There is only one King of Clay and that can't be a joker

First topic message reminder :

Rafa came firing after the rain break and inspite of Djoko doing his best scummbed to pressure by double faulting at the match point.

Its not joke this guy won 7 slams in a row or utter dominance and holds 52-1 record, Rafa means business in clay, congrats Novak you did your best with some stunning comebacks in the tournament and saving 4 match points against Tsonga but everybody have to go down to the King of Clay.

Vamous Rafa, The King reigns.

lydian wrote:The top and bottom of it was that outside of the heavier rain Djokovic was never in the match. Just shows what type of conditions he needs to push Nadal on clay...conditions he's not likely to get again.

What are you talking about I am sick of this crap your guy won but you have take the one set Novak won away from him. It is a load of garbage. It was raining before the match, it was raining off and on when Nadal went up two sets, and it was raining when he lost 8 games in a row. So let me get this straight when it rains and Nadal wins it is because Nadal is good, when it rains and Nadal starts losing it is because of the rain and not anything his opponent did. You have been way overboard with some of your comments lydian. The guy won the match, but he struggled. You people act like it all of sudden starting raining and Novak started winning it was raining before the match, when Rafa won two sets and when he lost a set. But I know there is a strain of thought that you seem to agree with that Novak only wins against fedal when lucky and he doesn't quite deserve his success because he isn't roger or Nadal. But I find this argument to be completely divorced from the facts of what acutally happened and I can't tolerate it anymore. If Rafa could have beaten Djoko in 3 sets then he damn well should have. Well we hear all this before the match about how great Nadal's form is. Now he struggles against Djoko and wins and still you can't even give the guy credit for winning a set.

Socal Novak did win a set without a doubt.Because Rafa was allowing himself to be distracted at the very moment that Nole found some form. Im not saying thats lucky .. Im saying thats tennis
If you are honest you would say that Rafa got off to a flying start in the first set and took advantage of the "nerves" that Nole was obviously feeling.. Nole was tense and unusually for him took a long while to settle.
BUT every commentator I listened to and I was fortunate to have it on two channels here agreed that the wetter the court became the more the match would swing in Nole´s favour. (No it wont have in the history books that the weather played any part in the match but it did). If the match had continued from that point I was of the belief that Nole would win it. It was affecting Rafa´s top spin shots and he could get no depth on his shots Rafa was frustrated and tense so Nole was having a field day.
But when they came back yesterday and the conditions were dryer.. there was only going to be one winner socal and Nole´s demeanour from the moment he came back on court looked like he hadn´t the belief he could do it.
The disappointment was for all to see .. but your boy held it together with due credit to him.. how hard that must have been for him to see Rafa with his family and friends . And worse to finish on a double fault.
Rest assured socal... the clay court season is now over... and Rafa has to prove himself all over again.

Haddie, why then did he win the first two sets in the rain if the wet conditions hurt him so much? I have played in a drizzle. Do you know how long it takes for the balls to blow up like watermelons about 5 minutes. It was off and on raining all day, even when Nadal was winning easily. And when they came back today it also rained for a few games. Commentators don't all was say the whole story or make intelligent comments. It is also harder to hit through the court which helps Nadal's defense as well. So it is double edged sword. I have played in damp conditions on clay and balls get pretty heavy pretty fast so why with the wet court and conditions if it hurt him so much did Nadal win the first two sets?


There is a strain on this site who tries to downgrade all of Novak's accomplishments unfortunately both Lydian it seems and BB fall into that category. Nadal won, Novak got a set and made him work, why do you have to pretend that the match was actually not close and only Novak was helped by the delays. Did it help him today?

Socal Rafa wanted that match stopped a half hour before..they had already had one break and they never covered the court.. the court was becoming more and more water logged and you saw yourself Novak slipped a couple of times.
The balls WERE becoming heavier .. you have played in damp conditions.. come on Socal do you rely on the spin that Rafa gets on his shots in normal conditions. I think not.
You say it helps Rafa´s defence... that is precisely it isn´t it he was trying to be more aggressive and to attack.

And for the record Socal I am not pretending anything.. I saw that match as well as you.. yes Rafa was made to work and as Ive already mentioned had the rain continued and they had played in those conditions I think Nole would have won.
Above that Im not admitting to anything else... yesterday Rafa beat a sub-standard Nole who In my opinion did not have the belief he could actually win that YESTERDAY.
Your loyalty is admirable and I give you credit. But dont attack me Socal Rafa was a worthy winner.. even more so if you are of the belief your boy played his best.

I didn't attack you Haddie, I think Lydian and BB's comments were unfair and overboard. Either way I don't take credit away from Rafa. He won deserved it regardless of the conditions. But this whole, idea that it should have been straight sets and Novak got lucky. Whatever that is like the last insult to injury. It was raining on and off all day. Why didn't it kill Nadal's game in set 1 and 2? Logic is logic, Haddie. I didn't say novak would win, I just said he served like crap in the first two sets. Either way Rafa deserved it. I don't know how many ways I have to reiterate the obvious. He was the better player in that match and all clay court season.

O Socal because the court was not so water logged in set 1 and 2 .. they had already been off in torrential rain and the officials never bothered to cover the courts as they did the second time. Rafa threw a ball at the umpire telling him that the NEW balls were water logged and dirty. Visibility became bad and it was becoming sticky underfoot. They were both asked whether to postpone they both agreed. Rafa was attacking Nole in the first two sets... but from then on he was forced to defend .,.because he could not get any length on his top spin shots... Nole did what was expected he took advantage. Hence Rafa´s obvious frustration. Plus I believe if anything that Nole was even more nervous than Rafa.

socal1976 wrote:What are you talking about I am sick of this crap your guy won

Djokovic won a set. He did well.

BUT...come on socal, lets look at what happened because its very clear that set he won came under very extraneous conditions.

1. Nadal was in control of the match up to the first rain delay.
2. Yes it had been drizzling for some time but not to an extent where it was affecting the dynamics of the court or the balls - it was fine drizzle. As Haddie also said.
3. However, towards 2-0, 3rd set the rain came down heavier and they had to leave the court.
4. THIS BIT IS IMPORTANT...they did not cover the court for the 35 minutes of heavy rain whilst they were away.
5. They come back to play...the court is waterlogged, pools of water on the tarpaulin at the back where balls drop after hitting the backboards, etc.
6. Those conditions clearly unsettled Nadal and enabled Novak to come back into the match...Nadal knew the conditions were not clay conditions. He described how the balls were soaking wet, full of clay. You call that clay court conditions? And since when does Nadal lose 8 games on a trot to anyone on clay? Even Djokovic. On normal clay? No way.
7. When they came back yesterday, it was dry (mainly). Novak served at 69% first serves yet got broke twice.

Its obvious to anyone that the rain completely changed the dynamic of the match...not the rain-break...the rain itself.
Just about every report I've read about the match reflects this point.
Even Novak himself says the first break was an advantage to him...obviously!!!
So ok, Novak did well to get that set but you are deluding yourself if you think he won that under normal clay conditions.
Under normal(ish) clay conditions Nadal won that match 6-4, 6-3, 6-2 (2-0 restart on Monday plus the way the games went).

The match should have never been restarted after 2-0 in the 3rd but was only done so to keep the media companies happy.
The French organisers have been a disgrace all event. They should have even started at 11am or 12pm French time on Monday.
They're clueless.

No as a Nadal fan I believe we are attributing too much of the 3rd set to rain. Yes it meant Rafa had less topspin BUT:
- Novak played very well; huge serving which anyone would struggle to deal with and ridiculously accurate ground strokes.
- Relentless- Djoko kept up this ridiculous play for 8 games, an incredible feat to play so well for so long!
- Nadal went into a shell- Yes it wasn't the best conditions for him but this doesn't excuse the fact he started serving to Djokos backhand and standing too far back behind the baseline, irrelevant of the weather. If he had served into his body as he did earlier he could have had more control of the servic points.
- This has happened before- Djoko going on fire followed by Rafa retreat for 6 games or so has happened before- eg US 2011.

Fair points IMBL...but the fact is that Nadal lost his head at the conditions...which meant his focus on returns, serves, shots, etc. went west too. Nadal was far behind the baseline yesterday...thats what he does on clay.
Yes, well played Djokovic. At the end of the day, it doesnt matter, Nadal won the match.

Look, I'm not a Djokovoc anti-fan...he did well to come back after the rain break to play well. Fair enough. My only point is that it wasnt clay court tennis really in the 3rd. Infact I'm not sure I've ever seen play in conditions on clay quite as bad as those in 20+ years of watching clay matches. Even Hamburg was never that bad.

It Must Be Love wrote:No as a Nadal fan I believe we are attributing too much of the 3rd set to rain. Yes it meant Rafa had less topspin BUT:
- Novak played very well; huge serving which anyone would struggle to deal with and ridiculously accurate ground strokes.
- Relentless- Djoko kept up this ridiculous play for 8 games, an incredible feat to play so well for so long!
- Nadal went into a shell- Yes it wasn't the best conditions for him but this doesn't excuse the fact he started serving to Djokos backhand and standing too far back behind the baseline, irrelevant of the weather. If he had served into his body as he did earlier he could have had more control of the servic points.
- This has happened before- Djoko going on fire followed by Rafa retreat for 6 games or so has happened before- eg US 2011.

For the most part I agree but it only confirm what i have said Rafa went into the defensive mode where before he had been attacking. Where does he go (too often for my liking) when he is firing of the back foot .?.10ft behind the baseline.. the heavy balls were falling short and Nole was putting them away.He made an effort to serve wide to Nole´s backhand to keep him pinned back.. it didnt work and I agree he should have stayed with the body serve Nole is more dangerous when he plays off both wings. However it plainiy did have something to do with the conditions because it affected the way Rafa was thinking if not the way he played.

It Must Be Love wrote:No as a Nadal fan I believe we are attributing too much of the 3rd set to rain. Yes it meant Rafa had less topspin BUT:
- Novak played very well; huge serving which anyone would struggle to deal with and ridiculously accurate ground strokes.
- Relentless- Djoko kept up this ridiculous play for 8 games, an incredible feat to play so well for so long!
- Nadal went into a shell- Yes it wasn't the best conditions for him but this doesn't excuse the fact he started serving to Djokos backhand and standing too far back behind the baseline, irrelevant of the weather. If he had served into his body as he did earlier he could have had more control of the servic points.
- This has happened before- Djoko going on fire followed by Rafa retreat for 6 games or so has happened before- eg US 2011.

Bravo good post IMBL, I love how I am trying to take credit away from Rafa by saying that the scoreboard accurately reflected the play of the players and no it wasn't a much more one sided match that Novak got a lucky set because of the rain. Lydian I assume you have played in wet conditions being a tennis player in Europe. How long and how hard does it have to drizzle before the balls get really heavy? From my experience not very long at all. And it was raining all damn day, it was raining when Nadal was winning, it was raining when he was losing. Even Nadal said it when they stopped the match, I heard it from HIS OWN MOUTH WHY STOP IT NOW IT IS THE SAME AS AN HOUR AGO, YES AN HOUR AGO WHEN HE WAS WINNING AND IT JUST STARTED TO GO BAD FOR HIM.

While it is very difficult to get the ball up it is also difficult to hit through the court which was what Novak was trying to do the whole match. You know what Lydian and BB, I welcome to your own fantasy world. yes Novak won in 2011 because Rafa was down, he only won Australia 2008 because Roger had Mono i mean back then no one else mattered on the tour, he only wins because of slowed conditions. It is the same tripe BB and Tenez tried to sell us in slightly different packaging about Nadal for many years now about Novak. It is a shame that now lydian joins the ranks of those who try to continually take away from another player's accomplishments frankly the last couple days I am dissappointed in your analysis and think it is wrong.

Just let me get straight on this when Novak is winning and it is raining it is because of the rain, when Nadal is winning and it is raining it is because he is good. I just want to figure out what the party line is so I can trumpet it.

socal1976 wrote:It is a shame that now lydian joins the ranks of those who try to continually take away from another player's accomplishments.

See that bolded/underlined word above? That's an important word you added there. A word that says much yet is utter garbage.

Yes it is a shame...a shame you have chosen to extrapolate my words in this way.

Look, we have been arguing about 1 set for 1 match here - not Djokovic's career or past 18mths.

It is frankly and completely unacceptable that you extrapolatively label and position me as someone who CONTINUALLY undermines Djokovic and OTHER PLAYER'S (ie. because you dont just mention Djokovic, you say "ANOTHER PLAYER'S" implying generality).

We can agree to disagree over 1 set in 1 match, thats fine. But dont position or label me in general.

Thank you

frankly the last couple days I am dissappointed in your analysis and think it is wrong.

-------------

I have to say that is exactly how I feel about your analysis socal.
Ive gone to great lengths to be reasonable and understand where you are coming from but truly you are determined to alienate everyone even those who try to be respectful and polite to you.

Ill put it a nutshell Socal frankly I dont care what you think about that match
3/4 sts wet or dry there was only one winner Nadal. Had it been dry it would have been all over in three. Sorry bitter pill to swallow maybe Socal... but thats the consensus of opinion on these threads as I undertstand it.

Subject closed for me at any rate

No for me, based on the whole play 4 sets was the fair result, irrelevant of weather conditions.

Nadal's forehand was just too good when on fire, he defended really well and only hit 5 less winners than Djokovic, hence Nadal deserved to win.
And btw credit to Social cos he was gracious in defeat when his player lost and said Nadal deserved to win. When Nadal beats Federer some people (I'm not going to mention any names) go to a great extent to make excuses which isn't appreciated and bit desperate.

4 sets in those conditions.
3 had there been dry (bearing in mind Rafa´s form in previous matches) However thats my opinion and we will never know will we ????

Yes socal congratulated Nadal´s fans and I acknowledged same However
Some of that has somehow got negated in subsequent generalised posts

But we will have agree to disagree

@Lydian, I wish it was your opinion just about this one set. But frankly lydian your posts at the end of this RG were basically the same crap BB says. And it is nothing more than the window dressing job that him tenez tried to pull on RAfa for years and now you are doing the same thing. Before the match even began I read stuff from you about how Nadal's loss of form was greatly responsible for Novak's rise, funny he didn't have a loss of form against anyone in 2011 not named Novak. Or your comments like win or lose it won't make me like him anymore. Or that his style is so boring all he does is go for the winner up the line when the court is open. Well at least he tries to dictate and play a safe aggressive style. In fact, I don't think I have ever heard a player be critcized stylistically for going up the line, most fans enjoy that aggressive play. Well I had never heard that line of reasoning till you brought it up to criticize novak with.

Maybe lydian the thing that you said in the last few days that peed me off the most was how you hoped Novak didn't win 4 in a row because with slowing conditions he didn't really deserve it. Please, that is right out of the fed apologist playbook for baseless attacks on Nadal except you just inserted Djokovic and recycled it. If Novak won 4 in a row he would have deserved it. He deserved his success in 2011 at AO 2008 despite how you and BB want to demean it. The guy who had to win because his father's life was literally on the line to loan sharks to pay for his coaching deserves it. The guy who practiced during bombings of his town as a child deserves. Maybe more so then the upper class Nadal living in a meditterean paradise or the upper middle class fed living in one of the richest countries in the world.

So like I said I wish it was just one post that i see this disturbing trend.

Haddie-nuff wrote:4 sets in those conditions.
3 had there been dry (bearing in mind Rafa´s form in previous matches) However thats my opinion and we will never know will we ????

Yes socal congratulated Nadal´s fans and I acknowledged same However
Some of that has somehow got negated in subsequent generalised posts

But we will have agree to disagree

Wrong haddie I took away nothing, what I said and I stick by it is that 4 tough sets was a fair scoreline, unless I bow down and agree that Novak should have lost in straights I am taking away credit from Nadal frankly that is ridiculous.

Well haddie if you don't care about my opinion why discuss it with me. I didn't make any excuses for Novak losing although I am sure he would have preffered to have some things to bounce his way that didn't. All I have said is that the scoreline accurately reflected that it was a close match. Rain or no rain. But no I must cowtow to opinion that Novak got lucky and only one a set because of the rain. And if I don't I am bitter. Please I don't buy it.

It Must Be Love wrote:No for me, based on the whole play 4 sets was the fair result, irrelevant of weather conditions.

Nadal's forehand was just too good when on fire, he defended really well and only hit 5 less winners than Djokovic, hence Nadal deserved to win.
And btw credit to Social cos he was gracious in defeat when his player lost and said Nadal deserved to win. When Nadal beats Federer some people (I'm not going to mention any names) go to a great extent to make excuses which isn't appreciated and bit desperate.

Thank you IMBL, there is someone here who has a modicum of fairness. I am accused of trying to take credit away from Nadal by simply stating that 4 tough sets was an accurate scoreline that reflected the competiveness of the match.

What I didn't do:

1. Claim Nadal is a doper
2. Claim that he won because of delay tactics
3. Claim that he is a talentless moonballer who only prevails because of slowed down conditions
4. Or claim that novak on lost because he gets tired due to unfairly slowed conditions

Yet, I must be beaten into submission and admit that Novak got lucky to win a set, that Nadal would have crushed him in straight sets and made him cry like Roger if not for the rain that was going all day long. That is the only way I won't be deemed bitter.

Socal I have so often in the past stood in your corner and there are those on this forum who have "had a go at me for it" they know who they are. I dont like gang fights but neither can I back down from what I believe. I understand and again applaud you for your belief in the player you have chosen to support. I am the last one to deny anyone that .. I fight too if I think someone is bashing Nadal (especially unwarranted). However this argument as to what would have happened if the conditions hadn´t been as they were will rumble on ad infinitum
Nobody knows we all say what we BELIEVE would have happened. I know that Rafa had a superb tournament.... oh yes dont lets bring up about his cushy draw ...again I say Monaco did him a huge favour and some of the seeds he would have met were put out before they got to him. But Novak did not have a good tournament from his very first match..... he came onto court looking decidely shakey in the final .. nerves call it what you will.. but it played a big part. There I leave my analysis because we know the rest was in the lap of the rain gods.. we will never know. I do not want to argue with you socal as I do not wish to argue with anyone on here. We all feel passionate about the game, the players, and the outcome of tournaments. Its not really in anyone´s best interest just to score points. The match is played, and won. Now let the Grass court season begin.
This forum has become such a better place to be.. apart from the odd odball we get sometimes everyone here is on the whole very reasonable in discussion albeit we are bound to have differences of opinion but seldom do I see anything objectionable posted from one poster to another.

Haddie, exactly you have your opinion on the circumstances and I have mine. Why is it that you feel I am bitter when I said Nadal was the better player from start to finish in the clay court season. But it is as if I have to be beaten into submission and must concede that Novak was lucky to win a set that he didn't deserve and just got lucky with the rain. I don't buy that. I do buy Nadal was and is better on clay and had a better tournament. But this last little needle that BB and Lydian want to drive home is logically BS in my mind and I don't need to accept it.

I will restate my position Novak lost to the better player on the day and on the surface but he made Nadal work for it and he didn't just get crushed and should of lost in straight sets if not for the rain. The same person who says that is also the guy who spends countless threads accusing Nadal of cheating and unfairly winning do to slowed down conditions. Do you now find his arguments objectionable when directed at Nadal, do you now find the same arguments when directed at Novak to be ok.

IMBL : I do believe there's often a very fine line between 'excuses' and 'analysis'. We know as much, not just from forum postings but from press interviews and media comment in general.

As a very recent example, there is a view that Federer could well have won his RG semi last Friday and perhaps even comfortably so. For he it was who managed to break serve first in sets 1 and 2 (in fact in set 2, it was a double break, was it not ...?).

And yet he promptly threw away the hard-won advantage by not holding on to his own serve. Had he 'simply' been able to do so (as he invariably does) then he would have taken a two set lead (though that of itself was no guarantee of victory). But he couldn't - and perhaps that was as much down to the relentless pressure imposed by Djoker as it was down to Fed's own poor play and catalogue of UE's. The factual analysis can sound to some like an excuse, as though intended to detract from Novak's victory ; but ultimately the fact remains that Novak was clearly the better player on the day, and executed his game plan far more efficiently to get himself into the Final.

All that said IMBL ...... I was intrigued by your contrast between the 'gracious in defeat' stance taken by socal, and the excuses allegedly used by others after past Federer losses to Nadal. But in all honesty I can't say I've ever heard a more irrational (or indeed amusing) excuse than the infamous Fognini effect which apparently wrought havoc at a certain semi-final at last year's RG, where the competitors were the same but the outcome somewhat different.

Socal
1. Where have I called you bitter ??? (I would suggest it stems from huge disappointment rather than bitterness)
2. I did find the arguments levelled at both Rafa and Nole over Blue Clay objectionable.
3. I have spent years on 606. 606v2 and Centre Court reading posts from a vitriolic obsessed poster who is now doing it on J606.. accusing Rafa of taking illegal substances When no voice of reason would shut him up.


But this is over ONE MATCH socal .. the only time I recollect that you and I have had a disagreement. Im not aware that I have suggested Nole got crushed... far from it.. Rafa had to work hard as he always does against Nole.. and the joy of winning for Rafa was not just his 7 RG but that he beat Nole in a GS final.
If that makes you feel any better.

Like I said at the time lags, Federer fans accusing me of making excuses for Novak's losses is like the whoore of Babylon calling someone promiscous. How about the lengthy track record of nearly a decade dating back to the original 606 of lame Roger fans excuses?

Bottom line I never made any excuse. I said the better player won period. The argument here lags is that according to some it is obvious and I must concede that even the one set Novak won was due entirely to the rain and was sheer luck. All I have argued from start to finish is that the scoreline accurately reflected a tough match and that no Novak didn't deserve to lose in straight sets.

Here is what I must concede in order to be deemed gracious by some, I must concede that Novak should have lost in straights and got lucky to win the one set that he did. Unless I do that somehow I am making excuses and trying to take something away from Nadal. Do you believe that is a fair proposition lags?

Thats it haddie, we are in agreement here. That is the line of reasoning I have issue with Haddie. BB and Lydian for 24 hours now have been touting this nonsense that this really was straight sets easy match for Nadal and if not for the rain and that nonsense. That is all that I dispute. Nadal is better on clay and deserved the win. But to come out and say that oh it was actually a much easier match and novak should have lost in straights is BS in my mind. That is what I have problem with. From your last response it seems that you aren I have no disagreement.
1. We agree Nadal was the better player and deserved the win
2. It was close match and he was pushed it wasn't a straight set romp that BB and Lydian are tyring to push.

Oh Oh Socal, excuses are silly way of not accepting their hero's loss, Nadal fans give more excuses than Fed or Nole fans, its been a globally accepted one.

So to blame Fed fans on an Nadal appreciation thread for Nadal's success looks seriously out of topic to me. This is a Nadal appreciation thread which has traces of Nole coz he played the finals, so why is Fed even be dragged into this conversation? Fed is irrelevant here.

lags72 wrote:

All that said IMBL ...... I was intrigued by your contrast between the 'gracious in defeat' stance taken by socal, and the excuses allegedly used by others after past Federer losses to Nadal. But in all honesty I can't say I've ever heard a more irrational (or indeed amusing) excuse than the infamous Fognini effect which apparently wrought havoc at a certain semi-final at last year's RG, where the competitors were the same but the outcome somewhat different.

I apologise Lags, I did not try to single out Federer fans btw i did say 'some' not all; I am sure that you are a perfectly fair-minded poster
I was just using my past experience as an example, however I am sure that excuses are made all across the board, I bet if you also look at the boxing and football sections there are excuses from the losing player/teams- hence we have to give credit to Social for admitting the better man won on the day.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Oh Oh Socal, excuses are silly way of not accepting their hero's loss, Nadal fans give more excuses than Fed or Nole fans, its been a globally accepted one.

So to blame Fed fans on an Nadal appreciation thread for Nadal's success looks seriously out of topic to me. This is a Nadal appreciation thread which has traces of Nole coz he played the finals, so why is Fed even be dragged into this conversation? Fed is irrelevant here.

Because the main culprit of trying to paint it like i am trying to make excuses or demean Nadal's accomplishment is a rabid fed apologist who spent years actually trying to demean Nadal's accomplshments. I mean this is bizarro world for years I have defended and pumped up Nadal in front of people like BB and then I am accused by the BB of trying to make excuses and demean Nadal's accomplishment. That is like hitler making fun of someone for funny facial hair and a love of parades. The only reason I mention federer and the lengthy track record of fed fan excuse making, is because the principal person accusing me of excuse making and demeaning Nadal's accomplishments is the biggest offender of that very behavior still posting on this site.

Socal, PM for you

In direct response to your question to me socal : your last paragraph (8.34pm post) is certainly a fair proposition, I have no issue with the specifics there.

I must make this my last contribution for tonight, but I would like to use it to ask you to reflect honestly on why it is that a certain amount of tension has arisen over your postings on this match. Personally I believe it's because your passionate support for Novak (of which certainly no criticism from me) seems to lead you to have needless constant 'digs' at other players and those whom you deem to be their fans, often dragging up stuff from many years back. You then often label these players ("surly press boy" etc), and assumed fans, in a way that it is bound to cause annoyance, and you justify it by saying well that's what others do to me (or words to that effect). Sometimes you owe it to yourself to rise above the silly stuff, surely.....

In short I'm not convinced that anyone has really asked you to concede that Novak was lucky to win the one set. But I do think it's accepted by most that he just didn't have enough on the day to take down Rafa. Last year he was pretty much all over him of course, Novak had all the answers and I've no doubt there will be more days like that again. Meanwhile you have indeed given due credit to Rafa for his impressive performance but if you could just avoid taking a swipe at other players (inc. those who didn't even make it to the Final !) I feel it would bring a whole lot more credibility to your arguments overall.

IMBL : Thanks, no problem

@ Socal like lags said just coz somebody irritated you it doesn't mean you have to irritate other tennis fans by bringing them and their fav player down.

When you come back to normality just read what gibberish you writing and you would then realize what you wrote.

invisiblecoolers wrote:@ Socal like lags said just coz somebody irritated you it doesn't mean you have to irritate other tennis fans by bringing them and their fav player down.

When you come back to normality just read what gibberish you writing and you would then realize what you wrote.

Wrong Invisible coolers, I am actually quite surprised by your lack of fairness. I am accused of demeaning a players accomplishments because i stated that Novak deserved the set he got and didn't get because of the rain. The logic I am asked to accept so as not demean Nadal is that when novak wins it is because of the rain, and when Nadal wins in the rain it is because he is great. It is a load of week old horse poo and no amount of chocolate sauce is going to make me think it is hot fudge sundae. I was among the first to congratulate nadal and have been taken to task because I maintained the match was not a straight set romp in which Novak got a lucky set because of the rain.

And yes I reserve the right to annoy anyone I like with my posts, I have to read some pretty annoying crap from certain segments. Should I just put up with their crap while they continually attack. Wrong you want to attack my favorite player and I will attack yours. That is how it works, I was nice immediately after the match and I was crapped on, no point in being nice to people who don't deserve it and won't return the favor.

socal...once again you extrapolate my posts.

1. You say I said Djokovic didnt deserve to win 4 in a row. Just where did I say that? You are referring to this post of mine...and I quote:

"Yes I also feel the 4 in a row should remain sacred until the surfaces are divergent again. It's become too easy to dominate all the surfaces for some years now...and I'm sure many of the past greats feel that the lack of variety in the game has made it so. I agree that we should embrace specialists...not snuff them out. Tennis used to be far more interesting as the tour moved from one different surface to another."

a) Where do I even mention Djokovic?
b) Where do I say he wouldnt deserve it?
c) This post applies to Federer, Djokovic, Nadal...infact anyone right now.

So once again you stretch my words.

2. Regarding my opinions of Djokovic's game re: drilling of shots up and down lines undermining his achievements. Well these are my personal opinions about his style of play. However, they do not actually undermine his achievements.

3. Regarding my opinion of not liking him anymore win or lose...well again that does not undermine his achievements.

4. Whether he was brought up in abject poverty or with a silver spoon in his mouth does not change his achievements.

5. Regarding my comments of 2011. I have praised his level of play on here. Only a fool wouldnt see the stellar level he had last year.
But yes I also said that Nadal's mental strength in lower 2011 than normal (he has also said this, although I know you dont accept his word). However, I didnt say as you indicate that Djokovic's rise of form was linked to Nadal's issues. More extrapolation. We all know that part (but not all) of Nadal's mental turmoil in 2011 was down to Djokovic's victories over him.

SO....you said I CONTINUALLY undermine his achievements. I refute that. We have been discussing ONE match, ONE set. You are trying to make mountains out of mole hills and getting more and more defensive in the process. I have said 3-4 times now that Djokovic played well for those 8 games...but I stand by my opinion (and Nadal's own) that Djokovic's comeback was catalysed by the rain & break. I dont see that comment as a heinous crime. If you dont agree with that then fine...but lets not spin this into some kind of long-standing personal vendetta I have to undermine Djokovic as that is simply a gross extrapolation. I dont care for the player much but I recognise the stellar achievements he has made in the game the past 18 mths...achievements that made Nadal dig deep within himself until we see the recent emergence of Nadal 3.0.

Lydian, good post

Lydian

On point one, the four straight slam thing that you said does connote to exactly what it is I extrapolated according to you from your post. In summary read the section you have italicized and it means that if Novak won 4 he wouldn't deserve it. Which is precisely what I have issue with.

Now fine, you think that Novak won set 3 because of rain. If that is your position I will state that nadal only won because the umpire saved his ass by pulling Novak off him while he was getting mauled. Not to mention Nadal's lucky as sheet net chord on break point in the 4th set that basically won the match for him. In Nadal's own words:"It is the same as an hour ago why stop it now?"Millions of people heard that statement that you now wish to ignore. I actually don't believe those above two points Novak loses that match to Nadal regardless of those tough breaks, and am just saying that to show you that your position is demeaning to the competitors. Do you think as a Novak fan everything went his way fortune wise? Do you think his play was undeserving of the set he got, what are you trying to say?

As for the up the line thing, it is just a very odd and baseless criticism of Novak stylistically. Most fans find it boring to watch endless cross court rallies and like it when the player takes the risk to change direction over the highest part of the net and go up the line. It was just very odd and bit telling for me that something that is a big positive in the minds of most fans was used by you to criticize his style.

Was it or was it not raining during sets 1 and 2 and set 4 on day 2? Yes it was, how come Nadal won those sets?

In short, I don't have any vendetta with you. But your comments the last few days have been in my mind way biased and wrong. If you like we can leave it at that and you can go back to throwing your lot in with BB, Rafa's newest fan. LOL! In fact the argument you make fails on basic logical principles. If Djokovic won because of the rain why didn't he win the other sets when it was raining?

No my italicised part doesnt mean that at all. It means that 4 in a row is not what it used to be. You need to read properly socal. Really.
Read more closely into that part and you'll see "It's become too easy to dominate all the surfaces for some years now...".
Do you see the "for some years now" bit? That doesnt mean Djokovic does it???
Geez....

Then the rain topic again. You (wrongly) assume the rain was at equal intensity through sets 1,2,3,4. It wasnt. It was merely drizzle before towards the end of set 2...fine drizzle. Not enough to sodden the courts and load the balls with clay - the crucial factor here.

Another crucial fact you omit is they didnt even cover the courts during the 35 min break when it rained hard. So they effectively sent them back out into a swimming pool! And this leads directly to the comment you make which I cant believe you dont get. The very Nadal quote you make when he refers to the fact things were the same an hour ago. This is clear reference, or question, as to why didnt the umpire stop the match an hour ago if he was prepared to stop it at 2-1 in the 3rd....because it was a swimming pool an hour ago just as it was when they stopped play.
Nadal is saying they should never have gone back out!

Look, my comments are my comments...if you want to interpret and extraploate them as undermining Djokovic's achievements then so be it.
Its a free world and this is a tennis forum

Funny Nadal didn't make a big stink when he was up for the play to be stopped, if the courts were a swimming pool an hour ago why did he not complain when he was breezing through the match. And you talk about same intensity of rain. It takes very, very little rain for the balls to get wet and heavy as each time they bounce they pick up more and more moisture and dirt. I have actually played quite often in the conditions of a misty clay drizzly clay court. And it doesn't take much water for the balls to get heavy.

So again it was raining the whole match and it only became an issue when Nadal lost the set? He didn't start complaining until Novak really got on a roll. If it was just as bad an hour ago when he was in the lead then why didn't he make a big stink then?

And I do find your views on the up the line thing quite a bit puzzling. Because most people actually find that to be a big positive and fun to watch in a player. That is the reason I questioned it because it was odd that you would criticize Novak for something that is seen by most fans and commentators as a positive. That is why it lead me to believe that maybe you really don't like the guy at all.

And you did make a great deal of comments about how you quote "blame" Nadal for Novak's rise in 2011. As if the rise of Djokovic again is only due to nadal dropping off or let me take that back is principally due to that reason.


Either way that is the way I feel you are entitled to your opinion but I find quite a big wrong with your posts in the last few days, as I am sure you might find things about my posts objectionable.

I wonder what Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray would make of the heated debate on this thread? Would they even care about people they've most likely never met?

Just saying....

No kemet they probably wouldn't and it won't impact our lives any either but that is the fun in killing time and talking sports.

We're going in circles now.

I dont agree (...e.g the blame Nadal bit is rubbish). You dont agree.
The DTL stuff is also why I dont like Ferrer's play (but like the guy)...IMO that and his play in general is highly effective but metronomic/robotic. Djokovic is the perfect ball machine. But like a machine, he leaves me cold. My opinion, keep or sweep.

So we agree to disagree. That's fine, we're adults and can shake hands.
Its time to move this on.

socal1976 wrote:No kemet they probably wouldn't and it won't impact our lives any either but that is the fun in killing time and talking sports.

As long as there is a sense of perspective here. For me, I have decided a long time ago, that although I enjoy Roger's tennis and become frustrated when he loses, I have to remember that he is a very wealthy man, along with many of the top tennis players and that I am not (wealthy or a top tennis player).

That is the bottom line.

lydian wrote:We're going in circles now.

I dont agree (...e.g the blame Nadal bit is rubbish). You dont agree.
The DTL stuff is also why I dont like Ferrer's play (but like the guy)...IMO that and his play in general is highly effective but metronomic/robotic. Djokovic is the perfect ball machine. But like a machine, he leaves me cold. My opinion, keep or sweep.

So we agree to disagree. That's fine, we're adults and can shake hands.
Its time to move this on.

Ferrer? ok I don't see the comparison. But I mean as long as I remember a player was commended and seen as being swashbuckling from the up the line play. I mean I remember that was Connors and Agassi's thing and what was often talked in glowing terms about them was that they went up the line a lot. Either way, it is fine we can agree to disagree I really don't see your rationale recently being valid. Lets leave it at that.

Honestly speaking I dont know whats the argument here, I tried to follow up the post, and this what I see

Socal is angry coz some sections denied of Nole's work ethics by claiming his 1st as a fluke, before the rain came It looked like Nadal would unleash a bagel to Nole in the 3rd set, however things changed drastically once they cameback.

Nole actually played well, but the issue is his best falls short of Nadal's best on clay specifically Roland Garros, Nole exceeded my expectations of him thou in this tournament.

Whether Nole was lucky to win the 4th set or not is out of question coz it didnt vary the end result and hence I dont see much point in the debate, the worst is I don't see any point in brining Fed into this debate coz he didn't qualify for the finals and hence he doesnt qualify for the discussion either.

Inivisible I explained to you why it is fed was brought into the debate. The guy raising the stink about me demeaning Nadal's accomplishments makes a living of doing that after Nadal beats FEd and has done so for years. In fact he is the king or at the least the crown prince of demeaning Nadal's accomplishments, and has done that repeatedly post fed matches over many years. So for him to take issue with me in stating that the scoreline accurately reflected the competiveness of the match as quote "demeaning" Nadal's accomplishments is well a bit laughable. On how we see the match IC I don't see much disagreement.

I mean is it not logical of me to call into question the nearly decade long history of a certain poster whose singular goal was to demean Nadal's accomplishments post fed matches when that same poster accuses me of demeaning Nadal's accomplishments? Wouldn't that cause you to go wait a minute and remind said poster of his own personal history of post Nadal match excuse making and demeaning which goes far beyond anything I have done.