Novak has 2 years maximum

To win the French. His body has clocked up many miles and he cannot expect to keep the standard as high as he has done. Stan was amazing.. but as a champion you have to counter an amazing performance with your own amazing performance and Novak did not do it.

What does he have to do to win the French???

I think his realistic chances at RG are gone.

He turns 29 next year and that tends to be the time at which the top players start to descend from the their highest level.

Anything can happen in sport, so there may yet be a twist in the tale but I don't buy into the idea that a player "deserves" anything. You earn titles by winning finals. Novak hasn't done that at RG.

Maybe 2 chances is being kind to him and yes I thought history would be made today. Is it possible that the extended match with Andy was a big factor in him losing the final?

If Nadal really is in terminal decline then Djokovic will be favourite next year, so no need to panic.

That said, this was a tremendous chance, very much like 2009 with the last day not involving Nadal (though unlike Federer he did his own dirty work of removing the Spaniard).

bogbrush wrote:If Nadal really is in terminal decline then Djokovic will be favourite next year, so no need to panic.

That said, this was a tremendous chance, very much like 2009 with the last day not involving Nadal (though unlike Federer he did his own dirty work of removing the Spaniard).

With a lot of help

Unlike Federer he had the toughest draw imaginable and had to beat three straight grandslam champions in a row to win the title. To me Wawrinka played tremendous. He is so explosive that if he gets hot and isn't giving you errors he can be irresistible to anyone. Novak I think lost a little mojo on his serve and didn't play badly but could have played a lot better, he didn't seem to get his top gear while Stan was more consistently hitting his top gear. The drop shots and lob combo wasn't working. The FH wasn't dialed in to where he could finish points with it. And he lost his serving groove somewhere in the second set. Stan play tremendous and deserves the Kudos.

Well frankly socal, it wasn't as though he didn't take enough time on his serve was ??...how the hell he never got tv I would never know

His match with Rafa was kinda easy actually so that won't wash socal, it was the Murray match that took the most out of him (a guy who never won a clay title for 10 years of his career)

Josiah Maiestas wrote:His match with Rafa was kinda easy actually so that won't wash socal, it was the Murray match that took the most out of him (a guy who never won a clay title for 10 years of his career)

Yeah but a lot of people still had Nadal as the favorite. And the match was easy because Djokovic was so dialed in. Would you have favored Federer if Fed got Nadal in his quarter? He had lost to Nadal 6 straight times in the tournament. So you can go wash your own arse for all I care. The fact is that this is the difference between getting gooey cupcakes fed to you like the anointed one and actually playing tough competition to win slams.

PS if you didn't notice Murray was unbeaten on clay coming into Novak's match.

socal1976 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:His match with Rafa was kinda easy actually so that won't wash socal, it was the Murray match that took the most out of him (a guy who never won a clay title for 10 years of his career)

Yeah but a lot of people still had Nadal as the favorite. And the match was easy because Djokovic was so dialed in. Would you have favored Federer if Fed got Nadal in his quarter? He had lost to Nadal 6 straight times in the tournament. So you can go wash your own arse for all I care. The fact is that this is the difference between getting gooey cupcakes fed to you like the anointed one and actually playing tough competition to win slams.

Butt hurt much lol ? Djokovic waited for Wawrinka to make errors and they didn't come. Fed took his chance. Djokovic didn't.

Unbeaten doesn't mean much when you saw what he was beating. Nadal at his weakest and struggled in Munich to beat several players. Novak is simply not Fedal at winning finals

greengoblin wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:His match with Rafa was kinda easy actually so that won't wash socal, it was the Murray match that took the most out of him (a guy who never won a clay title for 10 years of his career)

Yeah but a lot of people still had Nadal as the favorite. And the match was easy because Djokovic was so dialed in. Would you have favored Federer if Fed got Nadal in his quarter? He had lost to Nadal 6 straight times in the tournament. So you can go wash your own arse for all I care. The fact is that this is the difference between getting gooey cupcakes fed to you like the anointed one and actually playing tough competition to win slams.

Butt hurt much lol ? Djokovic waited for Wawrinka to make errors and they didn't come. Fed took his chance. Djokovic didn't.

Oh are you here, I guess that is my cue to leave just showing up for more trolling I see. Well have at it. Maybe you and Jahu and massage each other a little and tell each other how funny and smart you are and what a shame it is that no one else sees it.

Socal, what's with the Federer obsession?

You're showing your pain way too much. I advise you go and get drunk and sleep it off because if it carries on like this you could get mocked off the forum, and I wouldn't like to see that.

BB, I can whip the lot of you speed texting lefthanded on my iPhone. Not really hurt by mocking from anyone. But I will be signing off as I am invited out to barbecue and most likely will be partaking in some alcoholic refreshment.

socal1976 wrote:BB, I can whip the lot of you speed texting lefthanded on my iPhone. Not really hurt by mocking from anyone. But I will be signing off as I am invited out to barbecue and most likely will be partaking in some alcoholic refreshment.

Do that socal, and have one for me, your pain is not as great as mine believe me..He has lost one match... spare me the tears.. Ive enough of my own..In the words of the song KISS TODAY GOODBYE..

Yeah, take a drink. This one must sting - the defensive attritional game exposed. Nasty!

2 years? Think you are funny?

RG has gone for good for Djoko. He will not win any tournament this year

Ty Haddie I do wish Nadal the best the game needs him to come back. And don't worry I have a smile on my face.

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, take a drink. This one must sting - the defensive attritional game exposed. Nasty!

Yes if it gets exposed like that once every 28 or 29 matches I will be happy. If it takes the level Stan hit lines and shots to expose the attritional style so be it. Can't see it happening often maybe that is why I player you mocked and dismissed for many years is well on his way to his 4 year end number 1.

socal, why you keep barking my name on every thread and call me a troll?

socal1976 wrote:Ty Haddie I do wish Nadal the best the game needs him to come back. And don't worry I have a smile on my face.

Good for you... it hurts Socal I know, but tomorrow is another day and he will be heading of to dear old Wimbles

In the meantime go get drunk hic.... nothing like alcohol to numb the pain.
He will live

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, take a drink. This one must sting - the defensive attritional game exposed. Nasty!

Yes if it gets exposed like that once every 28 or 29 matches I will be happy. If it takes the level Stan hit lines and shots to expose the attritional style so be it. Can't see it happening often maybe that is why I player you mocked and dismissed for many years is well on his way to his 4 year end number 1.

You would, but it won't take that long. It was a good streak - not as good as the one Federer crunched in 2011, but good - but it's done now.

Anyway, I see war has broken out. Didn't take that long, maybe an hour earlier than I expected.

Socal, Djokovic is a great player on tremendous form, Stan re-lined today; but overall Djokovic has been very impressive this clay court season so things are not looking negative at all.

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal, Djokovic is a great player on tremendous form, Stan re-lined today; but overall Djokovic has been very impressive this clay court season so things are not looking negative at all.

Stating the obvious,??? however important that match was , it was after all ONLY ONE MATCH

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal, Djokovic is a great player on tremendous form, Stan re-lined today; but overall Djokovic has been very impressive this clay court season so things are not looking negative at all.

Andy Townsend does Tennis now?

I can understand why Djoko's fans are down after yesterday, but it was just one of those days where he was only able to produce a 6/10 performance against an opponent at 9/10 (or maybe even better). Unfortunate that it happened in the final of the one tournament that probably means more to his legacy than any other.

Seriously though, come next year's RG, who is going to start as favourite ahead of Djokovic? Maybe Rafa if he shows a major return to form, but at the moment that looks a long way away. Can't see Andy being better than this year, Fed a year older and Stan unlikely to produce another hot streak as hot as this (I can see the Safin comparisons). None of the mid years players looks to have 'it' especially on clay, and the youngsters (Kyrgios generation) are still works in progress.

Still a window of opportunity for Djokovic to add this, certainly next year at only just 29 and probably for one or two years after that.

I'm not really very keen on all this focus on the career slam.

The main currency of greatness is the number of slams, not the spread of them.

It would be nice if Novak could win RG one day but given a choice between winning one RG or two more Australian Opens, I'd choose two more AO every time.

Sampras never won RG. Borg never won USO or AO. Neither fact really dents their reputation and they're both recognised as being two of the finest players ever.

Career slam is a considerable achievement but it's a recent obsession. I'm not sure it's a very healthy one either as it serves to diminish the achievements of more people than it elevates. As if Sampras with 14 slams has to carry some kind of caveat to his incredible achievement.

It's also the parent to that malformed whelp of an offspring, the "Golden Career Slam".

To put it into context he has lost a match. . to him an important one its true, but when he starts losing like Rafa then I can see the concern .. Im sure that Fed laments the fact that he has not as yet won the singles gold medal at the Olympics, Rafa has never won the WTF.This does not  diminish what they have achieved. Novak will live, its not terminal.

If Novak wants to worry about something, I'd rather it were why he's lost 4 USO finals and not why he's lost 3 RG finals.

It's the former that has damaged his legacy more than the latter.

But there is Kei, who's very good on clay, come next year he may be even better and may challenge for the FO title.

I question that BLB.. he is already 25yrs old as we speak.. and he is leaving it very late in his career to make a serious bid.. His last match was far from impressive and if anything he may well have the Australian young guns breathing down his neck.
He has done nothing thus far to convince me he is slam material

dummy_half wrote:I can understand why Djoko's fans are down after yesterday, but it was just one of those days where he was only able to produce a 6/10 performance against an opponent at 9/10 (or maybe even better). Unfortunate that it happened in the final of the one tournament that probably means more to his legacy than any other.

Seriously though, come next year's RG, who is going to start as favourite ahead of Djokovic? Maybe Rafa if he shows a major return to form, but at the moment that looks a long way away. Can't see Andy being better than this year, Fed a year older and Stan unlikely to produce another hot streak as hot as this (I can see the Safin comparisons). None of the mid years players looks to have 'it' especially on clay, and the youngsters (Kyrgios generation) are still works in progress.

Still a window of opportunity for Djokovic to add this, certainly next year at only just 29 and probably for one or two years after that.

Pretty much agree with this. I mean I think Nishikori could be a bigger threat this year as he seems to be improving pretty consistently and Andy will be there as well I think the way he has played this clay court season shows that he has turned the corner. I really think Novak was a bit unfortunate as Stan played the best I have seen him play since dismantling Nadal in the AO final I mean he was just blasting winners and hitting so close to the lines with very few mistakes for how aggressive he was being. I do think he has probably a chance or two left at RG as he should be the favorite. This year was a great chance but he really did have a brutal draw that I think mentally left him a bit flat for the final.

HM Murdoch wrote:I'm not really very keen on all this focus on the career slam.

The main currency of greatness is the number of slams, not the spread of them.

It would be nice if Novak could win RG one day but given a choice between winning one RG or two more Australian Opens, I'd choose two more AO every time.

Sampras never won RG. Borg never won USO or AO. Neither fact really dents their reputation and they're both recognised as being two of the finest players ever.

Career slam is a considerable achievement but it's a recent obsession. I'm not sure it's a very healthy one either as it serves to diminish the achievements of more people than it elevates. As if Sampras with 14 slams has to carry some kind of caveat to his incredible achievement.

It's also the parent to that malformed whelp of an offspring, the "Golden Career Slam".

Yeah I agree with this I mean it really is slam totals that should be the focus and after that getting a good run at number 1. As you said Sampras and Borg's legacy hasn't been hurt by not having all 4. And I think the over emphasis on the FO by Novak has actually hurt him. As you say he should have won more finals at the USO, but I don't think he generally likes those conditions. The East Coast in late August and early September is very humid and hot and its also very windy. Still with how good he is on hardcourt in general he has to have done better in that tournament.

Didn't Kei reach the USO final last year? So he's not of slam winning material having reached a slam final?? So Kei being 26 is old but not others who're 29 and above come next year??

Kei is more likely to win a slam before the Aussie young guns in any sensible persons eyes. It's no fluke that he made it to the final of the USO last year, he has all the shots.

I think the career thing matters if a player is perceived through the absence to be weak on a surface. In that respect Sampras does suffer a bit, being obviously a bit weaker on clay.

I don't think missing the French would have made Federer a weak clay court player and it definitely doesn't weaken Djokovic, who has a brilliant clay career. On the other hand, it really helps Nadal because without a USO the absence of him ever defending a hardcourt tournament would look bad.

Like much of this it all comes back to the media obsession with best ever stuff, including career Slams, GOATs, and Golden Eras.

Kei even beat none other than Novak in the SF enroute to the USO final last year! Cilic won his first slam at age 25-26, so Kei is definitely not too old to win a slam. Oh, Stan won his first slam last year, at age 28!

bogbrush wrote:Like much of this it all comes back to the media obsession with best ever stuff, including career Slams, GOATs, and Golden Eras.

Absolutely. The constant attempts to upgrade greatness which only end up diminishing it.

First it was just a matter of winning lots of slams. Then it was the career slam. Then it was the ridiculous "golden" career slam. I shudder to think what the next upgrade will be. Golden DC Career Slam? Golden Double Career Slam?

Urgh.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Kei is more likely to win a slam before the Aussie young guns in any sensible persons eyes. It's no fluke that he made it to the final of the USO last year, he has all the shots.

Coming from you

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Like much of this it all comes back to the media obsession with best ever stuff, including career Slams, GOATs, and Golden Eras.

Absolutely. The constant attempts to upgrade greatness which only end up diminishing it.

First it was just a matter of winning lots of slams. Then it was the career slam. Then it was the ridiculous "golden" career slam. I shudder to think what the next upgrade will be. Golden DC Career Slam? Golden Double Career Slam?

Urgh.

Calendar Golden DC-TMS Slam, with bar.

Admittedly those would be quite a good years.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Kei even beat none other than Novak in the SF enroute to the USO final last year! Cilic won his first slam at age 25-26, so Kei is definitely not too old to win a slam.  Oh, Stan won his first slam last year, at age 28!

So I would suggest therefore, it is more reasonable to assume that Cilic is more in a position to win the FO, than Nishi or have I totally lost my reasoning powers.  I still say, however well Nishi may have performed at the USO he certainly did not convince me at the FO.. MY opinion, ..so sorry However I am content to wait and see, the rest is conjecture. !!!

If Nishikori was going to flourish at RG he had a perfect chance this year. And when he came from two sets down against Tsonga (whose flaky mentality is often questioned) you would have made Nishikori long odds on to win - but he lost. I guarantee you if that had been anyone of Novak, Andy, Roger or Rafa in those circumstances they would have powered their way to victory. Obviously, Kei is not in that class yet.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If Nishikori was going to flourish at RG he had a perfect chance this year. And when he came from two sets down against Tsonga (whose flaky mentality is often questioned) you would have made Nishikori long odds on to win - but he lost. I guarantee you if that had been anyone of Novak, Andy, Roger or Rafa in those circumstances they would have powered their way to victory. Obviously, Kei is not in that class yet.

Welcome to my club CC you are now among the non-sensible amongst us

We're talking about the coming year arent we?? So Kei is not in that class YET but hes improving.

Also, what had Stan done at the FO all along?Yet, he went on to win the FO at age 30!

I dfont see why Kei couldnt be a contender at the FO, when Novak, Rafa and Stan will be 29, 30 and 31 years old respectively, come next year. The young Aussies? I'll wait till they show further improvements before saying they're the real threat. They played too many long matches during the early rounds, not a good sign if they want to go far in a slam.

As I say again..then why has Cilic not gone on to win it.. he is a year older than. Kei and he WON the USO not RU
Every player is  contender, irrespective of age.
it strikes me the best players are all around 28 and over
Kei would not be the first player in tennis history to be the "bridesmaid and never the bride"
Its wait and see time

What are you talking about?? I dont see your reasoning.

Kei has being to a slam final so he certainly knows what it takes to get there. He's playing well on clay, better than Cilic, so its no surprise he reached the QF of FO whilst Cilic reached R4. The best players are over 28 but that doesnt mean that they'll stay the best players forever. If anything, Kei may be one of the best players come 28, when those older then him walk into the twilight of their career.

Kei is the best among his peer group (23-26). Im not convinced about the Aussie kids, at least not for the next two years. Its wait and see time....

What are you talking about?? I dont see your reasoning

SIMPLES.. if it is reasonable to suppose that KEI can win the FO based on the fact that he was RU at the USO then it is MORE REASONABLE to suppose that Cilic aged one year older who WON THE USO.. could win it,
What makes Kei any more likely.. based on his performance THIS F.O.
I don't rate his chances...BUT AS I SAID.. I await to be proven wrong.
Sorry if you are a Nishi fan (as obviously you are) but that is my opinion and my reasoning OK??? END OF.so we agree to disagree ok

Belovedluckyboy wrote:We're talking about the coming year arent we??  So Kei is not in that class YET but hes improving.

Also, what had Stan done at the FO all along?Yet, he went on to win the FO at age 30!

I dfont see why Kei couldnt be a contender at the FO, when Novak, Rafa and Stan will be 29, 30 and 31 years old respectively, come next year.  The young Aussies?  I'll wait till they show further improvements before saying they're the real threat. They played too many long matches during the early rounds, not a good sign if they want to go far in a slam.

I just don't think it is right to be lauding up a player after losing a match like he did against Tsonga in those circumstances. Coming from two sets down against Tsonga you would have bet a lot of money on hiis reputation as an up and coming player to blow away a mentally fragile Tsonga but he never did it.

Next year it will be the same players in contention at RG I would say. Kei may make the QF's again or at a push a SF but can't see him having the clay court nous to take out say Djokovic or even Murray. Stan has proven himself as a slam winner before so it wasn't a massive surprise that he showed mentally he has what it takes. Kei is yet to show that. That is not to say he will not be a strong contender on other surfaces but I just feel he looks like he may be another nearly man.

Tsonga mentally fragile? Not during this FO. He looked determined to do well here, and it took the eventual champion to kick him out in four sets.

Its very strange to say that Kei looks like another nearly man, when his peers of Dimitrov, Raonic, Tomic,Jerzy couldnt even make a slam final. So, are we implying that they're a bunch of nearly men too?

Novak, Murray, Stan - theyre not going to be there forever, and who can say for sure Kei or his peer group is/are not going to catch up with them as they age?