Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by aceX, Apr 17, 2011.
If Djokovic played against Nadal at Monte Carlo would he have beaten him?
nah, probably would have injured himself in the process too.
Yes, current form Djokovic would have beaten this Nadal at monte carlo (I don't think Nadal really played that well despite winning)
Here we go...can't use reality to bash Nadal so we'll use hypotheticals.
Pathetic thread for failed science fiction writers to pontificate on alternate realities.
If they'd played again at this point, somebody would have hurt himself.
Obviously, this is completely unknowable.
No, because he's injured and fatiqued. Rafa would still have a tough time beating him.
I think even an injured/fatigued Djoker would have taken out Nadal, as injured Murray almost did.
Good point... I'm going to join your side and say that Djokovic would have beaten him.
TBH...Nadal was playing his worst clay court tennis in 3 years and he would have lost to Djokovic( If he played anything like his 2009 clay form).
Then again Nadal could have won.... well we will get to see one clay matchup between Nadoker.
I think if Rod Laver played the Australian this year (at his current age and form with wooden rackets) Djoker would not have won his second major. Nadal would also not have the career slam had Pancho Gonzales been alive and in the U.S Open draw.
I vote No, I think fatigue would finally have caught up with him.
Djokovic has never beaten Nadal on clay. Fail thread.
That doesn't mean he's gonna lose every clay match they play from now on.
And you're forced to use a guy who is 0-10 vs. Nadal on clay. A guy who is 0-10 vs. Nadal is literally the best choice for this hypothetical. Think about that for a moment.
Yes, at 5-1 in the 3rd, Nadal fans everywhere were on pins and needles.
lol. OMG, MURRAY made a CC masters SF and took a set off nadal WITH A BROKEN ARM. OMG, what would murray have done WITHOUT A BROKEN ARM. OMG!
Actually for the first 2 sets Murray played without pain, and therefore w/o injury and in those 2 sets he only won, one. Then when the pain came back, Rafa fed him a bread stick. So no, an injured Murray didn't almost anything Nadal.
That's the second time you've said that! So much for innovation
I think he might have had a chance, maybe.
Didn't happen. We'll just have to wait for the real thing.
I guess that means Hrbarty would lead the H2H against Nadal if they played 10 more times.
Wow, clairvoyant much? Kinda like the way Nadal played with no pain against Petz at W10 until he started losing?
Agreed!......That is the question!
Are you referring to pre-2011 Djokovic or the 2011 King who defeated Nadal twice in finals which he had not pre-2011?
At Indian Wells and Miami, hardcourt tournaments where Djokovic has beaten Nadal in the past. Djokovic beat Nadal at 2007 Miami and 2008 Indian Wells, in straight sets, unlike the close Indian Wells and Miami finals of 2011.
Hell no. I can't believe the poll is 50/50.
Djokovic was fatiqued and not to mention his knees were troubling him. The surface and the weather also favoured Nadal.
Interesting, because in 2010, Nadal won the USO. Why wasn't he able to do that in 2007 and 2008? Please tell me you understand the gist of my post.
Hardcourt favours Djokovic more than Nadal, and Nadal looked pretty fatigued himself at times during those finals.
Nope. Please explain more clearly what your point is, please.
Your point was Djoker beating Nadal now is no surprise since he had done it in the past even more easily in fact.
My point is that Nadal is nowhere near the HC player he is now that he was in 2007. Djoker beating the Nadal of now at IW and Miami in 3 sets is much more impressive in actual fact, because Nadal is a beast on HC too NOW. He was not in 2007 by far. Hence the USO analogy. Clear?
You're right, statistically speaking, a 1-3 record for a 17-19 year old on three different surfaces(vs. a player five his elder) is identical to an 0-10 record for one player on one surface vs. an opponent roughly his same age. No holes there.
Nadal is still unpredictable on hardcourt and much more prone to defeats, especially in best of 3 set matches. Beating Nadal on clay is a different ballgame to beating him in Indian Wells and Miami, especially when Djokovic's wins over Nadal in the Indian Wells and Miami finals were 3 set affairs. Nadal did better in both Indian Wells and Miami this year than he did last year, yet it scarcely matters when it comes to Nadal's form on the clay-courts.
Not at all. I believe that's what Murray said in his presser as well. As well as a lot of the commentators, etc. He was feeling pain before the match, and got cortisone injection in his elbow to get rid of the pain. But it started to wear out by the end of the second set/beg of 3rd. Which is why he asked for a trainer then. This ain't my story it's what he has said and has been reported. When I say he wasn't injured in the first two sets, I meant as in he didn't feel significant pain. Because at the end of the day it only matters how the injury hindered the athlete. In his case it didn't hit him till set 3. As for Nadal's medical issues, no point bringing it up here, because it's not what we are discussing. I have no doubt that Murray has shoulder issues, but in those first two sets he played close to his best.
Not to mention, regardless of whether or not he was injured, he did not come close to beating Nadal. He took a set off of him which is commendable, but that's it really.
LOL, so now you're separating out Nadal's early years. Yeah and Djoker last year is playing at the same level he is now. Get a life.
I agree they are different ballgames. And Djoker will win them all. Last year Nadal was coming off an injury was he not? Therefore it's not surprise he did better this year. Nadal's form on clay indicates that Murray could have taken him out were it not for an elbow injury. Murray is not Djoker. Djoker would have been relentless and pounded Nadal.
In other words if Murray was not injured at all, Nadal would have been toast. Cortisone is not a magic bullet.
That's A WIN! for fed fanboys against nadal....and djokovic. They are happy if federer can get a set off nadal and djokovic these days.
Djokovic also while good on all surfaces is a hard court specialist to a large degree. His results on grass and clay are good but dont even approach his results on hard courts. And while there are hardly any players who can beat him on hard courts, there are quite a few who can beat him on clay or grass. David Ferrer for instance owns Djokovic on clay, Tommy Haas owns Djokovic on grass, and at recent French and Wimbledon events he has lost to Safin, Kohlschreiber, Melzer, Haas, and Berdych.
So Djokovic hard courts >>> Djokovic on clay
Nadal on clay >>> Nadal on hard courts
And Djokovic barely won the two meetings on hard courts, and has recent losses on the surface too, so what are his chances on clay even at this point. Needless to say I voted no.
If he was in form, then I believe he would have beaten Nadal, but he didn't play. Nadal won and there is no arguing that. As my username may suggest, I am a Djokovic fan, and there are somethings I don't really like about Nadal, but if you would have asked me before the tournament if Djokovic would have been a threat to Nadal taking the title, I would have said probably, no. But, after seeing how Nadal played, I think Djoker would have had him. But, then again, that would be a parallel universe in which Novak was in the tournament, and Nadal could have played lights out and wiped the floor with all competition, including Djoker....
Lol get em
A very bold prediction when only 3 players (Federer, Ferrero, Soderling) have beaten Nadal on clay since the 11th April 2005.
That's correct, we can say that about last year. On the other hand, we can also say that this year, Nadal was hampered by a cold he got in Doha and then pulling his hamstring during the Australian Open, which wrecked any chances he had of holding all 4 majors at the same time.
Nadal's form was off against Murray, but he still won the third set, 6-1. Champions find a way to win matches when they are playing badly. The ability to win matches when you're playing badly seperates the champions from the rest. When Murray plays badly, as we saw in Indian Wells and Miami, it's an ugly sight. When Nadal plays badly, he's still able to breadstick the world number 4 in a decisive set.
Chocovic will Never beat Rafa on clay.
Nadal's didn't win that match, Murray lost it because of the elbow pain. All of a sudden Murray loses 6-1? He had the momentum. He lost it. Nadal won by default.
Oh, not this again. Nadal won the match 6-4, 2-6, 6-1. There it is, in black and white.
Oh, not this again. Murray lost the match 4-6, 6-2, 1-6. There it is, in black and white.
Considering you live in a parallel universe where Novak plays like a beast in MC, I am not surprised that, that is the conclusion you drew from my post. Ofc cortisone is not a magic bullet, that's why it started wearing out in set 3.
Unless of course you want to go the route where we talk about how Murray is a cheater? Where he was in pain the whole match but only decided to call the trainer when things were looking bad for him in the 3rd set. But let's not go there because neither you nor I know the truth.
LOL bolo, that's harsh!
Not at all. That's like saying a retirement is the same thing as losing in a 5th set tiebreaker.
Separate names with a comma.