2018 Wimbledon men’s SF: Djokovic v Nadal

[Moxie]

Also, don't forget the pathetic loss to Goffin whom he owned at WTF last year. So, he has messed up three major opportunities in the last one year.

And what has Goffin done since? He's rather fallen off of a cliff. He's still at #11, but that's mostly because the rankings are a mess.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

And what has Goffin done since? He's rather fallen off of a cliff. He's still at #11, but that's mostly because the rankings are a mess.

I think Goffin won WTF merely by being steady. That was good enough to beat a tired Fed.

That one was the easiest of the three in the sense that Novak and Andy were not even in the field, Rafa had already left the scene and Fed had won all three matches in RR and then was facing a player who does not have weapons and against whom fed had 6-0 record. Moreover, if he had won that SF, he would be playing with his own baby.

Basically, he lost due to accumulated fatigue. That is amazing considering he had two weeks break after Basel (the Bercy week and the gap week). It only shows that dotage is kicking in.

 

[DarthFed]

Also, don't forget the pathetic loss to Goffin whom he owned at WTF last year. So, he has messed up three major opportunities in the last one year.

You think I'd forget that disaster It is not a major though and that's what Roger's career will be judged by. It's either a great career (he finishes ahead of Nads) or its far from great (he finishes behind Nads). If the current score was 21-16 or 22-16 the peasant's rebellion would be all but over. Now, thanks to total clownery, Fed is living in dangerous times.

 

[DarthFed]

Everyone knows your position, but you conveniently ignore the rest. If Nadal were such a blight on tennis, how come not on clay? If he's a genius on the clay, it can translate to other surfaces. And it has. You can hate it, and you can crab about the surfaces, ad nauseum, as you do, but he is a supremely talented tennis player, whether you can admit it or not.

He is a total genius on clay. His game is just pretty much perfection there. It doesn't translate anywhere near as well simply because the ball doesn't bounce anywhere near as high or slow off clay. My problem is with Roger in those earlier times just bending over and allowing a guy who is underwhelming off clay just embarrass him at Wimbledon and Australia. Him winning 6 off clay has been a major overachievement, one that Fed has aided.

 

[Fefe26]

I always find it strange that the default for Nadal fans when he loses is to blame his serve. Nadal's serve was phenomenal for its standards vs Djokovic. I agree his forehand was fairly pedestrian at times and much more of a reason he lost the match.

I am in no way blaming his serve for losing, as I didn't catch any of the match on both days. I said that because I feel he doesn't win as many free points on serve as the other guys do.

 

[Fiero425]

I am in no way blaming his serve for losing, as I didn't catch any of the match on both days. I said that because I feel he doesn't win as many free points on serve as the other guys do.

People don't realize how much that comes into play! When I was younger, I got plenty of free points because I pounded the serve! As I got older, matches started getting more competitive due to a lack of pop on the serve, making me work a lot harder to hold! That made all the difference! It's the only thing that took McEnroe and Navratilova out of the game! At the end their serves had little on it to threaten the younger players! Lendl and Becker attacked it and at Martina's last Wimbledon final in '94 against Conchita Martinez, her serve was getting knocked off for return winners! You can't win like that if a serve and volley tech! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

He is a total genius on clay. His game is just pretty much perfection there. It doesn't translate anywhere near as well simply because the ball doesn't bounce anywhere near as high or slow off clay. My problem is with Roger in those earlier times just bending over and allowing a guy who is underwhelming off clay just embarrass him at Wimbledon and Australia. Him winning 6 off clay has been a major overachievement, one that Fed has aided.

Imo, one can neither think of Nadal as an overachiever anymore than Federer can be considered an underachiever. Nadal won 4 of his 6 (to date) Majors off clay by beating Federer and Djokovic on their best surfaces, arguably. He had to get to those finals and then beat world-class players to win them. That doesn't happen by luck or by gifts.

 

[Fiero425]

Imo, one can neither think of Nadal as an overachiever anymore than Federer can be considered an underachiever. Nadal won 4 of his 6 (to date) Majors off clay by beating Federer and Djokovic on their best surfaces, arguably. He had to get to those finals and then beat world-class players to win them. That doesn't happen by luck or by gifts.

Yeah, but there seems to be more the law of averages IMO; sorta like Nole sneaking this past Wimbledon with few thinking it possible! Federer and Nadal can't win them all! Nadal's near the top of "all rungs," but he has too many deficiencies to be the GOAT of all GOATs! How many times do people have to bring up his lack of an ability to defend any title off the clay surface! That's like bizarre for a top player! His best chance was probably 2011 but for Nole having one of his career years winning 3 majors and 5 majors! Nadal was stopped from having back to back seasons and was probably his only chance since there are a lot more players that can challenge him! :whistle:

 

[DarthFed]

Imo, one can neither think of Nadal as an overachiever anymore than Federer can be considered an underachiever. Nadal won 4 of his 6 (to date) Majors off clay by beating Federer and Djokovic on their best surfaces, arguably. He had to get to those finals and then beat world-class players to win them. That doesn't happen by luck or by gifts.

He won one on Fed's best surface but everyone knows Djokovic isn't strong at the USO. He's much stronger on slow hards.

 

[Fiero425]

He won one on Fed's best surface but everyone knows Djokovic isn't strong at the USO. He's much stronger on slow hards.

The USO's been a tough win for a lot of players! Nole's fortunate to make all those finals (esp. slipping past Federer in b2b SF vs Fed) and won 2 of them to establish his bona fides at the table with Fedal, Borg, Sampras, & Laver! You never know about this USO; might be up for grabs after what's happened so far this season! :whistle:

Question: When has someone won both Wimbledon and the USO, but still ends up 2nd or lower in the rankings for the season?

It's more apt to happen in the ladies game; definitely happened to Martina in '87 w/ YE #1 Graf winning FO! My guess for the men is Connors in '82! McEnroe #1 @ YE!

 

[Moxie]

He won one on Fed's best surface but everyone knows Djokovic isn't strong at the USO. He's much stronger on slow hards.

Djokovic isn't "strong" at the USO in large part because Nadal has beaten him there. He has skunked Roger there a couple of times, though. And hard courts, general purposes, are Djokovic's strong suit. I sort of understand your making an excuse for Novak at the USO when Rafa has beaten him there twice, since you're trying to make the argument that Nadal is an over-achiever. However, aren't you the one who says slower courts favor Nadal? So how has he beaten Djokovic there 2x? And by your account and GSM's, when the court was slower AND when the court was faster. Doesn't make sense, unless he was just the better player. You're working very hard to make the case that Rafa just fell into his non-clay Majors, no?

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, but there seems to be more the law of averages IMO; sorta like Nole sneaking this past Wimbledon with few thinking it possible! Federer and Nadal can't win them all! Nadal's near the top of "all rungs," but he has too many deficiencies to be the GOAT of all GOATs! How many times do people have to bring up his lack of an ability to defend any title off the clay surface! That's like bizarre for a top player! His best chance was probably 2011 but for Nole having one of his career years winning 3 majors and 5 majors! Nadal was stopped from having back to back seasons and was probably his only chance since there are a lot more players that can challenge him! :whistle:

These players are way beyond any "law of averages." What about them is average? They don't fall into these wins. Sure, sometimes you're lucky and the last man standing, but when was the last time it was anyone BUT one of the big 3? And it is endlessly tiresome that you haters keep having to say that Nadal hasn't defended a title off of clay. As @brokenshoelace has well-pointed out, it's less important that he didn't defend a specific title than that he's kept a winning momentum, and often doubled a lot of titles, if not consecutively. It's more of a technicality, as some of those misses have been due to injury absence. But some folks can't resist hammering on it. More interesting are the titles he hasn't won, of which there are very few. And you're right to point out that Djokovic raised his level just in time to stop the moment when Rafa should have had some breathing space. But for the guy who's been sandwiched in between Roger and Nole, he's done pretty well for himself. They had some patches without real competition, but Rafa has had none.

 

[DarthFed]

These players are way beyond any "law of averages." What about them is average? They don't fall into these wins. Sure, sometimes you're lucky and the last man standing, but when was the last time it was anyone BUT one of the big 3? And it is endlessly tiresome that you haters keep having to say that Nadal hasn't defended a title off of clay. As @brokenshoelace has well-pointed out, it's less important that he didn't defend a specific title than that he's kept a winning momentum, and often doubled a lot of titles, if not consecutively. It's more of a technicality, as some of those misses have been due to injury absence. But some folks can't resist hammering on it. More interesting are the titles he hasn't won, of which there are very few. And you're right to point out that Djokovic raised his level just in time to stop the moment when Rafa should have had some breathing space. But for the guy who's been sandwiched in between Roger and Nole, he's done pretty well for himself. They had some patches without real competition, but Rafa has had none.

It's the old excuse. He wasn't healthy for just a few of those failed title defenses. And what patch did Nole and Roger have with no real competition that Nadal didn't? Need I remind you what 2010 and 2017/2018 were like?

 

[DarthFed]

Djokovic isn't "strong" at the USO in large part because Nadal has beaten him there. He has skunked Roger there a couple of times, though. And hard courts, general purposes, are Djokovic's strong suit. I sort of understand your making an excuse for Novak at the USO when Rafa has beaten him there twice, since you're trying to make the argument that Nadal is an over-achiever. However, aren't you the one who says slower courts favor Nadal? So how has he beaten Djokovic there 2x? And by your account and GSM's, when the court was slower AND when the court was faster. Doesn't make sense, unless he was just the better player. You're working very hard to make the case that Rafa just fell into his non-clay Majors, no?

He isn't strong there because it's mostly been a fast hard for Djokovic's career and on fast hards he is just very good. Yes he has beaten a badly post-prime Roger a few times but on top of a couple ugly losses to Nadal he's lost to Murray, Stan, and Nishikori there. It's a far cry from what AO was to him.

 

[Moxie]

He isn't strong there because it's mostly been a fast hard for Djokovic's career and on fast hards he is just very good. Yes he has beaten a badly post-prime Roger a few times but on top of a couple ugly losses to Nadal he's lost to Murray, Stan, and Nishikori there. It's a far cry from what AO was to him.

I guess you mean "isn't." I love that Roger is "post-prime" until he's winning Majors again. Anyway, the losses to Nadal weren't ugly...Nadal was by far the better, except for one set in each. I don't know what you can say about that. The Murray final was hard-fought, and again, Murray was the stronger. And I don't know how you can complain about Stan, who has been his bete noire. Nishikori is a quality player, but I don't know how Djokovic let that one get by him, in fairness.

 

[Fiero425]

He isn't strong there because it's mostly been a fast hard for Djokovic's career and on fast hards he is just very good. Yes he has beaten a badly post-prime Roger a few times but on top of a couple ugly losses to Nadal he's lost to Murray, Stan, and Nishikori there. It's a far cry from what AO was to him.

You also have to take in consideration the time of the year for both Nadal and Djokovic! Being fresh at the beginning of the season obviously has helped Nole with him not only winning 6 AO, he took 3 in a row (an Open record)! Both Nole & Rafa work a lot harder to win their matches and nearing the end of the season, most top players would be run down; hence being vulnerable at the USO! Nadal's Summers & Falls have been dismal over the yrs w/ only glimpses of brilliance! He's still quite vulnerable; more so than NOLE who's had his fair share of great "finishing kicks" w/ wins in Shanghai, Paris, Beijing, & of course owning several YEC's that Rafa hasn't had a sniff! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

It's the old excuse. He wasn't healthy for just a few of those failed title defenses. And what patch did Nole and Roger have with no real competition that Nadal didn't? Need I remind you what 2010 and 2017/2018 were like?

It's not an excuse, it's a reality. Without digging into the archives, he didn't defend due to injury: '09 Wimbledon, '13 Canada, Cincy and the USO. Also, 2010 AO he pulled up injured v. Ferrer and didn't defend. Federer had the years before Rafa came up to be spectacular all on his own, and he was. And Djokovic had some fallow years from Roger and Rafa to rack up some wins and Majors. When did Rafa have a coasting period? He didn't. Not bad to be standing at 17 Majors, given the number of majors he's skipped. Roger and Novak have skipped very few. Everyone likes to cite their runs at QFs, SFs, etc. But pound-for-pound, Rafa has won more Majors for times he's entered.

 

[Moxie]

You also have to take in consideration the time of the year for both Nadal and Djokovic! Being fresh at the beginning of the season obviously has helped Nole with him not only winning 6 AO, he took 3 in a row (an Open record)! Both Nole & Rafa work a lot harder to win their matches and nearing the end of the season, most top players would be run down; hence being vulnerable at the USO! Nadal's Summers & Falls have been dismal over the yrs w/ only glimpses of brilliance! He's still quite vulnerable; more so than NOLE who's had his fair share of great "finishing kicks" w/ wins in Shanghai, Paris, Beijing, & of course owning several YEC's that Rafa hasn't had a sniff! :whistle:

Technically, if you make the finals, that would be considered having a "sniff." Let's not make it worse than it is, you old hysteric.

 

[DarthFed]

It's not an excuse, it's a reality. Without digging into the archives, he didn't defend due to injury: '09 Wimbledon, '13 Canada, Cincy and the USO. Also, 2010 AO he pulled up injured v. Ferrer and didn't defend. Federer had the years before Rafa came up to be spectacular all on his own, and he was. And Djokovic had some fallow years from Roger and Rafa to rack up some wins and Majors. When did Rafa have a coasting period? He didn't. Not bad to be standing at 17 Majors, given the number of majors he's skipped. Roger and Novak have skipped very few. Everyone likes to cite their runs at QFs, SFs, etc. But pound-for-pound, Rafa has won more Majors for times he's entered.

You listed something like 5 events. And Rafa should be a lot more injured than Federer and Djokovic. That's the price for having to rely so heavily on his physicality to win. 2010 was the beginnning of Roger's slide. He was dismal after AO and the competition that year sucked as it was before Nole broke out. You can say Fed had it easy in 2004 but Rafa was already a clay monster by 2005. 2017 and 2018 have been laughably weak years competition-wise and both Fed and Nadal have taken advantage.

 

[DarthFed]

Technically, if you make the finals, that would be considered having a "sniff." Let's not make it worse than it is, you old hysteric.

Yeah Rafa has done great with 2 finals in an 8 man field