World Tour Finals Day 2 - Nadal, Federer and Djokovic

First topic message reminder :

Tennis fans it is a marquee day today. I can't help but think what a jammy git Danny is to be able view both matches today and also CAS will be there later on when Federer and Djokovic lock horns.

Well today looks to be a bit special.

We have Nadal v Ferrer a rematch from Paris. Can the terrier sink his teeth into Nadal once again and produce another upset? Or will Nadal show up and inflict defeat number 21?

We then have for the main event Federer v Djokovic again another rematch from Paris. Can Roger at the tournament he has dominated Serbinate the Serbinator? Or will Djokovic crush the Swiss maestro.

The sad thing is I won't be able to watch either so a live commentary will be much appreciated and do feel free to discuss all things related to today's place.

Dodgy knees, dodgy backs, dodgy breathing, dodgy racquets. Anything dodgy goes. As the song goes if it is good enough for you, it's good enough for me

What a shot rafa and he still lost the point!

In regards to the "slap shot" I have watched a lot of Novaks matches with Roger as I'm sure we all have, and I can think of so many occasions off the top of my head when Novaks been down set point he just cracks the return rather defiantly, somewhat like he feels like he's lost it so might as well take a massive risk. I can find several examples. He did it against Murray a year later, even said he thought it was worth a try as it worked last year. Also, in the game Federer broke in the 5th set, Novak sarcastically clapped at one of Federers winners because he slightly clipped his frame, I didn't like that either, it didnt change the direction of it at all. However, I think we ask a lot of these guys, both were in an incredible battle, emotions will boil over. They are human beings, they are role models but its not like they grow up planning to be that way. They just wanted to be tennis players, the role model side that we demand of them they have to work at

Apparently feds did the same serve on match point at wimby 2012 vs djoko and he netted it.
To him that probs proved it was a lucky shot!
I still didn't like his comment though!

WHAT A POINT!

Score people?

tie break again! great stuff from stan.
1-0 rafa.

Another TB. Come on Stan push this into a 3 setter.

Nadal raises his level and stan makes errors. 4-1 rafa

Hanging tough, back to 4-3 down, rafa to serve.

Beautiful from Stan 4-4!!!

5-5

Set point stan!

match point rafa

Rafa is the year ending no1 congrats.

Done  that's number 1 round up

Johnyjeep, I agree with much of what you say, especially about Hewitt. I rate him very highly, it's a shame injury took so much of his career.

The only part I disagree (slightly) with you on is about Federer and Nadal having it the same. They faced the same players in 05-07, yes, but they were on completely different stages of their career arcs.

I would say, on average, Rafa probably had to go through tougher opponents to get his slams. I think in 10 of his 13 he had to face Federer or Djokovic along the way?

I think the flaw in the weak era theory is that although Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Safin and Roddick didn't carve out the careers that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have, it doesn't really have any bearing on how they played on that day. Baghdatis, as I recall, was playing really well in AO06.

If we are talking consistent opponents though, then I'd have to say post 07 was tougher than pre 07.

  Congratulations Rafa
Well deserved End of Year Number 1.

Well played Stan, and from an Avid Federer fan.... Rafa you deserve it, your season has been phenomenal.

that's good for Berdych with Stan losing in straight sets. He has a great chance to push his way into 2nd

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:Socal said he hated fed fans for a while.

No I did not, I stated that I disliked Federer fans who dislike every other modern champion except Federer and make unsubstantiated accusations of PED use against Fed's rivals. I never stated I hated all Federer fans. I do dislike a small minority sub-group of fed fans who dis the other big 4 players and make accusations of PED use with no evidence.

I'd agree with that, but I tend to just disregard them rather than try and address them, for the most part.

Alert the media Julius finally agrees with something I said, I feel you getting smarter by the minute Julius. Remember the Socal's maxim a proven law of physics as indisputable as laws of thermodynamics in physics.

Haddie-nuff wrote:  Congratulations Rafa
Well deserved End of Year Number 1.

 

(Has there ever been a not-deserved YE No 1?)

Wawrinka has taken Rafa to a tie-break in three of their last four sets held six or seven set points and still is yet to win a set vs Nadal. Thats just astonishing!

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:Socal said he hated fed fans for a while.

No I did not, I stated that I disliked Federer fans who dislike every other modern champion except Federer and make unsubstantiated accusations of PED use against Fed's rivals. I never stated I hated all Federer fans. I do dislike a small minority sub-group of fed fans who dis the other big 4 players and make accusations of PED use with no evidence.

I'd agree with that, but I tend to just disregard them rather than try and address them, for the most part.

Alert the media Julius finally agrees with something I said, I feel you getting smarter by the minute Julius. Remember the Socal's maxim a proven law of physics as indisputable as laws of thermodynamics in physics.

How could I forget Socal's maxim? It's right up there with Socal's chubby.
I suppose the difference is that those particular Fed fans are your mission in (virtual) life, whereas I find them relatively insignificant and not worth bothering with.

kingraf wrote:Wawrinka has taken Rafa to a tie-break in three of their last four sets held six or seven set points and still is yet to win a set vs Nadal. Thats just astonishing!

It is. In both ways. Rafa is rock solid but, my goodness, Stan does tend to butcher his big opportunities.

HM Murdoch wrote:

kingraf wrote:Wawrinka has taken Rafa to a tie-break in three of their last four sets held six or seven set points and still is yet to win a set vs Nadal. Thats just astonishing!

It is. In both ways. Rafa is rock solid but, my goodness, Stan does tend to butcher his big opportunities.

I agree HM .. I was fully prepared for Rafa to lose that match such is the standard of Stan´s game of late.
Rafa was undoubtedly more nervous than Stan at the beginning and wow the first service game of Stans was a warning I thought. He certainly had the tools to finish the job but he mislaid a few on the way.

It's mental with Rafa, Haddie, as much as his shots. Even when he's not playing his best, he is capable of making his opponent blink first.

Johnyjeep wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Johnyjeep, at the end of 2007, the number 2 and 3 players in the world were aged 20 and 21.

Why should we not view them as superior to the generation of 25-26 year olds they supplanted? Especially as that older generation never reclaimed those places.

By extension, is it not reasonable to conclude that those two rivals to Federer, now aged 26 and 27, with multiple slam titles and 100+ weeks at number 1 each, are better players now than they were as pups in 2007?

I'm not keen on dismissing any period as being poor but I find the idea that the level of competition is some kind of constant fixed level pretty unconvincing too.

Hi guys,

I agree, progression is not linear. I'm not saying that this period is stronger or weaker than any others. What I'm saying is that, no matter how 'strong' you view it, Nadal and Federer had it the same. The played the same opposition and won Grand Slams in the same period give or take 25 months.

Those players who were supplanted would still have been playing either side of Nadal and Djokovic claiming this spots. So..unless these players had an incredibly short career..they provided the same opposition to all players in that period.

We are viewing Federer's (and Nadal's) achievements in this period on the basis of what their opponents haven't won. If Federer had won less, and say Hewitt, Roddick and Nalbandian (for example) had won more, would we being viewing his achievements as greater (than we are now) because he had won less and his opponents more (as they would have won more GS's)?. It makes no sense.

FYI Hewitt was an incredible competitor. Even now, at his ripe old age, and about a million operations he can still take out high seeded players. Roddick had a combination that, in those days, were deadly. Agassi was still about.

To say Nadal was a pup (I'm replying to Socal now), and yet some how managed to win on the most gruelling of surfaces is a contradiction in itself. If you are good enough (which he was as he showed by winning the French) you are old enough. [/b]

johnny, if you don't believe me ask Uncle Toni who said that Nadal's serve early in his career was the worst serve of any player in the entire top 100. He struggled to break 115 miles an hour when he first won the FO. I do knock Fed's contemporaries a bit some of it honestly is tongue in cheek, but even at his peak Hewitt's best year, when he was not injured and when he was the best player in the world, he just was not that dominant. His best season he won 1 slam and 2 masters and 6 total tournaments. That would get him a number 3 ranking today. The fact as Murdoch has pointed out is that Nadal and Djokovic far away from their prime at ages of 20 and 19 respectively were #2 and #3 in the world in 2007 when Federer was at absolute peak. Not nalby, not safin, not Roddick; but an asthmatic Djokovic and a Nadal with a WTA serve.

I mean just look at how much worse the current young stars are performing, the same people who dispute that Fed's generation was soft seem to have no problem pointing out how awful the current young players are performing. Now compare the performance of those young star to the Djoko, murray, Nadal, Berdy, Tsonga, and Del Po group of players that are all within a couple of years of each other. Sorry, I feel it is pretty self evident any way you cut that Fed's contemporaries were significantly weaker than crop of top stars that came before them and came after them.

HM Murdoch wrote:It's mental with Rafa, Haddie, as much as his shots. Even when he's not playing his best, he is capable of making his opponent blink first.

Yes HM I have to agree. As you doubtless know Rafa is being coached to play Poker of all things... this is to train him even more to focus, and concentrate. His coach says he is an extraordinary "student" because of his mental attitude .. always looking for ways to win.. or maybe ways not to lose

socal, even with all that, Fed's prime years were 2004 - 2007, and his slow decline coincided with first Rafa's ascendency, then Djoko's.
It's impossible to know if Fed would have dominated them if they had been born at the same time or vice versa.
Didn't Rafa win most of his slams while Djoko was asthmatic and against no other truly great clay court players? Doesn't his weak clay era from 2005 onwards count against his GOAT-hood, or it is only Fed that suffers that argument?
Maybe poor old Fed was denied the opportunity of even greater things by being born too soon.

There are so many variables and what if's that it's not possible to state that any player is 'clearly' the GOAT, especially when you're not even taking all players into consideration!

The best bit is, Nadal now has to save so many points next season it's going to make me keel over in a fit of laughter watching him fail.

^^^^^

You are one sad... sad... human being.

Just enjoy next season "kingraf", it's going to be a doozy. PS if anything is sad it is how you support someone who breaks the rules on a match by match basis.  

Leonard777 wrote:The best bit is, Nadal now has to save so many points next season it's going to make me keel over in a fit of laughter watching him fail.  

And this type of comment contributes exactly what to a tennis discussion about the World Tour Finals ??... would somebody care to answer this question. Everything else I say seems to get jumped on.

kingraf wrote:^^^^^

You are one sad... sad... human being.

KR, as I said to Leonard - opinions on players, however much we may find them objectionable, are one thing. Opinions on other posters are another, and such as the above should be kept to oneself.

He's always had loads to defend its nothing new. But he still had to Aussie points to hold onto

But baiting through aggressive hateful posting should be accounted for. Need we forget the homo

Leonard777 wrote:Just enjoy next season "kingraf", it's going to be a doozy.  PS if anything is sad it is how you support someone who breaks the rules on a match by match basis.  

Second warning Leonard - opinions of other posters should be kept to oneself.

falzy21 wrote:But baiting through aggressive hateful posting should be accounted for.  Need we forget the homo

Exactly ----  what is the difference between this kind of posting to wumming or trolling... pardon me if I seem naive but I think certain posters fall between these two stools.

Julius - I don't think me calling him sad for voicing his hopes of another players downfall, is any worse than him calling me "silly" for saying Rafael could go into the Semis without losing a set.

I may be wrong Julius, but you seem to consistently think the line gets crossed not when I get "attacked", but when I respond in kind.

IMHO there's a difference in saying that someone's opinion or prediction is silly and calling them a sad human being.

kingraf wrote:Julius - I don't think me calling him sad for voicing his hopes of another players downfall, is any worse than him calling me "silly" for saying Rafael could go into the Semis without losing a set.

I may be wrong Julius, but you seem to consistently think the line gets crossed not when I get "attacked", but when I respond in kind.

Sorry Julius but I have to agree you do the same to me.

Your opinion is, of course an opinion, and has no bearing on how I took the comment, does it?

H-N can you give examples, so I'm better able to judge where I might miss what you consider an "attack".

The point being hateful comments rile people up. Soo long as we don't have the situation that the hate is allowed to continue unabated. It's fine

Homogenised Julius is the prime example if a hater who wound people up to say nasty stuff but frankly he was asking for it

Sorry but I have to say that this should have been a happy go lucky thread discussing the match this afternoon.. instead its been a thread of warding off attacks on one of the games most respected players who makes goading and baiting comments in order to create the atmosphere he has now done... and what is more it has been allowed. I thought we had stopped this kind posting on here. If I had made such comments about another player The Mods would have been on my case.

There Ive said it... now Ill wait for the homily shall I

Haddie-nuff wrote:Sorry but I have to say that this should have been a happy go lucky thread discussing the match this afternoon.. instead its been a thread of warding off attacks on one of the games most respected players who makes goading and baiting comments in order to create the atmosphere he has now done... and what is more it has been allowed. I thought we had stopped this kind posting on here. If I had made such comments about another player The Mods would have been on my case.

Dunno about that - we let socal attack just about everyone who played the game from 2000 - 2007.

kingraf wrote:Your opinion is, of course an opinion, and has no bearing on how I took the comment, does it?

I'm unable, of course, to legislate for how anyone takes any comment. Some people will find offense in things others do not. I can only use my judgement, which, whilst not infallible, I'm fairly confident in.

Yeah and people don't like it when it goes too far Julius

You made the rules by which we are all supposed to abide... hence Socal leaving the forum.  Does it not apply to new members because if you have changed the rule book I would like a copy please