Novak Djokovic's shocking slump of 11-2 against Fedal

Reading the pages of 606v2 lately I have been stunned to read about the dissaray in Djokovic's game and psyche. The world #1 was quaking in his boots knowing that his time on top was limited as the superior Federer with his germanic good looks and suave game was again to reclaim his rightful spot as world #1. In fact, after failing to win every tournament this year Djokovic has been in a tailspin winning just two measly tournaments, which he was fortunate enough for one of them to be a slam.

Of course this drivel that has been slopped on by some of the federistas the last couple of weeks and even some post MC Nadalophiles has been mildly amusing for me to observe in my short abscence. Yes I agree in some respects Novak has not been as impressive as 2011, but has shown very good #1 like results which seems to get overlooked. And frankly I think he is being smarter, he isn't going to kill himself to win masters anymore where last year he would force players to grind out every point when his shots weren't going for him.

In my mind before we can pass the mantle to the more deserving Fedal member whether it be Rafa or Roger, shouldn't the pair prove that they can do better than 2 wins in their last 13 matches against Djokovic? And yes Fed fans that includes 4-1 in the last 5 against the Rog. At this point murray has been the most competitive big 4 member against the world #1.

I'm not sure he has taken a different approach to masters socal. His celebrations yesterday hinted at a man who knew exactly how important this win was, and I expect a similar intensity today because he knows how important this one is.

There's no shame in Novak not doing quite as well as a year ago. Only 1 or 2 players have ever done that well! He is still playing well and moving well, so Novak fans should be delighted.

Personally I don't buy into the tribalism in tennis, so I've not seen the Rafa or roger fans comments on the alleged uprising. But Novak put out the fire quite impressively yesterday, it was a big win. Today will be huge too. Momentum is gained in these tournaments, as we saw last year when Novak turned the Rafa rivalry around. They are big titles to collect, which is why the top 4 have won virtually all of them over the last 3 years or so.

Today is a very big match for both players, nobody will convince me otherwise. I fancy Novak to edge it in 3.

Im Not sure if you want to put me in the category of a Nadophile Socal but I have always thought myself as being pretty realistic about Rafa´s performances in the past .. "one lark doth not a summer make" and all that. I do believe I saw a marked difference in Nadal´s demeanour and attitude after MC thats true but then Madrid knocked any confidence he may have had after that as I do believe it did Novak. I havent seen his "big match" against Berdych against who I believe he performed brilliantly.. I certainly was not impressed during the first set against Ferrer he seemed at 6´s and 7´s but that was partly put down to Ferrer´s good play as much as Rafa´s errors.. however the second set was a different kettle of fish.

As for today.. There are too many hens laying eggs and I wouln´t put my money on either of them.. Novak on form will of course cause Rafa the usual problems without doubt-- Rafa on the other hand playing the way I know he can could well edge it... but either way Socal Im looking forward to the match.
But I think it too early for anyone to gloat there is too much competition to be complacent. Im sure all the top 4 know that things can change very rapidly in a very short space of time.

Federer-fan baiting aside, Novak is the rightful number one and has been so for a while. He is beginning to realize his talent, so I applaud him for that. Two very good players are in the final today and I expect a great battle. Rafa will have to come out of his comfort zone and try to do something different against Novak today. Otherwise, Monte Carlo could be a false dawn for him.

socal - many of your articles give the distinct impression that you've wound yourself up into a far greater state of unbalanced over-excitement than those whom you accuse. The labels used are inavriably the clue : the moment I see people being tagged 'federistas' and 'nadalophiles' I sense a weakness in the ability to put forward a reasoned argument, excacerbated by blinkered vision and tribalism rather than a wish to look at the bigger picture and all that this great of sport of tennis offers.

You must have been looking at a different forum if you seriously believe there is a significant group of people promoting the notion that Novak's game and psyche is in 'disarray'

We all know how spectacularly well he did in 2011 - not least in that impressive run of victories against a fully-fit Nadal. And he began 2012 in similar vein by retaining his AO title with a very determined and dogged display.

But let's not forget how he still trails Rafa in so many respects (with just one year's age difference between the two) ; 5 Slams vs. 10, and 30 titles vs. 48.

As for Federer : yes he has been falling short versus Novak in most of their recent meetings, and this obviously has tightened the previously big h2h gap ; but if you look at a slightly broader span starting from the beginning of 2010, the overall tally is just 6-5 to Novak, so not exactly a chasm there. Plus, prime Novak as World No. 1 is now playing a Federer aged almost 31, and very much in the twilight of his career. I would certainly expect Novak to be winning these clashes .

Federer (and to a great extent Rafa too of course ) has been there, seen that, done it all. Let's see how Novak might fare against whoever is World No.1 when he too has reached 31 y.o.

The notion that Murray is "the most competitive" against the No. 1 might have (very limited) credibility if you pick out just one or two matches ; but I'm really not sure how many people would buy into this in any wider sense when Murray is - on all normal sensible measures - by far the weakest member of the group.

Instead of describing as "drivel" the idea that Djokovic's position might be under threat, why not just let the season take its course, in the knowledge that the points table doesn't lie and - come year-end - we will have a better idea of just how long he might be able to hold on to that coveted Number One spot during the remainder of his career. Staying at number one for year after year is not an easy thing to do, as so many great names have discovered in the past.

I wouldn't say that Murray giving Novak most problems has limited credibility. His game matches up pretty well, and apart from 1 comfortable victory each this year most of their recent matches have gone right to the wire.

Usually Rogers game matches up quite well to Novak too, but he was thoroughly outplayed yesterday. Today's match will be fascinating. Its Rafa who has struggled most against Novak for sure. But he has the boost of the MC victory and that makes today fascinating and very important for RG if they meet, which you have to expect they will.

Specifically on your comment re Andy, ok, it's a well-made point Danny. But the fact remains that Andy is the only one of the three who actually trails Novak h2h wise.

As for yesterday's match .... these are the clashes that I now expect Federer to be losing as time and mileage on the clock inevitably catch up with him towards the business end of a tournament. So - for me - no great surprise in the defeat itself. What WAS surprising was just how dramatically his level had dropped from the earlier part of the week. But hey, one extra day of rest & prep ahead of battles to follow at RG I guess.

I agree with lags72 on the nature of this thread. Maybe the victory of Djokovic has somewhat clouded your judgement socal. I do agree that should Djokovic win today, he's actually done a decent job of defending his titles from last year and we can put down his loss of Monte Carlo and skipping of the Serbian Open down to a tragic event. In which case his defense of titles this year has been reasonable good.

However, let's not get ahead of ourselves. This is only the first match of the year between Federer and Djokovic. If there was any tournament we'd expect Djokovic to beat Federer, this would be one of them. Let's remember, this is a title Djokovic has won and Fed never has. It makes a difference although it doesn't detract from the fact Federer only showed up late in the second set yesterday and by then the match was pretty much over for Fed (tie breakers usually are 50/50 affairs). Other events you'd expect Djokovic to beat Fed would include the Australian Open, IW, Miami and the Canadian Open.

Let's be clear, Djokovic's win helps him retain No.1. However, if loses to Nadal, he loses points, whereas both his main rivals, Federer and Nadal have gained on him. For Djokovic, winning just one of the next 3 grand slams might not be enough for him to retain No.1 unless he wins Cinci, Canada or RG itself. However, as was proven last year, when Federer is under the radar, he can prove most dangerous to Djokovic, like he did last year @ RG. Federer was considered the favourite yesterday and although Fed might say it didn't affect him, how else can he we account for his immensely slow start in the match...? Conditions certainly favoured a grinder like Djokovic, however, I'd say a match between these two @ RG would see it a lot tighter. Anyhow, despite Fed's loss, I'm hoping Djokovic wins today!

Indeed lags, socal is far more of what he derides than anyone else. He doesn't even know his tennis - he was going on about how fast serves weren't possible with old racquets the other day!

Not surprising to see a reappearance now that Djokovic has made another final.

If you put more effort into supporting Nole and less into fighting Federer you would actually have a much better reception from everyone else on this board!

Keep winding yourself up if you must

just don't mention Fognini what ever you do.

Now you've done it Tom.

We'll never hear the end of it..

Beware of the false alarms Socal, come RG, your man will bow down to one of the legends for sure and most proably it will the guy who your hero beat yesterday.

Hope you haven't forgotton 2011 RG I guess

Federer is 30..... I think people keep forgetting this. Nadal and Djokovic will be in caskets at that age, not winning Masters events.

Seifer Almasy wrote:Federer is 30..... I think people keep forgetting this. Nadal and Djokovic will be in caskets at that age, not winning Masters events.

:censored: Did you actually put your brain into gear before you posted that

Seifer, and Lags, so now that you are discounting Novak's wins over Roger post 30, so how many of teenage Novak's losses to Roger in his absolute prime should we knock considering that Novak came up when Roger was at his absolute best and Novak was a teenage prospect. So do all of prime Roger's wins over teenage Novak count, and then all of Novak's wins recently don't count? Spoken like a true fed apologists.


Lags, i don't wind myself up, i am just interested in reading up all the posts about how Novak is really the 3rd favorite as some have called him for RG and wimby. How Roger has the most points since the USO. Well that is a big accomplisment considering that he out pointed a Novak with a torn muscle in his back.

Danny I disagree, last year at IW, Miami, MC, and Rome Novak brought another gear to his game that this year outside of Australia he hasn't gone there all season. What do I mean by that? Well when his shots aren't going for Novak he has mode which I call super safe mode. He buckles down, cuts down the errors and does his best wilander or borg impersanation turning every point into war. Last year the matches he didn't have his shots in he was still winning because if it took 3 and half hours and 100 20 shot rallies to beat you on that day that is what he would do. This year he only pulled out that type of game for AO semi and final.

Haddie, I think you have been reasonably fair in your assessment of course every fan is going want to be optmistic about their player. I think it will be a great match today and we will see the two best players on clay and on tour battle it out. This match I think will tell us a lot more about the real form of the two favorites going into RG.

socal1976 wrote:Seifer, and Lags, so now that you are discounting Novak's wins over Roger post 30...

This is where I don't get how you twist other poster's words into something entirely different, to try to make them sound different than they intend. Who's 'discounting' anything? Is that why you see so many 'Federistas' (is that the right term)? Because you interpret things in an extreme way yourself? You see 'online mania' where there simply isn't any.

The more I read this thread, the more I want Rafa I want to win today....

And I am not a big fan of Rafa's game, although I respect its effectiveness....

I better stop reading this thread.

"Lags, i don't wind myself up, i am just interested in reading up all the posts about how Novak is really the 3rd favorite as some have called him for RG and wimby. How Roger has the most points since the USO. Well that is a big accomplisment considering that he out pointed a Novak with a torn muscle in his back. "

well, even though i don't especially support Federer really at all, i would say it is a big achievement,as there are several other players out there that need beating besides Djoko, plus he's 30. Its as if you only view the tennis game from Djoko's point of view - this is pure folly and is reminiscent of all the people (including some commentators) who for a few years only saw/followed Federer at his peak and did not see who else was contributing to the quality of men's game. In fact, your statement above makes you a fanboy and sadly means you won't be able to appreciate the great tennis on show from many many players out there for what it is.

Why does Djokkovic losing when he was a teenager matter? Nadal was WINNING slams as an 18 year old not getting torn apart by Safin in 1st round.

Djokovic will be retired in 2 years time.

Socal - do you not think that the level Novak reached last year might be as good as it gets? Like Roger's 3 slam seasons or John Mac's awesome season back in the 80's?

I'm playing devils advocate a little, but those are good examples of great players who reached an unbelievable level and were never really able to repeat it. Most people in the game think its very unlikely he (or anyone) will ever find that gear again, yet you seem to think its a matter of time. Or that's how it sounds at least.

He should aspire to that level of course, and I'm sure he does. But surely you acknowledge it's unlikely?

Danny

I think that is the most balanced post I have read all day. Realistic and unbiased I wholeheartedly agree with you. As I believe that 2010 may have been Rafa´s year. When you have been at the pinnacle of success it is hard to repeat.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Djokovic will be retired in 2 years time.

That reminds of the poster on the old 606 who'd say 'Federer will be out of the top 100 by the end of next year'.

Danny, did you watch the first set last night or the tiebreaker when he had to win? In some respects i actually see Novak playing better than last year he just has had to adjust to being number 1 and all the demands. The reason I became a fan of Djoko was because he was a player constantly working on his game. I am sure that Novak will find it hard to repeat the success of 2011, that may be very difficult. But I actually think people will be surprised at how much Novak's game and mind will grow. I actually think that we are seeing a player who like Lendl, Sampras, or Fed will have a very long run at the top. In the last 5 years he has finished in the top 3, and his consistency will show through. Whether he wins 3 slams in a year is number one all the time I don't know, but i have a fair read that there is much more top flight tennis left in him, much more. So I don't believe that gear he found in 2011 and at key moments this year is gone.

JM, do you want to keep posting such childish rants? Whether Nadal wins or not is immaterial at this point for me. I just liked reading all this nonsense about Djokovic's slump and fed the soon to be number 1. I would like to see that because Roger is going to have a real tough time defending his 1000 points at RG if he gets Novak in his half like they always do. Count on it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Seifer, and Lags, so now that you are discounting Novak's wins over Roger post 30...

This is where I don't get how you twist other poster's words into something entirely different, to try to make them sound different than they intend. Who's 'discounting' anything? Is that why you see so many 'Federistas' (is that the right term)? Because you interpret things in an extreme way yourself? You see 'online mania' where there simply isn't any.

Sorry Julius did you read the posts I was commenting about that is exactly what they did. They discounted these recent wins against Roger because Roger is past 30. Funny then lets discount all of peak Roger in 2005 and 06 and 07s wins against a teenage Djokovic who was far from his best and just a cub. Roger is still good enough as some have claimed to be world number 1 just like Agassi who reached the USO final at 35. So that is precisely what they were doing pulling the tried and true oh Roger is over 30 excuse. If for a minute Fed didn't think he physically could compete against the best in the world he would retire.

socal1976 wrote:Sorry Julius did you read the posts I was commenting about

No I didn't bother, I was just guessing completely.

As I said before, your interpretation is very much at odds with my own. And since you also, for example, imagined 'online mania' about people wanting 'drastic' changes to the court surfaces etc, it wouldn't be the first time that you saw things that just weren't there.
My interpretation is that those posters are arguing that a 25 year old World No.1 really ought to be beating any 30 year old more often than not. Historically, that is generally what happens in tennis. In what way does that discount anything?

socal1976 wrote:Seifer, and Lags, so now that you are discounting Novak's wins over Roger post 30, so how many of teenage Novak's losses to Roger in his absolute prime should we knock considering that Novak came up when Roger was at his absolute best and Novak was a teenage prospect. So do all of prime Roger's wins over teenage Novak count, and then all of Novak's wins recently don't count? Spoken like a true fed apologists.

You won't find a post in this thread where anyone has actually said what you've written in the above quote. No "discounting" from me but perhaps a lot in your imagination. As JHM has already pointed out, you're twisting other posters' comments into something entirely different (again). Not sure just why you feel the need to do that (although I have my suspicions...!). But it really doesn't fool anybody.

So, all your own words there socal. And since they are all your own, we can only conclude from them that it is nobody but yourself who has (quote) "spoken like a true fed apologist"

I'll leave you to it on this particular topic socal. But in the meantime you really should stop attributing opinions to people who don't hold actually hold them .

luciusmann wrote:I agree with lags72 on the nature of this thread. Maybe the victory of Djokovic has somewhat clouded your judgement socal. I do agree that should Djokovic win today, he's actually done a decent job of defending his titles from last year and we can put down his loss of Monte Carlo and skipping of the Serbian Open down to a tragic event. In which case his defense of titles this year has been reasonable good.

However, let's not get ahead of ourselves. This is only the first match of the year between Federer and Djokovic. If there was any tournament we'd expect Djokovic to beat Federer, this would be one of them. Let's remember, this is a title Djokovic has won and Fed never has. It makes a difference although it doesn't detract from the fact Federer only showed up late in the second set yesterday and by then the match was pretty much over for Fed (tie breakers usually are 50/50 affairs). Other events you'd expect Djokovic to beat Fed would include the Australian Open, IW, Miami and the Canadian Open.

Let's be clear, Djokovic's win helps him retain No.1. However, if loses to Nadal, he loses points, whereas both his main rivals, Federer and Nadal have gained on him. For Djokovic, winning just one of the next 3 grand slams might not be enough for him to retain No.1 unless he wins Cinci, Canada or RG itself. However, as was proven last year, when Federer is under the radar, he can prove most dangerous to Djokovic, like he did last year @ RG. Federer was considered the favourite yesterday and although Fed might say it didn't affect him, how else can he we account for his immensely slow start in the match...? Conditions certainly favoured a grinder like Djokovic, however, I'd say a match between these two @ RG would see it a lot tighter. Anyhow, despite Fed's loss, I'm hoping Djokovic wins today!

Good post lucius, look I have never been one to discount fed as a player ever. In fact on this very website I have defended fed after a tough loss when some of his fans were claiming he should call it quits. This was before the resurgence of his game late last year and so far this year. I don't doubt that both Roger and Rafa are still capable enough to get to number 1. But the talk the last few days I think has been a bit over selling the chances of both guys. Frankly I think Novak has about 75 percent chance of finishing the year as number 1. If he is healthy. So I feel he is a heavy favorite, fed fans it is fine if you want to think fed will regain number 1. Great, I disagree and I went on the record with my feelings. Unless Novak gets fogninnied or injured my mouth is watering at the idea of seeing Roger at RG.

PLEASE GOD, LET THE FRENCH DRAW RIGGINING COMMITTEE AND THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE OF UNCLE TONI, THE FREE MASONS, AND GUY FORGET PUTH THE ROG IN NOVAK'S HALF AT RG. OR LET NOVAK SEE ROGER IN THE FINAL THAT WOULD BE EVEN BETTER.

He may well be at number 1 for a long time, I don't rule that out at all. I expect he'll compete for every slam and big tournament for the foreseeable future certainly. He's a great, great player. Unquestionably.

But do I think he'll ever have a streak like 2011? Personally, no. The level he consistently reached was unbelievable. It's quite reasonable for people to predict that 2011 was Novak at his optimum, and he might win another ten slams and never reach that level again.

That's not an insult to Novak, I like his style and tenacity and enjoy watching him play. I think he'll win another slam or two this year and cant see any physical or mental reasons for a decline any time soon.

I just think 2011 was his McEnroe season. The one we'll all look back on at the end of his career. History teaches us that such streaks are often unrepeatable, and while he has started this season very well it can't be argued that he is not the invincible Novak of a year ago.

I am not discounting anything, but you have to be truly stupid to believe that the Federer at 30 is the same guy who was dominating this sport. To believe H2H means anything against Fed at this age is a nonsense. He is 80% of the player he was and that shows just how brilliant he is... that he still world number 2! Even with the slowed down courts which favour Djok and Nadal.

What I, and all Fed fans look at is his Slam haul, his success after his peak years, his record consecutive WN1's and a MYRIAD of other records that Djokovic hasn't a hope in hell of getting near to. We do not care that Djokovic is beating Fed more these days, we know that age is a big factor in it. We do not care. We see a big shining number 16 next to his name (and I'd wager more than 16 by this time in 2 years).

OK so let me get this straight nobody is quote "discounting" Novak's wins over 30 year old Roger, except that Julius, Lags, and seifer just did again discount the wins. I think the percentage seifer was talking about is 80 percent. Fine so Roger in his mid 20s beating 18 year old Djokovic should be struck from the records or discounted by 20 percent or 80 percent? Discounting means reducing and of course that is what you are all doing. Of course Roger isn't as good as he was in 2006 or 07. But he is still very exceptional when considering how many other great players have been able to perform quite well in there 30s.

And thanks seifer for adding the additional typical fed cop out "with slowed down courts which favour djok and nadal". Next we are going to hear that Novak bounced the ball too much. Are these the same slowed conditions that Roger won 16 slams on?

SoCal you probably need to have bit of perspective.

Do these numbers mean anything to you for example, 1024, 789, 535, 457?

Let me know when you figure these out and then we can further discuss.

There are a couple more like 1310, 1073, etc.

"I would like to see that because Roger is going to have a real tough time defending his 1000 points at RG if he gets Novak in his half like they always do. Count on it"

Hmm, lets actually look at reality shall we:

Djokovic drawn in same half as either Fed Nadal since 2006 at RG:

2011 Fed- Djoko
2010 Nadal - Djoko
2009 Fed- Djoko
2008 Nadal - Djoko
2007 Nadal - Djoko
2006 Nadal - Djoko


So the reality is, in fact, that Nadal and Djoko have been put on the same side of the draw more often than Fed and Djoko - This is opposite to what you say above and proves your inept blindness to reality. Fed and Djoko could get put in the same half this year and next year and all it would do is even it up. You're turning your posts into pure lies now.

socal1976 wrote:Except that Julius, Lags, and seifer just did again discount the wins

Except that we didn't. I don't know what else to say. We didn't discount them. I'm not sure I can deal with the way you mis-interpret things. If it's not deliberate, I don't know how to phrase it any better. If it's deliberate, I'll just leave you to it.

Tom_____ wrote:"I would like to see that because Roger is going to have a real tough time defending his 1000 points at RG if he gets Novak in his half like they always do. Count on it"

Hmm, lets actually look at reality shall we:

Djokovic drawn in same half as either Fed Nadal since 2006 at RG:

2011 Fed- Djoko
2010 Nadal - Djoko
2009 Fed- Djoko
2008 Nadal - Djoko
2007 Nadal - Djoko
2006 Nadal - Djoko


So the reality is, in fact, that Nadal and Djoko have been put on the same side of the draw more often than Fed and Djoko - This is opposite to what you say above and proves your inept blindness to reality. Fed and Djoko could get put in the same half this year and next year and all it would do is even it up. You're turning your posts into pure lies now.

What lies, i was talking about how Djoko and Fed get put in the same half of almost every slam in recent years, I was not aware of the exact numbers at RG I was talking about grandslams in general, so check your aggressive tone at the door buddy.

and I'd wager more than 16 by this time in 2 years)..
-----------------------------------------------------

Seifer I really couldn´t let that little bit of fantasy go by without making some sort of comment.

Let us for one minute pretend that in the next 2 years Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and a few more in the top 10 at the moment have retired.
Whilst you are up there in cloud cuckoo land have you given a thought to the fact that the "old man" will not be sitting at No.1. and adding more to his tally of Grand Slams. whilst the new young talent coming through the ranks sit back waiting for him to retire.
I think you need a reality check.

laverfan wrote:SoCal you probably need to have bit of perspective.

Do these numbers mean anything to you for example, 1024, 789, 535, 457?

Let me know when you figure these out and then we can further discuss.

There are a couple more like 1310, 1073, etc.

Don't get it?

socal1976 wrote:I was talking about grandslams in general

When you specifically mentioned the French Draw rigging committee and Guy Forget, you were actually talking about grandslams in general?

socal1976 wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:"I would like to see that because Roger is going to have a real tough time defending his 1000 points at RG if he gets Novak in his half like they always do. Count on it"

Hmm, lets actually look at reality shall we:

Djokovic drawn in same half as either Fed Nadal since 2006 at RG:

2011 Fed- Djoko
2010 Nadal - Djoko
2009 Fed- Djoko
2008 Nadal - Djoko
2007 Nadal - Djoko
2006 Nadal - Djoko


So the reality is, in fact, that Nadal and Djoko have been put on the same side of the draw more often than Fed and Djoko - This is opposite to what you say above and proves your inept blindness to reality. Fed and Djoko could get put in the same half this year and next year and all it would do is even it up. You're turning your posts into pure lies now.

What lies, i was talking about how Djoko and Fed get put in the same half of almost every slam in recent years, I was not aware of the exact numbers at RG I was talking about grandslams in general, so check your aggressive tone at the door buddy.

WHAT!!!!!!!!

that is not what you said - read your own quote above! refers specifically to RG! absolutely disgraceful post. I was not being aggressive, but i certainly feel like it when faced with such obtuse comments

RG is surely the relevant tournament here - you really do owe me an apology if you had any decency.

Given that you can't even articulate what you mean yourself, its little wonder you wildly misinterpret what other people say. I think you would benefit from trying to be more mature and measured in how you conduct yourself.


I'll remind you of an earlier post before i pointed out reality above:
"PLEASE GOD, LET THE FRENCH DRAW RIGGINING COMMITTEE AND THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE OF UNCLE TONI, THE FREE MASONS, AND GUY FORGET PUTH THE ROG IN NOVAK'S HALF AT RG. OR LET NOVAK SEE ROGER IN THE FINAL THAT WOULD BE EVEN BETTER.
"

I'm being very kind to take what you say in your reply above at face value, as to be honest i would be justified in thinking that you were indeed referring to RG all the time and are now just childishly trying to save face.

socal1976 wrote:
What lies, i was talking about how Djoko and Fed get put in the same half of almost every slam in recent years, I was not aware of the exact numbers at RG I was talking about grandslams in general, so check your aggressive tone at the door buddy.

Is the irony of this post deliberate or does this just come naturally?

Sorry, tom don't agree with you and don't see a basis for any apology. I was talking about the general tendency we have all mentioned over the years of fed and Novak being put in the same half. There is no intent to lie and you are the one pulling out accusations that are unfounded.

Instead of worrying about semantics why don't you address the actual tennis aspect. We have seen much talk about Roger recapturing the #1 is that realistic in light of his and Nadal's recent woes against Djokovic?

Translation:

As I have once again dug a hole the size of the Yucatan crater, can we change the subject?

socal1976 wrote:Sorry, tom don't agree with you and don't see a basis for any apology. I was talking about the general tendency we have all mentioned over the years of fed and Novak being put in the same half. There is no intent to lie and you are the one pulling out accusations that are unfounded.

Instead of worrying about semantics why don't you address the actual tennis aspect. We have seen much talk about Roger recapturing the #1 is that realistic in light of his and Nadal's recent woes against Djokovic?

In my opinion you are now acting like a child - its in plain English what you said, its in plain view how you reacted. Its a kin to catching a child with a chocolatey spoon in their mouth and then listening to them tell you how they haven't eaten any chocolate.

bogbrush wrote:Translation:

As I have once again dug a hole the size of the Yucatan crater, can we change the subject?

Is that the Yucatan crater specifcally, or large impact craters in general?

JHM

Whatever.... just dont carry on digging

What hole are u talking about BB?

Tom what is it that your are trying to establish with your line of reasoning? Do you believe that I am dishonest because I wished to have Federer put into Novak's half "like they always do" is a lie? How is that, when there has been so much talk about Novak and Fed being in the same half AT SLAMS, that is the logical inference i was relying on the reader to make and you seemed to be the only one to take it so literally.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Translation:

As I have once again dug a hole the size of the Yucatan crater, can we change the subject?

Is that the Yucatan crater specifcally, or large impact craters in general?

It's different in nature; it's a very large hole but done without making any impact whatsoever.

socal1976 wrote:

Tom what is it that your are trying to establish with your line of reasoning? Do you believe that I am dishonest because I wished to have Federer put into Novak's half "like they always do" is a lie? How is that, when there has been so much talk about Novak and Fed being in the same half AT SLAMS, that is the logical inference i was relying on the reader to make and you seemed to be the only one to take it so literally.

There is no need for a logical inference, as you literally were referring to RG. This is, quite simply, because you were talking about AT RG, rather than AT SLAMS! - i wonder what realm of logic you refer to in your response above, when you specifically mention RG in the same sentence as putting Djoko and Fed together an then talk about draw rigging at RG in another post about putting Djoko Fed together, the logical inference (if any were needed) would indeed be to assume that you were referring to RG.

The inference from what you say above that i CAN make is that if you rely on other posters to make leaps of faith beyond reasonable logic to follow the thought behind your posts, then you must be at significant risk of not literally listening to other posters and therefore must also be at risk of mass mis-interpretation of what people say. It adds weight to the feelings of others who say you misinterpret what they write.

I suggest you may want to tidy it up a bit, if you want people not to naturally fall at odds with you on this forum, as you are effectively forcing their hand if you continue in this manner.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I was talking about grandslams in general

When you specifically mentioned the French Draw rigging committee and Guy Forget, you were actually talking about grandslams in general?

I don't think i was the only one to take it literally - you may have misinterpreted JM's quote above differently. In case you have and just to clear it up, JM is (IMO) indirectly indicating above that he also took what you wrote literally referring to RG, so you are incorrect in stating that i was the only poster to take you literally.

I still feel you owe me an apology.

Tom, I don't feel like I owe you an apology if I did I would be the first to acknowledge my mistake. You accused me of being a liar on what was a misunderstanding about the point I was making. Who owes who an apology? I didn't attack you or insult you what exaclty have i done that is shocking?

I just don't find this line of reasoning very rewarding, unless you believe that I had dishonest intent with my comment if that is the case then I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

socal1976 wrote:Tom, I don't feel like I owe you an apology if I did I would be the first to acknowledge my mistake. You accused me of being a liar on what was a misunderstanding about the point I was making. Who owes who an apology? I didn't attack you or insult you what exaclty have i done that is shocking?

I just don't find this line of reasoning very rewarding, unless you believe that I had dishonest intent with my comment if that is the case then I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

I said "You're turning your posts into pure lies now."

that is not an accusation, that is the literal truth of your post regarding RG and Fed-Djoko always being in the same half - its how you wrote it and so my point holds as fact using the english language. I did not accuse you of being a liar per-se, nor do i think you are one - i question your ability to absorb reality.

You on the other hand did accuse me of being aggressive in tone, which i was not being. Dismissive, maybe, but not aggressive.