novak is on the attack, and I had too much whiskey dammit

Please excuse the typos and the extended layoff, us small business people have weird schedules. However a couple of scotland's finest exports and I am ready to talk tennis. OUr esteemed collegue murdoch of macallan fame has highlighted the tragic circumstances surrounding Novak and his family. And I feel for the man, he has taken on so much at such a young age, and his father is maybe the most integral figure in his life. I love it when Novak gets heckled and his father gets this look like he wants a piece of the guy. But seriously condolences to Novak and his family.

On the positive end I love how tennis is right now. Novak looks like a machine, the fluidity of his strokes is startling. I have modeled my backhand on his backy, and I have a good one, but he hit some backhands today that had me jumping out of my seat. Particularly, on cross court angles on the dead run, he hit one against berdy where the ball remote conrolled on the corner. What was amazing was that he was completely off the court when he hit it and he hit to the opposite corner.

JJ is now one of my top 5 favorites, I admit it I am a fanboy, he of course proves everything I have been saying. And of course I am never shy about admitting that I am right. This guy is why we need slow conditions, another dozen like him are going to come in the next few years. A certain demonized poster has been talking about the arrival of the super tall fast guy and his impact on the game. Great things happening my frineds.

At the end I want fed v. djoko final as the last match of the season. It is only fitting. Despite my love hate relationship with his highness the Rog, nothing gets my juices boiling like a fed v. Djoko match for all the chips. As a poker player I love those big pots and I get that same twitchy sort of feeling when these two play each other. It is like my heart and pulse go up a gear for the entire course of the match. Thank god Roger is still interested he means so much to the game.

Hello Socal



Novak is looking quite fearsome atm.

Probably the best he's been since Miami.

Perhaps only Federer if he can re-capture some form can stop him.



emancipator

Its fun watching them play my galactic wanderer, we won't be able to see it for long emanci, so we might as well enjoy it as long as we can. Come on Rog and Novak get to the final!

I suspect you might get your wish socal, as I think Federer is a slight favourite against Murray because he's so good indoors. Murray will haven extra days rest, but I'm not sure how much that will mean for Bo3.

What did you think of the Djokovic Murray match the other day socal?

Danny_1982 wrote:I suspect you might get your wish socal, as I think Federer is a slight favourite against Murray because he's so good indoors. Murray will haven extra days rest, but I'm not sure how much that will mean for Bo3.

What did you think of the Djokovic Murray match the other day socal?

I thought that on a hardcourt we were watching the present and future kings of the tour. Novak is back to his 2011, and i think will be better in 2013 barring injury than even 2011 Djoko. Right now he is steadily percolating and building momentun again. One thing Vajda and Djoko have proven beyond a shadow of doubt is that they don't sleep during the offseason.

I actually think Murray is going to beat Fed I think he is better now than at the start of the season, but I would prefer as a Djoko fan to have Novak have one more crack at the maestro as his level has gone up since wimby.

While I think 2013 djoko will be better than 2011, barring injury, that is no guarantee with the field he faces and with murray's improvement in particular that he can as easily run away with all the hardcourt or grass court honors.

Socal, what did you think of the net points? I think Novak won something like 22 out 30 net points! Thirty net points in 3 sets from Novak? And winning 22 of them? Extraordinary. I'm really pleased he is bringing this into his game. It gives him greater options to finish a point early and not every match has to be a war of attrition.

I agree Murdoch, but in every matchup against murray and Nadal he always has more net approaches to both but somehow people seem to believe that he is the least varied of the big 4. Novak knows to beat Andy has to be the aggressor and in all their matchups for the most part, the matches he has won he has been the more aggressive. The one notable exception was AO 2011 semi where Andy was making a concerted effort to live and die with the forehand.

Also his slice backhand is better and he handles slice much easier than he did before because of the fact. Just chipping to Novak, which was so effective up until 2011 just isn't that fruitful of a line of attack most of the time anymore. The one part of his game that is attrocious still and it is psychological is his overheads, Novak maybe the worst overheads of any top 20 player. The serve is becoming more and more lethal so look out ATP tour in 2013 it is going to take a herculean effort to take year end 1 from him if he is fit with his current game.

socal1976 wrote:And I feel for the man, he has taken on so much at such a young age, and his father is maybe the most integral figure in his life. But seriously condolences to Novak and his family.

Novak looks like a machine, the fluidity of his strokes is startling.

At the end I want fed v. djoko final as the last match of the season. It is only fitting.

Thank god Roger is still interested he means so much to the game.

Well said socal, I particularly agree with all the above. Novak has done extremely well to separate personal and professional at this tournament so far, I'm glad his mind is focused as it wouldn't be the same without him in good nick. He's got to be the rampant favourite on current form. It'd be nice to see Federer make the final and maybe even win it! One thing's for sure, regardless of his opposition in the final, Novak's going to have the crowd firmly in favour of his opponent.

Good post Silver I have to agree, it is just great when the 1 and 2 end up playing in the last match of the season. And for my money the intensity of the Novak and Roger rivlarly is a bit unique nowadays in that there is a bit of animosity and history between the two. That is another of the things that has made Novak tough. He almost always has the crowd against him when he plays Nadal and Fed and with Murray in britain he has the same thing. Novak's record against Rog and Nadal is even more impressive considering that pretty much all of those matches have basically been road games for him. Same thing lendl had going on for him in the 80s, the crowd was always against him and he didn't care and revelled in the black hat. Novak doesn't like the black hat I honestly think it hurts him when he isn't the crowd favorite and he rarely is when facing Nadal or Fed and well murray in this tournament will also have a huge crowd edge.

Djokovic playing in a black hat?

You mean this? https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=djokovic+black+hat&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=aNWeUL7TB9Ds0gXo6oGgAg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=768&bih=928#biv=i|1;d|k_81FakJL0ghqM:

He looked happy enough there.

emancipator wrote:Hello Socal



Novak is looking quite fearsome atm.

Probably the best he's been since Miami.

Perhaps only Federer if he can re-capture some form can stop him.



emancipator

I think Federer doesn't have form left in him; he obviously put a lot into getting that #1 ranking back and were seeing a real lack of energy and, more importantly, purpose now. The match against JMDP looked like that of someone who'd have happily been somewhere else.

bogbrush wrote:I think Federer doesn't have form left in him; he obviously put a lot into getting that #1 ranking back and were seeing a real lack of energy and, more importantly, purpose now. The match against JMDP looked like that of someone who'd have happily been somewhere else.

So, players can be short of energy and have a slump now?

Odd, because when I've suggested that Djokovic looked like that at Wimbledon, I've been chastised for pretending the result was not caused on court because the opponent was superior.

The idea that Djokovic was below his best was refuted because he was still making finals and semi finals. Fed's last 3 results? Final, semi final and now semi final at least.

I hope one day I can crack the code of what's a valid opinion and what's not.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I think Federer doesn't have form left in him; he obviously put a lot into getting that #1 ranking back and were seeing a real lack of energy and, more importantly, purpose now. The match against JMDP looked like that of someone who'd have happily been somewhere else.

So, players can be short of energy and have a slump now?

Odd, because when I've suggested that Djokovic looked like that at Wimbledon, I've been chastised for pretending the result was not caused on court because the opponent was superior.

The idea that Djokovic was below his best was refuted because he was still making finals and semi finals. Fed's last 3 results? Final, semi final and now semi final at least.

I hope one day I can crack the code of what's a valid opinion and what's not.

Very strange; you take exception to my suggestion that Federer cannot maintain #1 form. I didn't mention that he was unlucky, or Djokovic was lucky, or Federer handed him #1 or anything. I just pointed out that Federer isn't really able to maintain #1 form for an extended period.

That's his problem, but I suppose he is 31. He wouldn't have suffered this problem in his prime but that's part of the ageing process isn't it.

As for Djokovic, he looked the form horse going into that semi-final, he just it beat by the equal most successful grass court player ever, which doesn't imply anything too awful. Sometimes these guys just lose.

bogbrush wrote:
Very strange; you take exception to my suggestion that Federer cannot maintain #1 form. I didn't mention that he was unlucky, or Djokovic was lucky, or Federer handed him #1 or anything. I just pointed out that Federer isn't really able to maintain #1 form for an extended period.

That's his problem, but I suppose he is 31. He wouldn't have suffered this problem in his prime but that's part of the ageing process isn't it.

As for Djokovic, he looked the form horse going into that semi-final, he just it beat by the equal most successful grass court player ever, which doesn't imply anything too awful. Sometimes these guys just lose.

I really don't take exception to it, I think you are completely correct in what you say! It's clear as day that Fed has slowly been running out of steam probably since the start of the US Open.

What I take exception to is that when a similar observation is made about Djokovic over the clay and grass season, the opinion is labelled idiotic, and the suggestion is that excuses are being made.

You think Djokovic was the form horse at Wimbledon, I think differently. That's fine, opinions differ. But I've at least tried to explain the reasons for my opinion.

Nor have I ever said a certain player is lucky or unlucky. Luck plays a part but luck always plays a part in sport. Over the course of a year though, it is never a deciding factor.

But if we can't apply the same standards of debate to every player, then this stops being a forum and just becomes a pulpit for people to preach from.

HM Murdoch wrote:
But if we can't apply the same standards of debate to every player, then this stops being a forum and just becomes a pulpit for people to preach from.

I think you might be a bit late with that observation!

Talk of fluctuating form is mixed, indistinguishably, with talk of lucky rankings. The former is fair, the latter at best misguided and at worst mischievous.

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:
But if we can't apply the same standards of debate to every player, then this stops being a forum and just becomes a pulpit for people to preach from.

I think you might be a bit late with that observation!

Talk of fluctuating form is mixed, indistinguishably, with talk of lucky rankings. The former is fair, the latter at best misguided and at worst mischievous.

Yes but who's the judge of that? And where is this talk of Federer being lucky? Until yesterday's discussion imploded under the weight of its own semantics, I don't think I've seen any suggestion of it. I've certainly never suggested it myself.

The whole thing seems to be based on "it sounds like" rather than what people actually say.

It's a huge double standard, BB. You can say "Fed is looking tired" or "Novak benefited from Fed's mono in 08" and it's just a 'statement of fact'.

We say "Novak was short on form for some of the year" or "Fed benefited from Novak's poor form at the end of 2011" and it something more sinister.

It's actually been explicitly argued, most recently by socal that Roger got his shot at #1 because Novk had a bad shoulder. This isn't a figment of imagination, it gets said.

I'm not the only one who sees it; emancipator for one called it.

Indeed.. BB, as did Barry, TP, and others.

It's like the player who praises his opponent after losing to him but then in the same breathe exclaims that he was also injured, tired, mentally exhausted, had family problems, devastated by a previous defeat a month ago, and so forth (all of which have been put forward as contributory factors to the scenario being debated).

It doesn't leave much room for credit where it's due.



emancipator

There has been no shortage of credit to Fed!

Anyway, not much more I can say, I've said what I think is unfair and why.

There are much more exciting things happening today that we can talk about!

bogbrush wrote:It's actually been explicitly argued, most recently by socal that Roger got his shot at #1 because Novk had a bad shoulder. This isn't a figment of imagination, it gets said.

I'm not the only one who sees it; emancipator for one called it.

Actually he tore a muscle in his back and was hobbling through the indoor season. Unless you believe those results in the indoor season of 2011 with the multiple withdrawals had nothing to do with this serious injury. Murdoch is correct Federer is treated as if he has a halo and the same standards applied to him are not applied to other players. It is not just a couple of Djoko fans that see it either, Craig, Banbro, and IMBL have all mentioned the same fedophilic double standards.

There is no question that without that crucial injury the Novak of the last two years would not of lost the number 1 ranking. Federer had to be the guy who won all those big titles and was fit and in form enough that of course was the biggest reason for his rise to number 1, but it alone would not have been sufficient if not for one expensive serbian muscle going pop. Both factors were necessary to fed's rise to number 1, its like stating the obvious. That is why Fed had so many points to defend at the end of the year and no hopes of a healthy Djoko not regaining the number at this point in the season.

And how was Djoko the form horse at wimby, he beat up the guys outside the top 4 who he routinely makes minced meat out of. He lost 5 in a row at one point to the top 4 and that signifies that at the highest margins a series of things were causing him to lose his form. Mainly a historic and hard fought loss to Nadal with the rain screwing him to an extent as well. Grandslam losses like that have destroyed lesser players mentally, so nothing either you or I argueing is anything but obvious common sense. There are some who must elevate everything fed accomplishes and dimminish everything his contemporary rivals accomplish. It has been going on for years with Nadal, and now I take it as a major compliment that the same cast of characters is doing it to Novak as well.

HM Murdoch wrote:And where is this talk of Federer being lucky?

I asked a specific question - Was Fed fortunate to get back to No 1.
socal said Yes and IMBL said Yes (although later tried to wriggle out of it saying saying he answered Yes to a different question that no-one asked).

So posters are saying that Fed was lucky, unless we really get into semantics and argue they're actually saying he was fortunate, not lucky.

This luck thing has its converse. Some may say Federer was UNlucky to get mild mono (and that's all it can be described as given his rapidrecovery) at AO'08...ie. Djokovic was therefore lucky Fed got it?
Just like Agassi was lucky Sampras got a bad back for USO99 given Pete had blown Andre away at Wimb99 and was in form of his life. Luck, or rather its converse - unluck, sprouts up from all over the place. But as Gary Player said, the harder he tried the luckier he got. Luck provides provides opportunities but the guys have to be in the right place to capitalise. Say what we will about Federer but he ALWAYS seems to be in the right place, right time. That isn't luck.

socal1976 wrote:...with the rain screwing him to an extent as well.

I was a huge Henman fan, and remember well that Wimby semi against Goran.
Henman, at the time, and maybe still, reckons he would have won if not for the rain.
Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't - we'll never know. We can deal with what if's, maybe, if onlys for ever, but it's better, surely to deal with what actually happened. Otherwise we end up believing with certainty in an outcome that we cannot be certain about.
Henman lost. He didn't get screwed by the rain and I'd never argue that Goran got lucky. If you can't deal with a few variables beyond your control as well as the other player, then tough.

socal1976 wrote:And how was Djoko the form horse at wimby, he beat up the guys outside the top 4 who he routinely makes minced meat out of. He lost 5 in a row at one point to the top 4 and that signifies that at the highest margins a series of things were causing him to lose his form. Mainly a historic and hard fought loss to Nadal with the rain screwing him to an extent as well. Grandslam losses like that have destroyed lesser players mentally, so nothing either you or I argueing is anything but obvious common sense. There are some who must elevate everything fed accomplishes and dimminish everything his contemporary rivals accomplish. It has been going on for years with Nadal, and now I take it as a major compliment that the same cast of characters is doing it to Novak as well.

Yes, he did beat everyone up, which contrasts with the near defeat of Federer to Benneteau and the alarm with Mallisse with his back in trouble. So, yes, he was the form horse going into that semi-final.

As for compliments, there aren't any going around but if they were they'd be to players not posters. We don't actually hit any balls.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:...with the rain screwing him to an extent as well.

I was a huge Henman fan, and remember well that Wimby semi against Goran.
Henman, at the time, and maybe still, reckons he would have won if not for the rain.
Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't - we'll never know. We can deal with what if's, maybe, if onlys for ever, but it's better, surely to deal with what actually happened. Otherwise we end up believing with certainty in an outcome that we cannot be certain about.
Henman lost. He didn't get screwed by the rain and I'd never argue that Goran got lucky. If you can't deal with a few variables beyond your control as well as the other player, then tough.

Indeed; how could the rain have been unlucky for Henman - it was the same for them both and the better player won. Unfortunately, that day.

socal1976 wrote:...with the rain screwing him to an extent as well.

Pfft! The first rain break saved Djokovic from a straight sets defeat and later both players being forced to play on a court that had turned to mud during the rain lead to such unpredictable conditions that luck played a big part. The best player won that match.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:And where is this talk of Federer being lucky?

I asked a specific question - Was Fed fortunate to get back to No 1.
socal said Yes and IMBL said Yes (although later tried to wriggle out of it saying saying he answered Yes to a different question that no-one asked).

So posters are saying that Fed was lucky, unless we really get into semantics and argue they're actually saying he was fortunate, not lucky.

That's a slightly loaded response though, JHM.

My original point was that it's unfair that holding the opinion that Novak was below his best for part of the season was considered synonymous with believing Fed was lucky and that the opinion itself makes me an "idiot". I said all through the clay and grass season that I thought Novak was not at his best but I've never considered Fed's ranking as lucky.

Yet, when we consider drops in form from Fed, it's just viewed as a statement of fact and not a slight against the other players. This is the correct view but why the double standard?

To subsequently conduct a straw poll to find out who thinks Federer was fortunate, and get one and half responses in the affirmative, is really neither here nor there. Aside from being an underwhelming response relative to the general level of ire on the subject, it's not the point I was raising.

Sorry, HM, you asked where the talk of Fed being lucky was, and I pointed out where it was. I didn't realise that wasn't the point you were raising.

As I've said before, posters from all sides, some still here, some back on 606, some no doubt back in the days of Laver and Rosewall, Borg and Connors, Perry and Vines, have argued with double standards.

Every argument that Player A was lucky more than Player B can be countered with a different example of where Player B was lucky more than Player A.
Some fans will always argue that their player is always the most unlucky and that 'what ifs' are objective reasoning through which alternatve outcomes can be stated with absolute certainty.
I happen to think that's a totally flawed approach, subjective, not objective, brought on by the bias of supporting a particular player.

For example, what if Fed did not have mono early 2008 - Djoko could still have beaten him, and Fed's confidence would have been more severely affected, Djoko's confidence greater by beating a fully fit Fed. Djoko might have done even better in his career more quickly.
Maybe Fed was lucky to have mono in 2008 and Djoko was unlucky to have not had the chance to beat him while fully fit.

Or what if Djoko had not injured his back in late 2011 - he might have lost in the 2nd round at Paris (like this year), had a bad WTF and then lost confidence for the AO. Maybe he was lucky to have had a bad back.

For some posters speculation turns into alternate realities that they believe definitely would have happened - which is bizarre.
Better to deal with actual reality.

JHM, I agree with you on "what if" issue. It's futile.

What I think has become silly is not so much the double standard (as you say, t'was ever thus and you can at least call people on it) but the tendency of some posters to assume you have an agenda and tell you what you really mean!

Over on the "Novak back to #1" thread for example, I state that I don't think Fed was lucky, I give quotes from old threads showing I didn't think Fed was lucky.... but I'm told that I am making excuses, I'm just doing it in a clever way! It's madness!

HM Murdoch wrote:...but I'm told that I am making excuses, I'm just doing it in a clever way! It's madness!

It is madness.
Could be worse though - you could be told you're not making excuses, but in a stupid way

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:...but I'm told that I am making excuses, I'm just doing it in a clever way! It's madness!

It is madness.
Could be worse though - you could be told you're not making excuses, but in a stupid way

Ha! I fear that excuse-free and stupid may in fact be my natural style!

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:...with the rain screwing him to an extent as well.

Pfft! The first rain break saved Djokovic from a straight sets defeat and later both players being forced to play on a court that had turned to mud during the rain lead to such unpredictable conditions that luck played a big part. The best player won that match.

Yes we now know the infamous Nadal apologist line about that final. When Nadal wins in the rain it is because he is great when Djoko does it is because of the rain. Funny it was raining before the start of the match and when Nadal won the first two sets. Even Nadal was incredulous when they stopped I quote;"Why stop it now it is the same as an hour ago". Henman Bill said he was at the match and didn't need an umbrella and was hardly getting wet.

Nadal was incredulous that they took so long to stop i.e. "We should have stopped an hour ago".

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:And how was Djoko the form horse at wimby, he beat up the guys outside the top 4 who he routinely makes minced meat out of. He lost 5 in a row at one point to the top 4 and that signifies that at the highest margins a series of things were causing him to lose his form. Mainly a historic and hard fought loss to Nadal with the rain screwing him to an extent as well. Grandslam losses like that have destroyed lesser players mentally, so nothing either you or I argueing is anything but obvious common sense. There are some who must elevate everything fed accomplishes and dimminish everything his contemporary rivals accomplish. It has been going on for years with Nadal, and now I take it as a major compliment that the same cast of characters is doing it to Novak as well.

Yes, he did beat everyone up, which contrasts with the near defeat of Federer to Benneteau and the alarm with Mallisse with his back in trouble. So, yes, he was the form horse going into that semi-final.

As for compliments, there aren't any going around but if they were they'd be to players not posters. We don't actually hit any balls.

Yes you are correct I take the compliment as a compliment to Djokovic. The fed fans don't spend much time denigrating the Berdy's and Tsonga's of the world. If fed fans start saying that your favorite player is boring and only wins because of slowed down conditions there is a fair chance that said player has been beating Roger in recent times and winning major honors.

As I said it is a bit interesting that many of the same people who trotted out the mono 08 line of reasoning are the same who feel so upset when Novak's torn back muscle in 2012 is mentioned as being a crucial factor to fed's rise to number 1. By the way Fed was healthy enough to reach the semis of the AO 08 before losing so he couldn't have been that awful at the time.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Nadal was incredulous that they took so long to stop i.e. "We should have stopped an hour ago".

He was incredulous but that isn't what Nadal said he said "why stop now it is the SAME AS an hour ago". He was implying that the match should have been stopped an hour ago. By the way an hour ago was when he was up 2 sets to none. So like I said when Nadal wins in the rain it is because he is great, when Djoko wins in the same rain it is because of the rain. This line of reasoning has been completely exposed by Henman bill when he said I was at the match and I didn't even need an umbrella and was hardly getting wet.

I was right about Djokovic being the favourite, form player going into the semi-final. Would it be wrong to acknowledge that?
Federer on AO '08 was taken to 9-7 final set by Tipsarevic, who shouldn't have troubled him for any time. He also struggled a bit against James Blake, who was his personal possession.

socal1976 wrote:He was implying that the match should have been stopped an hour ago.

Yes, I agree - that is what he was implying - that the match should have stopped earlier, when he (Nadal) had the momentum. But it wasn't stopped and he lost his head a bit, getting progressively more irritated and distracted.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Nadal was incredulous that they took so long to stop i.e. "We should have stopped an hour ago".

He was incredulous but that isn't what Nadal said he said "why stop now it is the SAME AS an hour ago". He was implying that the match should have been stopped an hour ago. By the way an hour ago was when he was up 2 sets to none. So like I said when Nadal wins in the rain it is because he is great, when Djoko wins in the same rain it is because of the rain. This line of reasoning has been completely exposed by Henman bill when he said I was at the match and I didn't even need an umbrella and was hardly getting wet.

It kept raining and it got wetter. It didn't have to get heavier, the court would soak it up for a while then at so e point it'd get silly.
I think that was Nadals point.

Nadal

Nadal fans think the rain worked against him.
Djoko fans think the rain worked against him.
The record books in 100 years time, when all Nadal and Djoko fans are dead, will be impartial in showing a Nadal win.

Possibly, you could be right about him being the form horse at that point but we both know that what you do in the first week isn't much of an indicator for the federers or Djokovics of the world. If you look at how he played in the clay court season his form was up and down so I don't know if it is correct to say he was the form horse going into the wimby semi. I will agree he had the easiest route to the semi of any of the other big 4 players, but form overrall is a bit more of a subjective call.

I actually agree that Fed in 08 was somewhat diminished at the AO 08, but so what that is one player in a grandslam field as great as he is. That would be like Murray fans feeling the USO is not that great of win because Nadal didn't play. The number 1 is a bit different because it is over the course of weeks and if over the course of weeks one player has a serious injury and the next closest competitor doesn't the next closest guy will be number 1. Either way if it is Ok to mention the fed mono in 08, and I thought that was a fair bit of context then, then it is certainly ok to mention that fed was in 3rd place till the injury bug got a hold of Nadal and Djoko and that without this fact he wouldn't of reached #1 again. He still had to put together the points and results and the younger murray didn't or couldn't so credit to him.

I never bought the AO mono asteriks that many attempted to attach to Djoko's maiden slam, because if Novak's AO win was soft what would you call Thomas Johansson where he didn't beat a single top ten ranked player. But the fact remains that until very recently that was a favorite attack line on Djokovic. That he only won AO 08 because fed had mono, and my retort is so? If that is the case then fed got lucky Djoko popped a muscle in his back because without this fact he would have had a slim to no chance of catching the point consuming machine that Djokovic has become.

socal1976 wrote:But the fact remains that until very recently that was a favorite attack line on Djokovic. That he only won AO 08 because fed had mono, and my retort is so? If that is the case then fed got lucky Djoko popped a muscle in his back because without this fact he would have had a slim to no chance of catching the point consuming machine that Djokovic has become.

If someone said that Djoko would have won AO 2008 regardless, then what would your retort be? (i.e. "If that isn't the case then..."?)

No I just find the double standard interesting that injuries to fed's opponents are deemed irrelevant in analyzing fed's wins but for years the same online posters knocked Djokovic's AO 08 win because fed had mono. So are injuries a valid excuse for fed and not a valid excuse for his opponents? Is it denigrating to mention injuries in regards to fed's opponents while it isn't denigrating to spend all of 2008 calling Mono after every single federer defeat? It is the double standard I really have a problem with.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Better to deal with actual reality.

See this is what I think is ridiculous.
We are basically then censored from saying anything... apart from stats.
Everyone has their point of view... and they should be allowed to back up their point, hopefully with logic and evidence.
Of course we can keep in mind that you can never 100% prove something, you can atmost say something is 'very likely' but you can't say it is proven (if it's a hypothetical).

JuliusHMarx wrote:
For example, what if Fed did not have mono early 2008 - Djoko could still have beaten him, and Fed's confidence would have been more severely affected, Djoko's confidence greater by beating a fully fit Fed. Djoko might have done even better in his career more quickly.
Maybe Fed was lucky to have mono in 2008 and Djoko was unlucky to have not had the chance to beat him while fully fit.

OK, if you believe that, the argue your case!!!

I don't see why that should be censored, if you believe it you should be able to explain yourself, without being ridiculed for saying something just because it's not a stat.

Nobody should be censored, for Heaven's sake! Where did I remotely suggest that?!
Nobody's being ridiculed either, unless we count your calling my opinion ridiculous. (I think I will count it, actually, since it's fairly obvious.)

My point is simply that we can live in an endless world of what if's, and if people want to do that, then it's up to them, but a) it's a bit futile in the end and b) trying to present what if's as alternate realites that would definitely have happened is wrong because it can't be proved.

What if's are rarely objective because the sole intention is to prove my player is better than your player...if only things had been different.

Let's not forget the Genesis of the what-if thing, or perhaps the Grand-daddy of the whole thing.

The weak era debate.

Compared to that these minor injury things are nothing.

And who is behind that?

bogbrush wrote:Let's not forget the Genesis of the what-if thing, or perhaps the Grand-daddy of the whole thing.

The weak era debate.

Compared to that these minor injury things are nothing.

And who is behind that?

I think the fearsome lord Toranaga is behind it all.