12 in one slam it takes ALOT more than a couple of wins no matter form or shape to dethrone in my opinion.

When everything comes to an end it is probably right... People will remember Rafa as king of clay regardless those 1 loss.....Same applies to Roger on grass and Djoker in Ao although to a lesser degree

 

[King No1e]

 

[Zara]

Dethroning doesn’t mean one win over Nadal. Dethroning means kicking someone out if his throne once and for all.

Don’t kid yourselves guys whoever is arguing over Nole dethroning Rafa.

 

[Standaa]

Fed beating Sampras is a perfect example of dethroning. He took down the king and went on to become the new king at Wimbledon.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Lol who do you think cares about this?

 

[maratha_warrior]

For me the point is that there really is little noteworthy about beating the juggernaut that is Rafa at RG if he was in poor form. I mean if we want to say that context doesn't matter I'd have to ask why. What's the point in dumbing things down, what's to be gained by ignoring the obvious?

To make an analogy, would I ever claim that Istomin dethroned Novak at the AO? No, because I find the implication there to be quite silly. It is giving a false impression that this was some particularly noteworthy accomplishment when it fact it was far from it.

Why do you expect Djoker to beat 3 slam champions in a row ,and play 3 days in a row on his worst surface , and somehow win the Slam ?
Do you expect such things from Federer ?

 

[maratha_warrior]

ok Djokovic didn't dethrone Nadal at RG .

Nadal didn't dethrone Djokovic at Australian Open and Wimbledon.

 

[MichaelNadal]

ok Djokovic didn't dethrone Nadal at RG .

Nadal didn't dethrone Djokovic at Australian Open and Wimbledon.

Correct

 

[King No1e]

Lol who do you think cares about this?

Clearly you do

 

[Lew II]

You will be surprised. Some trolls claim that Nadal was going to win RG 2015 if Djokovic wasn't there to stop him. This is not just ridiculous, it's lunacy.

Nadal was pushed to the 5th set only once in 24 RG finals/semifinals, and it was by Djokovic himself.

You can insult as much as you want but I do think he beats Murray and Wawrinka to win 2015 RG. Maybe struggling more than usual, but he takes it.

 

[Lew II]

Djokovic is the only player who took 2 sets from Nadal at RG past the R16, and did it twice: 2013 and 2015.

 

[Lew II]

Fed beating Sampras is a perfect example of dethroning. He took down the king and went on to become the new king at Wimbledon.

Djokovic really dethroned Federer at Wimbledon: beating him in the last 3 finals and becoming the new King with 5 titles.

The greatest dethroning ever.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djokovic dethroned Federer at Wimbledon, beating him in the last 3 finals and becoming the new King with 5 titles.

Lol you better keep the world #2 relevant

 

[Lew II]

Djokovic beat defending champion Nadal at RG, Wimbledon and US Open, and defending champion Federer at AO twice.

Nadal beat defending champion Federer at Wimbledon.

Federer beat defending champion Djokovic at Wimbledon.

Total wins over defending champ Big3: Djokovic 5, Nadal/Federer 1.

Total losses as defending champ against Big3: Nadal 3, Federer 2, Djokovic 1.

 

[Rosstour]

"I was in control"

I dislike Nadal but his response was ombleeable there. So good.

 

[Hitman]

Clearly you do

Of course.

I am seeing interesting examples of dethroning here. Like if the guy who lost still goes onto win more, then it wasn't a dethroning - I guess that means Nadal didn't dethrone Federer at Wimbledon 2008, since Federer still went onto win three more Wimbledon and in fact beat Nadal in their very next match at Wimbledon, compared to just one more title for Nadal. Or Djokovic getting beaten by Chung is considering a dethroning - LOL, Djokovic wasn't even the defending champion at that event, you cannot dethrone someone who isn't even on the throne, Isotmin did that. Oh well...enjoyed reading so many interpretations of the word. For me Nadal reclaimed the throne in 2017.

 

[King No1e]

Of course.

I am seeing interesting examples of dethroning here. Like if the guy who lost still goes onto win more, then it wasn't a dethroning - I guess that means Nadal didn't dethrone Federer at Wimbledon 2008, since Federer still went onto win three more Wimbledon and in fact beat Nadal in their very next match at Wimbledon, compared to just one more title for Nadal. Or Djokovic getting beaten by Chung is considering a dethroning - LOL, Djokovic wasn't even the defending champion at that event, you cannot dethrone someone who isn't even on the throne, Isotmin did that. Oh well...enjoyed reading so many interpretations of the word. For me Nadal reclaimed the throne in 2017.

This. Djokovic beat Nadal and won the title the following year. That's gotta count as a dethroning of the King.
And then of course Nadal woke up and Bulldozed everyone a year later.

 

[StrongRule]

Nadal was pushed to the 5th set only once in 24 RG finals/semifinals, and it was by Djokovic himself.

You can insult as much as you want but I do think he beats Murray and Wawrinka to win 2015 RG. Maybe struggling more than usual, but he takes it.

Your "opinion" is based on nothing. Nadal was getting physically tired after an hour and a half of play for most of 2015. The only chance for him against Murray and Wawrinka would be if slams somehow changed to BO1 format, otherwise he wouldn't be able to pull it physically.

It's funny that you don't even realize how much you bring Djokovic down by saying that the worst ever Nadal would be able to beat the guy who routined prime Djokovic in the final.

 

[BringBackSV]

Why do you expect Djoker to beat 3 slam champions in a row ,and play 3 days in a row on his worst surface , and somehow win the Slam ?
Do you expect such things from Federer ?

What? I don't recall indicating he should have done anything.

I think Roger's 09 title was more impressive than Novak's in 16, beyond that I dont care.

Aside, I've not downplayed the legitimacy of their wins just acknowledging that neither were able to do it in their various attempts against Rafa anywhere near his best.

The amount the of fangirls/boys that get bothered by a critique, as though that is being dismissive of their achievements is alarming.

Am I suggesting their titles are illegitimate? No

Also, I think Novak looks far more natural/comfortable on clay than grass.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Not good enough.

 

[tennis24x7]

Djokovic beat Nadal on clay in as many finals as all other players combined:

Djokovic 4
Federer 2 + Murray 1 + Zeballos 1 = 4

He is the player who beat the most times Nadal on clay and Federer on grass.

Exactly my point, which Fed could never achieve and they call him goat

 

[BringBackSV]

Your "opinion" is based on nothing. Nadal was getting physically tired after an hour and a half of play for most of 2015. The only chance for him against Murray and Wawrinka would be if slams somehow changed to BO1 format, otherwise he wouldn't be able to pull it physically.

It's funny that you don't even realize how much you bring Djokovic down by saying that the worst ever Nadal would be able to beat the guy who routined prime Djokovic in the final.

No chance he beats Stan in 15 or Murray in 16, thats how much he'd fallen off during that period.

 

[BringBackSV]

Exactly my point, which Fed could never achieve and they call him goat

Fed's 5 years older with a matchup problem. He's no goat but he's better than Novak (albeit not significantly).

Roger at his best is the best player to date on 2/3 surfaces.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I dislike Nadal but his response was ombleeable there. So good.

This is one of the greatest Rafa responses ever!

 

[BringBackSV]

This. Djokovic beat Nadal and won the title the following year. That's gotta count as a dethroning of the King.
And then of course Nadal woke up and Bulldozed everyone a year later.

If Rafa was in form sure but he blatantly wasn't. There is no reason to grasp at straws, Novak is still a great player even though he couldn't manage to beat a good version of Nadal at RG.

This is why Soderling's win >>>>>>>>>>>>> Novak's.

Rafa wasn't even favored to win the title...

 

[King No1e]

If Rafa was in form sure but he blatantly wasn't. There is no reason to grasp at straws, Novak is still a great player even though he couldn't manage to beat a good version of Nadal at RG.

This is why Soderling's win >>>>>>>>>>>>> Novak's.

Rafa wasn't even favored to win the title...

I'm not pretending Djokovic beat peak Nadal. But that doesn't disqualify his win. Just as Nadal's Rome 18 win over Djokovic doesn't get disqualified.

 

[BringBackSV]

I'm not pretending Djokovic beat peak Nadal. But that doesn't disqualify his win. Just as Nadal's Rome 18 win over Djokovic doesn't get disqualified.

I didn't say it didn't occur(I did NOT deny it), the point was that it was not either noteworthy or impressive. That it was not the result of Novak continue to come at him and raise his level but in actuality had much more to do with Rafa being a considerably worse player that year. Beating a historically great player playing poorly isn't necessarily even better than beating just a good player playing well. Beating that Nadal in 15 for example is less impress and noteworthy than had Novak been able to beat Stan that year at RG.

I don't see what Rome 18 has to do with anything quite frankly. I wouldn't be impressed if Rafa beat a poor version of Novak at AO for example, it would prove very little and not be noteworthy. That is a relevant analogy, Rome 18? Really?

 

[octogon]

I didn't say it didn't occur(I did NOT deny it), the point was that it was not either noteworthy or impressive. That it was not the result of Novak continue to come at him and raise his level but in actuality had much more to do with Rafa being a considerably worse player that year. Beating a historically great player playing poorly isn't necessarily even better than beating just a good player playing well. Beating that Nadal in 15 for example is less impress and noteworthy than had Novak been able to beat Stan that year at RG.

I don't see what Rome 18 has to do with anything quite frankly. I wouldn't be impressed if Rafa beat a poor version of Novak at AO for example, it would prove very little and not be noteworthy. That is a relevant analogy, Rome 18? Really?

Exactly. It's like some fans have no embarrassment or shame. I can't imagine as a Nadal fan, gloating over beating a Djokovic at the Australian Open who had been playing like utter dog crap up till that point, and was losing to everyone else and their mother. You want the victory to mean something by beating a strong version, not a poor one. Djokovic was just in the right place at the right time at RG 2015. I feel like half a dozen players could have taken out that version of Nadal. Which is why Soldering's upset of Nadal at RG remains special, and Djokovic's is an afterthought (despite how celebrated their rivalry is).

 

[40L0VE]

Arguably Nadal was saved the year this happened

 

[King No1e]

Arguably Nadal was saved the year this happened

I'd still have picked Rafa to tough that one out in a marathon. But regardless, we sure missed out because Fedr crashed the party.