2020 Australian Open Final: Novak Djokovic vs. Dominic Thiem

[Front242]

Well they bounced his big ass for a black. woman..bwahaha.He is not important until he wins a slam.He doesnt look like a man or talk like a man.He doesnt dress like a man or act like a nan.
He has personality of a door knob and thats why he always loses.We have a Roddick on our hands..lol

Roddick was a very witty guy and had many memorable interviews. Plus, his wife is a Sports Illustrated super model. Life could be way worse than to be Roddick.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roddick was a very witty guy and had many memorable interviews. Plus, his wife is a Sports Illustrated super model. Life could be way worse than to be Roddick.

More importantly, in a tennis context, he won a major, plenty of other titles, was a world number 1, and stayed in the top 5-top10 forever.

 

[Jelenafan]

Andy Roddick certainly took with good grace the 1st round shocker loss at the USO in 2005. The problem was American Express had built an entire tongue in cheek ad campaign around Andy’s “Mojo” and how he lost it and was trying to find it. Playing those ads the rest of the USO airtime was a bit awkward, to say the least.

Used to watch him play at the SAP open in San Jose and he was always a fun guy in post match interviews.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Roddick was a jerk. He should marry Kyrgios.

 

[Vince Evert]

Haha I am fine with the way he is dealing with it!

I'm sure you are.

As for me, it's time wasting mugs like ND that really put me off watching tennis or at least the men's game. That and also his abuse of the injury time outs rule which we saw yet again after the third set of the AO final. In the early days, his over-celebrating reaction when he won a Slam was in a word a DISGRACE. I never seen any other player who used to carry on to that extent the way I saw ND. Granted he's improved from what he used to be like, but there is still the first two points i mentioned. It's really unfortunate that Thiem lacked the mental fortitude to win the final as it would have given the sport a new shot in the arm, but this appears to be a huge difference and what is sorely lacking with the new generation and the Big Three. Fuck Novak Djokovic. He bores me too tears.

 

[Moxie]

Andy Roddick certainly took with good grace the 1st round shocker loss at the USO in 2005. The problem was American Express had built an entire tongue in cheek ad campaign around Andy’s “Mojo” and how he lost it and was trying to find it. Playing those ads the rest of the USO airtime was a bit awkward, to say the least.

Used to watch him play at the SAP open in San Jose and he was always a fun guy in post match interviews.

I remember that unfortunate ad campaign, now that you mention it. I wasn't much of a fan of Roddick's, except his witty interviews. I did find him a bit vanilla, in terms of game and frat-boy aspect, which was what Tossip was getting at, though T is also hanging onto to yet another Serena grudge, as usual. He was admirably consistent, though, and another thing he did was win the US Open Series. The only other man to do it, at least in recent memory (don't know how long they had that going) was Rafa. Kind of surprising in both cases.

 

[Ricardo]

I'm sure you are.

As for me, it's time wasting mugs like ND that really put me off watching tennis or at least the men's game. That and also his abuse of the injury time outs rule which we saw yet again after the third set of the AO final. In the early days, his over-celebrating reaction when he won a Slam was in a word a DISGRACE. I never seen any other player who used to carry on to that extent the way I saw ND. Granted he's improved from what he used to be like, but there is still the first two points i mentioned. It's really unfortunate that Thiem lacked the mental fortitude to win the final as it would have given the sport a new shot in the arm, but this appears to be a huge difference and what is sorely lacking with the new generation and the Big Three. Fuck Novak Djokovic. He bores me too tears.

ND keeps doing these things and he wonders why the crowd don’t like him. But you kind of have to feel for Thiem, he was certainly after fighting off Rafa and imploded when victory for his first slam was getting closer which unsettled him.

 

[Jelenafan]

I remember that unfortunate ad campaign, now that you mention it. I wasn't much of a fan of Roddick's, except his witty interviews. I did find him a bit vanilla, in terms of game and frat-boy aspect, which was what Tossip was getting at, though T is also hanging onto to yet another Serena grudge, as usual. He was admirably consistent, though, and another thing he did was win the US Open Series. The only other man to do it, at least in recent memory (don't know how long they had that going) was Rafa. Kind of surprising in both cases.

I sort of lump Andy and Lleyton Hewitt as players who burst out between the end of the Sampras era and before the full bloom of the Federer era. Sampras and Agassi were aging and Federer was talented but slightly erratic even after winning 03 W.

Great careers for Andy & Lleyton but whether half-full or half empty depends on your perspective. I do think the timing of their Major wins ( Hewitt had 2) was when there was no dominant players and it was a relatively equal playing field for a bunch of pros which abruptly closed once Federer hit his stride.

Roddick had some glaring weaknesses ( including his 2bh) which never quite went away despite his strengths and Lleyton quite frankly didn’t have the firepower so in hindsight their postearly success drought is understandable. I can’t envision them winning more in another era so in that sense they played up to the best of their abilities.

Compare with Nalbandian and Safin who squandered what should have been much more stellar careers. I know Safin won 2 but still.....

 

[Moxie]

I sort of lump Andy and Lleyton Hewitt as players who burst out between the end of the Sampras era and before the full bloom of the Federer era. Sampras and Agassi were aging and Federer was talented but slightly erratic even after winning 03 W.

Great careers for Andy & Lleyton but whether half-full or half empty depends on your perspective. I do think the timing of their Major wins ( Hewitt had 2) was when there was no dominant players and it was a relatively equal playing field for a bunch of pros which abruptly closed once Federer hit his stride.

Roddick had some glaring weaknesses ( including his 2bh) which never quite went away despite his strengths and Lleyton quite frankly didn’t have the firepower so in hindsight their postearly success drought is understandable. I can’t envision them winning more in another era so in that sense they played up to the best of their abilities.

Compare with Nalbandian and Safin who squandered what should have been much more stellar careers. I know Safin won 2 but still.....

I have to 100% concur on all of that. Including your adding in Hewitt. Surely Safin and Nalbandian were bigger talents who squandered more. At least Safin should have had one more AO, if not for "distractions." Harder to say where Nalbandian would have won a slam, but it does feel a bit like he would have won one, with his talent. At the very least, more than 2 MS, one YEC and only 11 total titles.

 

[Jelenafan]

I have to 100% concur on all of that. Including your adding in Hewitt. Surely Safin and Nalbandian were bigger talents who squandered more. At least Safin should have had one more AO, if not for "distractions." Harder to say where Nalbandian would have won a slam, but it does feel a bit like he would have won one, with his talent. At the very least, more than 2 MS, one YEC and only 11 total titles.

Nalbandian is intertwined with these other guys, he lost his only Major final in 2002 at Wimbledon to Lleyton fairly easily, however the one that genuinely got away is ironically Andy’s only Major win the 03 USO, in the semis Nalbandian was up 2 sets to none and had MP against Andy.....

 

[Moxie]

Nalbandian is intertwined with these other guys, he lost his only Major final in 2002 at Wimbledon to Lleyton fairly easily, however the one that genuinely got away is ironically Andy’s only Major win the 03 USO, in the semis Nalbandian was up 2 sets to none and had MP against Andy.....

Interesting factoid. I looked it up: Roddick beat Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final. One would think that Nalbandian might have had that one in the bag, but he'd also just as likely have effed that match up, too. That was his way. Then JC Ferrero would have been a guy with 2 Majors. Weird alt universe.

 

[tossip]

Roddick was a very witty guy and had many memorable interviews. Plus, his wife is a Sports Illustrated super model. Life could be way worse than to be Roddick.

Well I meant losing in finals to Roger many times.I liked his interviews too he was very intelligent and was better than Roger Nadull and Nole in the press room...as good as the so called big three are they are not easy to listen to in the press room.

 

[nehmeth]

I'm sure you are.

As for me, it's time wasting mugs like ND that really put me off watching tennis or at least the men's game. That and also his abuse of the injury time outs rule which we saw yet again after the third set of the AO final. In the early days, his over-celebrating reaction when he won a Slam was in a word a DISGRACE. I never seen any other player who used to carry on to that extent the way I saw ND. Granted he's improved from what he used to be like, but there is still the first two points i mentioned. It's really unfortunate that Thiem lacked the mental fortitude to win the final as it would have given the sport a new shot in the arm, but this appears to be a huge difference and what is sorely lacking with the new generation and the Big Three. F**k Novak Djokovic. He bores me too tears.

Well, when your youth is spent hiding in a bunker with your family while planes fly over your town dropping bombs, when you have to play tennis in an empty swimming pool because that's all there is, when your parents and siblings go without because you're the one who is expected to succeed, (I could go on), then maybe the wins are sweeter than when you grow up as the son of wealthy parents who give you everything you need to succeed, without ever having to fight and scrap your way for the essentials to survive. It's okay to be bored with a certain style of play. It's okay to be frustrated with people who seemingly push the time rules to their limits. It's okay not to like a player. At the same time, the guy has carved out a place in history for himself with the likes of Federer and Nadal as his rivals. Be bored all you want...tears are good.

 

[Front242]

Well I meant losing in finals to Roger many times.I liked his interviews too he was very intelligent and was better than Roger Nadull and Nole in the press room...as good as the so called big three are they are not easy to listen to in the press room.

Many people have lost a lot to Federer in finals so I'll cut him some slack there. He would have won around 5 slams if not for Federer and too many people around here fail to realize that. Yeah, a funny guy. I'll take humour over robotic media friendly answers any day. Gulbis has had some funny interviews too. Doesn't give a shit about the big 3 and I admire him for that.

 

[Jelenafan]

Many people have lost a lot to Federer in finals so I'll cut him some slack there. He would have won around 5 slams if not for Federer and too many people around here fail to realize that.

Can’t see Andy winning 5 in any era with the all the players present. In the Sampras era he would have been a scaled down version of Sampras, way scaled down and probably would have struggled with the greats of that era.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Can’t see Andy winning 5 in any era with the all the players present. In the Sampras era he would have been a scaled down version of Sampras, way scaled down and probably would have struggled with the greats of that era.

He just meant playing in the same era he played in but taking Federer out of the equation. I still don't think he would have won 5 slams since it's not as simple as awarding him all the final losses to Fed, as he's not guaranteed to have beaten whoever would have emerged on the other side. Still, he definitely would have had at least a couple of Wimbledons.

 

[mrzz]

He just meant playing in the same era he played in but taking Federer out of the equation. I still don't think he would have won 5 slams since it's not as simple as awarding him all the final losses to Fed, as he's not guaranteed to have beaten whoever would have emerged on the other side. Still, he definitely would have had at least a couple of Wimbledons.

A few years ago @El Dude analyzed precisely that, what opponents Roddick would have faced, the H2H at the time, etc... I remember that in light of that analysis 5 is not far fetched. Of course, nothing is guaranteed.

 

[brokenshoelace]

A few years ago @El Dude analyzed precisely that, what opponents Roddick would have faced, the H2H at the time, etc... I remember that in light of that analysis 5 is not far fetched. Of course, nothing is guaranteed.

I think it's safe to say he'd have won 2 Wimbledons, though I can see it being more, which already puts him in range of 5 so you're right. But it takes a special type of player not to lose any finals and I can't see Roddick winning all those finals he lost to Roger in. Of course then comes the question of them majors in which he lost to Roger before the finals and whether he would have won those, but yeah, anything in the 3-5 range sounds reasonable.

What always made me chuckle is the argument that all these guys (Roger's generation, which is very underrated by the way) would have been multiple major winners without him. I've heard it a lot here that Hewitt and Roddick could have won 6-7, and others a little less and I don't think that's how it works.

 

[tented]

A few years ago @El Dude analyzed precisely that, what opponents Roddick would have faced, the H2H at the time, etc... I remember that in light of that analysis 5 is not far fetched. Of course, nothing is guaranteed.

Even if you take out Roger, that still leaves Hewitt and Safin in the early years of Roddick’s career, but then Rafa, Novak, and Murray enter the scene within a few years. And it’s not as if Roddick was sailing through the draws, even when Roger was around. He lost to guys such as Muller, Tipsarevic, Kohlschreiber, Gasquet, and Baghdatis from 2005-2008, then Isner, Cilic, Lu, Wawrinka, and Lopez from 2009-2011.

 

[Fiero425]

A few years ago @El Dude analyzed precisely that, what opponents Roddick would have faced, the H2H at the time, etc... I remember that in light of that analysis 5 is not far fetched. Of course, nothing is guaranteed.

Are these the same numbers that sorta anointed Roddick better (by the hatahs) than Djokovic because the H2H is in Andy's favor? Hard to believe Federer literally fed on Roddick to get a lot of his titles! They call it a rivalry, but winning 3 matches out of 20+, none in a major is being misclassified! This was a joke where A-Rod was more Roger's pigeon!