Can Nole win 7 Australian Opens?

Yes or no?

Can't you put more pictures up of your sister?

bogbrush wrote:Can't you put more pictures up of your sister?

bogbrush wrote:Can't you put more pictures up of your sister?

I don't have sisters, just brothers.

jersey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Can't you put more pictures up of your sister?

I don't have sisters, just brothers.

Did they have a sex change then or had breast implants?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

jersey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Can't you put more pictures up of your sister?

I don't have sisters, just brothers.

Did they have a sex change then or had breast implants?

They are straight, unlike your father.

Jersey.. please do not dig a hole for yourself. PM for you.

Who wants to take the poll now?

I would vote "no". I think he already won his last AO.

summerblues wrote:I would vote "no".  I think he already won his last AO.

Now if your prediction is correct you may lay claim to the title of Nostrafreakingdamus. But I got a feeling you will be disappointed, although I did think Jersey my fellow Djoko fan deserved a shout out since he to was ridiculed for what at the time seemed a laughable number. So Jersey, if you are around drop in to say hi, you weren't far off.

The question for the analysts is why is Djokovic's record so good at the Australian Open and not as good elsewhere.  Has it something to do with the surface, the heat, the beginning of the year, preparation for the new season?

AO Wins: 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016
FO Wins: None (runner up 2012, 2014, 2015)
Wim Wins: 2011, 2014, 2015 (runner up 2013)
USO Wins: 2011, 2015 (runner up 2007, 2010, 2012, 2013)

In particular why is there such a difference between his Australian and US Open record?

I'm SURE he is good for a few more, health & fitness being OK, however I would like to see Andy pick up at least one of them as he has been trying for a while now with a few finals but no joy, as yet!

Nore Staat wrote:The question for the analysts is why is Djokovic's record so good at the Australian Open and not as good elsewhere.

Perfect surface for him. Medium to slow, with a regular, high bounce.

Also RLA doesn't tend to be as breezy as Flushing Meadows (which can be very windy indeed).

Novak's record at USO actually isn't that much worse than in Australia. He's played the same number of finals but where he's unbeaten in Oz, he lost 4 finals at USO.

USO is the odd slam in some ways. Nobody has defended the title there since since Fed in 08.

Nore Staat wrote:The question for the analysts is why is Djokovic's record so good at the Australian Open and not as good elsewhere.

The real question for the analysts is: Is jersey's sister fit?

HM Murdock wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:The question for the analysts is why is Djokovic's record so good at the Australian Open and not as good elsewhere.

Perfect surface for him. Medium to slow, with a regular, high bounce.

Also RLA doesn't tend to be as breezy as Flushing Meadows (which can be very windy indeed).

Novak's record at USO actually isn't that much worse than in Australia. He's played the same number of finals but where he's unbeaten in Oz, he lost 4 finals at USO.

USO is the odd slam in some ways. Nobody has defended the title there since since Fed in 08.

Federer's best surface / court conditions were grass - and it seems to me this was mainly associated with his movement on the court --> a slightly slippery surface.

With what you have said it suggests that a peak Federer was also better able to take account of variable bounce and conditions which contained greater uncertainty in them, whereas a peak Djokovic is less able to handle those conditions. But a peak Djokovic is better able to take advantage of conditions that are more predictable especially on a medium to slow surface.

We know what separated a peak Federer to a peak Nadal (Nadal was essentially a clay court specialist), but it is less clear what distinguishes a peak Federer from a peak Djokovic. However by analysing these types of differences in their record one can disentangle the differences.

Rafael Nadal: clay court specialist able to adapt to other surfaces at his peak, with a kryptonite tactic against Federer.
Novak Djokovic: medium to slow court specialist, able to take best advantage of predictable conditions.
Roger Federer: medium to fast court specialist, able to best handle more variable conditions.

Shane to see this hijacked by a couple of idiots but I think Nole might win 8 or 9 Injuries permitting

temporary21 wrote:Shane to see this hijacked by a couple of idiots but I think Nole might win 8 or 9 Injuries permitting

You know like I do you can't insult posters.

The thread is years old and it's all banter.

Make hay, not war

No insults. Just banter. Remember

In the words of John Cena....Rise above Hate

Roman Reigns 4lyf bro he gonna cut AJ in half

The original June 2012 poll was:
Yes: 2
No: 7

that makes sense... it looks close to inevitable now

temporary21 wrote:Roman Reigns 4lyf bro he gonna cut AJ in half

I hope not.

#BulletClub4Life

No chance they gonna interfere with Finn and cost AJ the belt.

I shouls really start psoting on the wrestling forum

temporary21 wrote:No chance they gonna interfere with Finn and cost AJ the belt.

I shouls really start psoting on the wrestling forum

Cost the cack that is the Roman Empire!

Nore Staat wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:The question for the analysts is why is Djokovic's record so good at the Australian Open and not as good elsewhere.

Perfect surface for him. Medium to slow, with a regular, high bounce.

Also RLA doesn't tend to be as breezy as Flushing Meadows (which can be very windy indeed).

Novak's record at USO actually isn't that much worse than in Australia. He's played the same number of finals but where he's unbeaten in Oz, he lost 4 finals at USO.

USO is the odd slam in some ways. Nobody has defended the title there since since Fed in 08.

Federer's best surface / court conditions were grass - and it seems to me this was mainly associated with his movement on the court --> a slightly slippery surface.  

With what you have said it suggests that a peak Federer was also better able to take account of variable bounce and conditions which contained greater uncertainty in them, whereas a peak Djokovic is less able to handle those conditions.  But a peak Djokovic is better able to take advantage of conditions that are more predictable especially on a medium to slow surface.

We know what separated a peak Federer to a peak Nadal (Nadal was essentially a clay court specialist), but it is less clear what distinguishes a peak Federer from a peak Djokovic.  However by analysing these types of differences in their record one can disentangle the differences.

Rafael Nadal: clay court specialist able to adapt to other surfaces at his peak, with a kryptonite tactic against Federer.
Novak Djokovic: medium to slow court specialist, able to take best advantage of predictable conditions.
Roger Federer: medium to fast court specialist, able to best handle more variable conditions.

That is a fair breakdown. I think the USO's wind plays a big role like Murdoch states. But IW and Miami are also both pretty windy conditions as well, IW is like a few miles from a huge wind farm. I think that the little bit of extra bounce at AO helps him to really clamp down when he needs to play defense it becomes almost impossible to hit through him on that court unless you go beast mode for 3 hours. Few players can pull it off.

Nore Staat wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:The question for the analysts is why is Djokovic's record so good at the Australian Open and not as good elsewhere.

Perfect surface for him. Medium to slow, with a regular, high bounce.

Also RLA doesn't tend to be as breezy as Flushing Meadows (which can be very windy indeed).

Novak's record at USO actually isn't that much worse than in Australia. He's played the same number of finals but where he's unbeaten in Oz, he lost 4 finals at USO.

USO is the odd slam in some ways. Nobody has defended the title there since since Fed in 08.

Federer's best surface / court conditions were grass - and it seems to me this was mainly associated with his movement on the court --> a slightly slippery surface.  

With what you have said it suggests that a peak Federer was also better able to take account of variable bounce and conditions which contained greater uncertainty in them, whereas a peak Djokovic is less able to handle those conditions.  But a peak Djokovic is better able to take advantage of conditions that are more predictable especially on a medium to slow surface.

We know what separated a peak Federer to a peak Nadal (Nadal was essentially a clay court specialist), but it is less clear what distinguishes a peak Federer from a peak Djokovic.  However by analysing these types of differences in their record one can disentangle the differences.

Rafael Nadal: clay court specialist able to adapt to other surfaces at his peak, with a kryptonite tactic against Federer.
Novak Djokovic: medium to slow court specialist, able to take best advantage of predictable conditions.
Roger Federer: medium to fast court specialist, able to best handle more variable conditions.

That is a fair breakdown. I think the USO's wind plays a big role like Murdoch states. But IW and Miami are also both pretty windy conditions as well, IW is like a few miles from a huge wind farm. I think that the little bit of extra bounce at AO helps him to really clamp down when he needs to play defense it becomes almost impossible to hit through him on that court unless you go beast mode for 3 hours. Few players can pull it off.

Some - not me of course - would remark that it was somehow symbolic that Federer might take the record showing his best event was Wimbledon, Nadal the French, ....... and Djokovic gets the Australian.

bogbrush wrote:Some - not me of course - would remark that it was somehow symbolic that Federer might take the record showing his best event was Wimbledon, Nadal the French, ....... and Djokovic gets the Australian.

Yes, I mean Federer is the best on the faster surfaces, Nadal on clay, and Novak on slower hardcourts. It is interesting that they all sort of have a niche although they can step up and beat the other guys off of their best surface. Fed v. Djoko FO comes to mind, Djoko v. Fed at USO or Wimby, Nadal v. Fed at wimby. But it is interesting that the three giants of this period in terms of slams and being number 1 are dominant within their niches.