IW loss: In no world is a 3 set loss a hammering. Also, Nadal's serve disappeared in the third - that had nothing to do with Novak.
Miami/Rome: Is every straight set loss a hammering?! There was a break in each set - Nadal had his opportunities too. Rome was a closer match than Madrid. In no way am I saying they were equal players - Djokovic was better both times but that doesn't equal it being a hammering. He wasn't blown off the court 6-2, 6-2.
Wimby: I said that was the most one-sided - Nadal totally disappeared in the match - don't know if it was nerves, foot, Novak - everything - but that's closest to a hammering.
US Open: Novak had to work VERY hard to win that match. Nadal served atrociously most of the match yet and struggled to hold serve - but also broke Novak a number of times. The level in the third set was insane. In the 4th set Nadal was tired and dead so it didn't matter what Novak was serving. A match in which the winner himself looks dead cannot be a hammering.
To me losses prior to 2011 e.g. Cincinnati, to Novak, were more hammerings than any of the losses last year. They were psychologically tough blows but people underestimate how hard it was for Novak too - he can't just waltz on court and beat Nadal.
I guess you didn't read the last sentence: "The scorelines don't perhaps indicate hammerings but the actual matches did."
Extremely physical, relatively clear beatings except Miami is a more accurate description.
Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave
what does clay season 2012 indicate about Nadal's adjustments into being able to manhandle DJokovic though?
can't pick and choose like thattt
I never mentioned anything about 2012, that's a completely different matter.