Day 16 - Men's Singles Final continued

Mad for Chelsea wrote: Greatest clay-courter of all-time, surely?

luciusmann wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote: Does this end your streak of match predicting between Nadal and Djokovic?

Yes, sadly it does but I'm it was close enough.

Winning 4 in a row is shown to be difficult and now we know why Federer nor Nadal never managed it.

What's noteworthy from that match though is that Djokovic gifted Nadal 3 games with double faults and that includes in championship point. This won't be repeated in the other slam matches with Rafa so there is positive here for Djokovic. Anyhow, I did say that if Nadal wins it will be in 4, if Djokovic does, it will be in 5, so I got the sense of how it would be won by either. The killer blow was falling two sets down but if Nadal was going to make a defense of any slam, it would be on clay and sure enough, that's what's happened @ RG.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I will write a groundbreaking summary of the match alongside insightful irrefutable conclusions to be drawn shortly.

Be patient.

I can't wait

For me, it's pretty simple, Rafa at his best on clay is nigh on impossible to beat (just as Fed at his best was on hard-court/grass). Djokovic came back into it a bit when conditions got really heavy, but in "normal" conditions Rafa was imperious. Greatest clay-courter of all-time, surely?

luciusmann wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

luciusmann wrote:... I was simply taking issue with Nadal being clear favourite. ...

Who are we to believe an armchair critic or a 16 times slam champion or the bookies?

Being favorite doesn't mean someone will win.

Being favorite is based on probability.

Probability is not based on a fan's hopes or wishes.

Probability is based on past data and the specifics of the outcomes.

Many of the specifics were based before the match had started so catch up with reality instead of sounding like a broken record. We can now look at what's actually happened and what I referred to as Djokovic's fighting spirit, or what you called Novak Mk.II has come out. You seem to be in denial about the possibility that Nadal can lose from two sets and a break up to love, unprecedented yes but there are historic records are on the line here.

Armchair critic? Please, don't talk rubbish. If I didn't have a track record of calling Djokovic winner many times in his matches with Nadal, first at Wimbledon, then @ the USO and again @ the Aussie Open, your assessment of an armchair critic would be right. The bookies naturally would consider Nadal favourite prior to the match and Federer has lost 5 times to Nadal @ RG, I don't think he's going to think anyone is capable of beating Nadal @ RG. What have you called right? I was happy to leave this but as you don't, let's continue. I said Djokovic would win last year at Wimbledon even before he played Tsonga and even said it would be a final between Nadal and Djokovic (before even Nadal won his semis). Were you on the site then? No need to patronize me ans tell me about probability, I know perfectly well what it is. He isn't clear favourite, before the match he was but certainly not now it's unfolded after 3 hours. Unless you been watching the football or had your eyes closed, you conclusion seems to be based on something out of this world.

Nore Staat wrote: So it would appear you have been speaking twaddle, just like your FEDAL article.

luciusmann wrote:

Nore Staat wrote: So it would appear you have been speaking twaddle, just like your FEDAL article.

Hardly. Nadal needed the win today, Djokovic didn't. This is clay and no one's beaten Rafa when two sets down. Djokovic fought bravely but gifting 3 games on double faults. No one can have predicted that, Djokovic hasn't done that as many times in his other grand slam matches with Nadal and that made the difference. Completely different match if that hadn't happened. Djokovic was in a good position to win this match, Djokovic lost it, more than anything.

My Fedal article was too soon but that's another matter. Twaddle? Maybe to you, but you're full of it. Either way, as a Fed fan this is good for Federer, he still stands a good shot @ No.1 whereas Nadal doesn't and is in good shape to take the No.2 position prior to the USO, all good for Federer.

luciusmann wrote:

Nore Staat wrote: So it would appear you have been speaking twaddle, just like your FEDAL article.

Hardly. Nadal needed the win today, Djokovic didn't. This is clay and no one's beaten Rafa when two sets down. Djokovic fought bravely but gifting 3 games on double faults. No one can have predicted that, Djokovic hasn't done that as many times in his other grand slam matches with Nadal and that made the difference. Completely different match if that hadn't happened. Djokovic was in a good position to win this match, Djokovic lost it, more than anything.

My Fedal article was too soon but that's another matter. Twaddle? Maybe to you, but you're full of it. Either way, as a Fed fan this is good for Federer, he still stands a good shot @ No.1 whereas Nadal doesn't and is in good shape to take the No.2 position prior to the USO, all good for Federer.

Hardly. Nadal needed the win today, Djokovic didn't.

Haddie-nuff wrote:I think you misunderstood me Lman you said that Nadal needed to win (yes he did) and Nole didnt (but here was where I was disagreeing with you) and as I said by the look on his face so was he. Im not saying he wont win any more slams of course he will but will he be poised to take all 4 at the same time.. I think not. Also there was a lot at stake for both players.. aside from 7 wins for Rafa 4 GS for Djokovic.. a lot of pride and prestige was in that match also.

Im not gloating because I like you know that fate is fickle. I do savour the moment because in Rafa´s case I do NOT think he will win it again. And I do not believe his career will be as long as Federers. So I dont need a homily about respect. I respect every one of them.. you cannot have the top 10 players in the world unless you have those that are climbing the ladder behind them.

luciusmann wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:I think you misunderstood me Lman you said that Nadal needed to win (yes he did) and Nole didnt (but here was where I was disagreeing with you) and as I said by the look on his face so was he. Im not saying he wont win any more slams of course he will but will he be poised to take all 4 at the same time.. I think not. Also there was a lot at stake for both players.. aside from 7 wins for Rafa 4 GS for Djokovic.. a lot of pride and prestige was in that match also.

Im not gloating because I like you know that fate is fickle. I do savour the moment because in Rafa´s case I do NOT think he will win it again. And I do not believe his career will be as long as Federers. So I dont need a homily about respect. I respect every one of them.. you cannot have the top 10 players in the world unless you have those that are climbing the ladder behind them.

Fair enough. I just think the desire to want to win is different from whether he needs to win. Djokovic is in his peak years and like all these top players but especially the top 3, he probably thinks he can win 4 in a row....provided he continues as he has in since 2011. That's the big question mark which many posed last year and it's only partly been answered so far this year. I said myself that only one player has followed up winning 3 slams in one year with another 2/3 the following year: Federer. I'm not so sure now, I think Djokovic stands a good chance of winning 2 this year, if not 3. Nadal can stop him on clay, but who else is there on the other surfaces....?

CAS wrote:I think Del Potro will win the US open this year, just a little feeling. He looked like he meant business against Fed, I got some painful flashbacks! Fed is still his nemesis but he may not have to play him to win it

CAS wrote:anyone think Nadal will play Halle this week?

luciusmann wrote:... Twaddle? Maybe to you, but you're full of it. ...

Nore Staat wrote: You say I am full of it because I said Nadal was the clear favorite, being two sets to one up and from a fresh start. I presented arguments and reasoning, you presented emotional fan boy twaddle.