Djokovic the luckiest player of the modern era? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Djokovic the luckiest player of the modern era?

mikeqq
06-11-2012, 02:32 AM
It seems these days, he can't win a major match without saving at least a couple of match points.

To save a match point, you'll need skill, mental toughness, and last but by no means the least a whole of luck.

A match point is like any other point. It is a single point in a match, be it at the very beginning, middle, or end. As a server, I guess your chances of winning the point is let's say 60%, and 40% as a returner on any individual point.

We all know even when a top player plays against a low ranked player, any individual points within a match can go either way. It's just that over a large enough sample size, the better player wins the majority of points.

So let's look at Djokovic

USO 2010 - 2 consecutive match points on his own serve, rough estimate 60% x 60% = 36% of saving two match points consecutively

USO 2011 - 2 consecutive match points against serve, rough estimate 40% x 40% = 16% of saving two in a row

FO 2012 (Tsonga, QF) - 2 consecutive match points on two separate occasions. I think at least one was on Tsonga serve. But let's say they were all on Djoker's serve, 36% for the first two, 36% for the second two, overall 13% of saving all four.

So let's multiply all these together, 36% x 16% x 13% = 0.75% of saving all the match points mentioned above, hence 99.25% of losing at least one of these three matches!!!!

Consider himself a lucky son of a b*tch!!

Hopefully statistically variance catches up with him!

SerialKillerToBe
06-11-2012, 02:34 AM
That's just how Djokovic rolls. It's a crucial part of his strategy. ;)

Chase Visa
06-11-2012, 02:35 AM
That's called 'being clutch'.

Mimi
06-11-2012, 02:40 AM
he is mentallly tough but he is also lucky, coz if you were playing very well, you wouldn't have match points against you. It requires both luck (i.e. your opponent got tight and played not well in those match points) and mentally toughness to save the match points.

Looner
06-11-2012, 02:41 AM
Not luckier than RN that's for sure.

mikeqq
06-11-2012, 02:41 AM
Also let's not forget in USO 2010 Semifinals, he saved 2 further breakpoints when he was serving for the match.

From what I can remember, every time Federer faced a match point, he lost the match. So did Nadal and so did Tsonga.

Jimnik
06-11-2012, 02:43 AM
:haha: This will be fun.

AntiTennis
06-11-2012, 02:46 AM
Yea maybe he was lucky in some shots, but you have to give the credit to him for be that strong mentally, when he was almost losing he did great shots, also you have to consider that normally the opponent is under pression when he is having a match point, because is a big oportunity

tektonac
06-11-2012, 02:46 AM
steel balls >> statistics

Mark Lenders
06-11-2012, 02:47 AM
No. Playing great tennis when up against the wall isn't luck.

Look at his match against Jo for instance this week. Jo didn't choke those match points, it was Novak who saved them with great play/shots. Same for Federer USO 2010/2011, Djokovic came back with great shots, not due to an implosion from Federer. Gotta give credit where it's due, this ability to play so well when up against the wall is one of the reasons Nole is such a great champion.

SheepleBuster
06-11-2012, 02:48 AM
Yes. Beating Tsonga, Federer, and all these guys, .... lucky. Beating Shwank, .... not lucky. lol. Now don't be mad. Rafa will probably win it still.

Houstonko
06-11-2012, 02:49 AM
In his prime is like that. Fedal was like that too. When a player is in prime and hot streak with peak fitness & confidence.

Higher Power
06-11-2012, 03:00 AM
You're right. He is the luckiest player of the modern era. Had those tennis courts not been built right next to his restaurant he never would've played tennis. As for match points? That's called "balls".

BroTree123
06-11-2012, 03:02 AM
Usually when he really wants to win a match that he's losing (and down match points), he plays his best.

FlameOn
06-11-2012, 03:08 AM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqe5lnD7rP1qaj5jro1_r2_250.gif

Jimnik
06-11-2012, 03:12 AM
Would have hit even more aces taking up this sport:

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.chilledpoker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Texas-Holdem.jpg&sa=X&ei=11PVT_r5GYWe8gSbvsXWAw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNHRxLpHqAzXyyKk83qhfT8cNgGYrw

BigJohn
06-11-2012, 03:13 AM
He did get on a hot streak last year at the time when Federer was slowing down and he figured out how to beat a diminished Nadal... So yeah, he's lucky.

SheepleBuster
06-11-2012, 03:14 AM
He did get on a hot streak at the time when Federer was slowing down and he figured out how to beat a diminished Nadal... So yeah, he's lucky.

diminished Nadal? The guy who is still favorite to win this? The guy who played 6 hours at AO with chances to win? The guy who was said to be unbeatable at the French open this year?

abraxas21
06-11-2012, 03:14 AM
he is mentallly tough but he is also lucky, coz if you were playing very well, you wouldn't have match points against you. It requires both luck (i.e. your opponent got tight and played not well in those match points) and mentally toughness to save the match points.

for once i agree with you

heya
06-11-2012, 03:15 AM
the ones with luck were fed and nadal. fed needed extreme luck with injured chokers and distracted, media-hounded djoker.

fed was lucky to have saved himself in the quarterfinal. he is used to receiving kisses from court jesters from 4-10 years ago. these losers are gone too soon for fed.

djoker knows he can bring genius wins even if he gave up on 2 sets to gather his power energy in his tank.
he doesn't even enjoy the clay, but he is the best for a reason - to shut up the fed trolls in the world.

after the way djoker grew up and struggled through, he deserves every praise from the brotherhood of man.

BigJohn
06-11-2012, 03:15 AM
diminished Nadal? The guy who is still favorite to win this? The guy who played 6 hours at AO with chances to win? The guy who was said to be unbeatable at the French open this year?

When did Nadal win anything outside of clay again?

BigJohn
06-11-2012, 03:21 AM
the ones with luck were fed and nadal. fed needed extreme luck with injured chokers and distracted, media-hounded djoker.

fed was lucky to have saved himself in the quarterfinal. he is used to receiving kisses from court jesters from 4-10 years ago. these losers are gone too soon for fed.

djoker knows he can bring genius wins even if he gave up on 2 sets to gather his power energy in his tank.
he doesn't even enjoy the clay, but he is the best for a reason - to shut up the fed trolls in the world.

after the way djoker grew up and struggled through, he deserves every praise from the brotherhood of man.

Thanks for letting us experience lunacy through your posts. :worship:

mikeqq
06-11-2012, 03:38 AM
Fed's near misses,

1. 2008 AO match against Tipseravic, 5 sets, but Fed was ill at the time.

2. 2009 AO match against Berdych, 2 sets down. Fed won due to good play as far as I'm concerned, he didn't get lucky.

3. 2009 FO match against Haas, 2 sets down, again he won due to good play.

4. 2010 Wimbledon against Falla. Overall he was lucky to pull through. But he didn't need blatant moments of pure luck like Djokovic did. To Fed's defense, he has some physical issues at the time.

5. 2011 AO match against Simon. 5 set match, wasn't too much luck involved.

6. 2012 FO against Del Potro, overall was lucky because Del Potro was slightly injured.

In conclusion, Fed did none of these things,

1. Having to save matchpoints, let alone consecutive match points
2. Hit a gambling shot and it paid off

You could say that he was lucky in some of these matches because his opponents ran out of gas, namely, Falla Wimbledon 2010, Berdych AO 2009, Del Potro FO 2012. But on the other hand, why did Fed not run of gas? Having the physical and mental stamina is also part of being a better player.

Clay Death
06-11-2012, 03:46 AM
i would say that he probably is but again luck also favors those who are the most prepared.

1. no way fed should have let him escape at the last u.s. open. that was a gift of a lifetime from Fed. i am still in disbelief over that bullshit.

2. nadal gave him the australian open.


3. tsonga got too tight at rg. he had nole on the ropes and totally finished. that was a gift of a lifetime also.

4. and now nadal trying his level best to gift him the rg crown.

i mean how the fuck do you do that if you are up 2 sets to love and 2-0 in the 3rd with your serve to come and your name is nadal.

and it is the red clay at rg.

and fed is getting old. there is no doubt about that. a sligtly younger fed would have pretty much owned nole.

and as for nadal, lack of improvements and failure to maintain his game and his fitness is what is killing him. so nole is taking advantage of that.

nadal is not the player he used to be.

Houstonko
06-11-2012, 03:58 AM
i would say that he probably is but again luck also favors those who are the most prepared.

1. no way fed should have let him escape at the last u.s. open. that was a gift of a lifetime from Fed. i am still in disbelief over that bullshit.2. nadal gave him the australian open.


3. tsonga got too tight at rg. he had nole on the ropes and totally finished. that was a gift of a lifetime also.

4. and now nadal trying his level best to gift him the rg crown.

i mean how the fuck do you do that if you are up 2 sets to love and 2-0 in the 3rd with your serve to come and your name is nadal.

and it is the red clay at rg.

and fed is getting old. there is no doubt about that. a sligtly younger fed would have pretty much owned nole.

and as for nadal, lack of improvements and failure to maintain his game and his fitness is what is killing him. so nole is taking advantage of that.

nadal is not the player he used to be.

If the final is a mug no doubt Fed would be motivated to finish the USO2011 match. Truth is he is afraid of Nadal but not against Djokovic, being pu$$y to face both at same time in a physical intense game. If ranking changes and semi final is Nadal & Djokovic maybe it changes everything. You never know if he really play or acting since he has good PR/acting skills tanking exho matches too.

mooncreek
06-11-2012, 04:06 AM
I could call Novak lucky for a lot of other things but saving those match points doesn't really fit to me. If you consider the number of times earlier in his career when Novak would play close sets against Roger, Rafa and others but lost - it could be that the probabilities were going against him before and happen to come together in a row. It's like how you can toss a coin and there are stretches when it lands heads ten times in a row (or in tennis terms, the number of times Djokovic and Federer end up in the same half of the draw at a major).

Farenhajt
06-11-2012, 04:08 AM
He's simply able to produce his best tennis "on demand" - when it's absolutely crucial. (I think he outplays even Nadal in that department.) Don't forget he was the King of Tiebreak some seasons ago, and you play tiebreaks by fully focusing on a single isolated point at the time. He just has it in himself.

And also, now he's experienced enough to account for the opp's mental processes: "Oh, shit, I'm a match point up against Djokovic. I did it!" - "You think you did it? Here's enough rope for you to make an UE." Brave and gutsy? Like no other.

156mphserve
06-11-2012, 05:04 AM
This is dumb, it doesn`t mean anything when you, in hindsight pick only the matches that he won saving match points and say it was very unlikely he wins all 3.

You kinda left out all the matches he lost.

In actual fact he was 100% sure to win these 3 matches in which you chosen. Because had he lost them, you would not have chose them to be a part of your useless made up statistic

Hope that helps:wavey:

mikeqq
06-11-2012, 05:37 AM
Yes I see what you mean by choosing only those 3 matches.

But the fact is, you can not ignore the significance of those 3 matches. They are the matches that defines Djokovic's career and his path to becoming one of the greats.

Had he lost USO 2010 / 2011, he would still be considered a second tier player to Federer.

If he lost those 2 matches, FO 2012 against Tsonga would be far less significant, as he will not be chasing the record books.

heya
06-11-2012, 05:51 AM
funny. fed owned a double-faulting djoker when he lost in 2007 to a 20 year old djoker. he was gifted 3 slams in 2007 but he declined terribly... i guess the term "lucky fed" is the same as "fed aging badly" while djokerdal beat him 32 times without the best tennis.

nalby, roddick, hewitt and safin kept injuring themselves and couldn't beat federer more than 6 times the last 8 years. they and gonzalez, ljubicic and davydenko-types couldn't consistently beat journeymen either.
haas and del potro declined physically. murray's a slam clown even though he is smarter than roddick and safin.

FedvsNole
06-11-2012, 05:57 AM
i would say that he probably is but again luck also favors those who are the most prepared.

1. no way fed should have let him escape at the last u.s. open. that was a gift of a lifetime from Fed. i am still in disbelief over that bullshit.

2. nadal gave him the australian open.


3. tsonga got too tight at rg. he had nole on the ropes and totally finished. that was a gift of a lifetime also.

4. and now nadal trying his level best to gift him the rg crown.

i mean how the fuck do you do that if you are up 2 sets to love and 2-0 in the 3rd with your serve to come and your name is nadal.

and it is the red clay at rg.

and fed is getting old. there is no doubt about that. a sligtly younger fed would have pretty much owned nole.

and as for nadal, lack of improvements and failure to maintain his game and his fitness is what is killing him. so nole is taking advantage of that.

nadal is not the player he used to be.


Fed even as he began to decline still handled rising nole 2007, 2008, 2009. Nole was playing a very high level in 2008 as well and there was something off of federer during that aussie 2008 u can see he went 5 sets agains tipsarevic even then.

Nole had to wait for fed to turn 29, the courts to be slowed down drastically at the us open, and play his own best level and even with all of that combined it still took nole 5 sets at the us open and he arguably still should have lost at least one if not both times against a player well past his prime. Its not even debatable that the fed of 2004-2006 would straight set nole on the faster us open courts and at most lose one set against nole even on the slower us open courts.

Still props to nole. My second favorite player. I much prefer his style of play to nadals. I hope he can mount another comeback tomorrow. Guy's tough as hell when the chips are down.

heya
06-11-2012, 06:37 AM
Had he lost USO 2010 / 2011, he would still be considered a second tier player to Federer.

If he lost those 2 matches, FO 2012 against Tsonga would be far less significant, as he will not be chasing the record books.Djokovic was a genius, not like a safin or roddick.

he choked in the '07 USO and let his breathing and fitness deteriorate until the year 2010. fedtrolls can deny it because fed is their world and they know nadal needs luck against djoker on clay too. fed sucked on clay and high bounce courts. old agassi was robbed by the linesjudges vs. fed in indian wells and was up a set & a break in the 2005 us open:o

BroTree123
06-11-2012, 06:39 AM
Wow, that's like the first time I understood your post (at least most of it) :speakles:

homogenius
06-11-2012, 06:41 AM
When you do it regularly (coming back from nowhere by raising your game)and against players like Rafa, Roger or even Tsonga who was on fire the other day, it's hardly luck.

Shinoj
06-11-2012, 06:47 AM
It seems these days, he can't win a major match without saving at least a couple of match points.

To save a match point, you'll need skill, mental toughness, and last but by no means the least a whole of luck.

A match point is like any other point. It is a single point in a match, be it at the very beginning, middle, or end. As a server, I guess your chances of winning the point is let's say 60%, and 40% as a returner on any individual point.

We all know even when a top player plays against a low ranked player, any individual points within a match can go either way. It's just that over a large enough sample size, the better player wins the majority of points.

So let's look at Djokovic

USO 2010 - 2 consecutive match points on his own serve, rough estimate 60% x 60% = 36% of saving two match points consecutively

USO 2011 - 2 consecutive match points against serve, rough estimate 40% x 40% = 16% of saving two in a row

FO 2012 (Tsonga, QF) - 2 consecutive match points on two separate occasions. I think at least one was on Tsonga serve. But let's say they were all on Djoker's serve, 36% for the first two, 36% for the second two, overall 13% of saving all four.

So let's multiply all these together, 36% x 16% x 13% = 0.75% of saving all the match points mentioned above, hence 99.25% of losing at least one of these three matches!!!!

Consider himself a lucky son of a b*tch!!

Hopefully statistically variance catches up with him!


Right,you said it yourself there. When he had 99.25% of losing he conjured up skill and mental toughness. Thats exactly where the Credit is there for Djokovic.

Alex999
06-11-2012, 06:49 AM
guys, just want to comment on this 'luck thing' ... don't believe it at all... Nole has worked his ars off all of his life. it's skills. you don't get to be #1 in the world by being lucky. he is just brave enough to play those MP like crazy ... that's what champions do ... Djokovic, like it or not, has balls of steel

heya
06-11-2012, 07:17 AM
unlike fed and most others, novakthepunisher hit angle winners at 2-4 and 3-5 and 5-6. fed needs winners and aces on sidelines to win slams. he
lost every time he faced match point because he could never magically learn trick shots in slams. he lost more big leads than other ex-number 1s.

Hensafmurrafter
06-11-2012, 07:29 AM
I do not consider clutch play to be "luck". Faulty premise for a thread, no offense.

MIMIC
06-11-2012, 07:53 AM
He has to go through Fed AND/or Nadal to wins slams. I say he earned that luck (considering the people he has to beat)

SwingVolley93
06-11-2012, 08:12 AM
hes a really chill guy who works hard and deserves all of the success he's getting. Leave him alone and quit acting so bitter. :wavey:

heya
06-11-2012, 08:54 AM
fedfans admit that they obsess about fed propaganda but they don't care about sportsmanship

Wing Man Frank
06-11-2012, 09:03 AM
How can something, if done repeatedly, be considered lucky?

paseo
06-11-2012, 09:07 AM
No. Nadal is.

NID
06-11-2012, 09:08 AM
i would say that he probably is but again luck also favors those who are the most prepared.

1. no way fed should have let him escape at the last u.s. open. that was a gift of a lifetime from Fed. i am still in disbelief over that bullshit.

2. nadal gave him the australian open.


3. tsonga got too tight at rg. he had nole on the ropes and totally finished. that was a gift of a lifetime also.

4. and now nadal trying his level best to gift him the rg crown.

i mean how the fuck do you do that if you are up 2 sets to love and 2-0 in the 3rd with your serve to come and your name is nadal.

and it is the red clay at rg.

and fed is getting old. there is no doubt about that. a sligtly younger fed would have pretty much owned nole.

and as for nadal, lack of improvements and failure to maintain his game and his fitness is what is killing him. so nole is taking advantage of that.

nadal is not the player he used to be.

new level of desperation...after all 'book it' assurances, topspin cyclones of death, 2008/2010 level.

fed fans are sentimental about roger slowly riding into sunset. you are burying your favorite alive...

EddieNero
06-11-2012, 09:09 AM
Nadull says hello.

sicko
06-11-2012, 09:38 AM
you mean this kind of luck?

http://friendsoftheprogram.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/bullballs.jpg

Young 8
06-11-2012, 09:46 AM
It seems these days, he can't win a major match without saving at least a couple of match points.

To save a match point, you'll need skill, mental toughness, and last but by no means the least a whole of luck.

A match point is like any other point. It is a single point in a match, be it at the very beginning, middle, or end. As a server, I guess your chances of winning the point is let's say 60%, and 40% as a returner on any individual point.

We all know even when a top player plays against a low ranked player, any individual points within a match can go either way. It's just that over a large enough sample size, the better player wins the majority of points.

So let's look at Djokovic

USO 2010 - 2 consecutive match points on his own serve, rough estimate 60% x 60% = 36% of saving two match points consecutively

USO 2011 - 2 consecutive match points against serve, rough estimate 40% x 40% = 16% of saving two in a row

FO 2012 (Tsonga, QF) - 2 consecutive match points on two separate occasions. I think at least one was on Tsonga serve. But let's say they were all on Djoker's serve, 36% for the first two, 36% for the second two, overall 13% of saving all four.

So let's multiply all these together, 36% x 16% x 13% = 0.75% of saving all the match points mentioned above, hence 99.25% of losing at least one of these three matches!!!!

Consider himself a lucky son of a b*tch!!

Hopefully statistically variance catches up with him!

What's your IQ ?

70-68
06-11-2012, 09:51 AM
I wouldn't say he is the luckiest, but you obviously need some luck to save multiple matchpoints. He saved the first MP vs. Federer with the 'GOAT return', but Federer completely lost that game after that, hitting an easy forehand into the net on the 2nd MP, and doublefaulting on breakpoint. Tsonga just started to dictate the rally on the 3rd MP, but he netted a forehand on the next shot.

Orka_n
06-11-2012, 10:26 AM
he is mentallly tough but he is also lucky, coz if you were playing very well, you wouldn't have match points against you. It requires both luck (i.e. your opponent got tight and played not well in those match points) and mentally toughness to save the match points.This is correct.

Overall though I'd say Nadal is a luckier player with his joke GS draws every single time.

cocrcici
06-11-2012, 10:36 AM
unlike fed and most others, novakthepunisher hit angle winners at 2-4 and 3-5 and 5-6. fed needs winners and aces on sidelines to win slams. he
lost every time he faced match point because he could never magically learn trick shots in slams. he lost more big leads than other ex-number 1s.

quoted for truth

Orka_n
06-11-2012, 10:47 AM
quoted for truthMaybe, but if anything that is just another testament to how good Federer really is if he is that weak mentally and still won 16 slams.

Allez
06-11-2012, 10:52 AM
There's nothing lucky about Nole's achievements. He is simply the most clutch player of all time. Simple as that. When other crumble under pressure he relishes it. He thrives under pressure. I know this is counter intuitive for most people but that is why they are not currently the number one tennis player in the world fighting to achieve what has not been done in over 40 years. He has titanium balls. It's great for the sport. Now the younger generation are seeing that nothing is impossible. You can still win from seemingly impossible situations and that will be Nole's legacy.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-11-2012, 11:14 AM
nsdals a bitch mentally against nole


and he showed iron testicles against federer

but nadal tards r gonna hate

Backhand_Maestro
06-11-2012, 11:28 AM
Maybe, but if anything that is just another testament to how good Federer really is if he is that weak mentally and still won 16 slams.

Federer was so dominant he didn't realise he lacked Wilanders until Rafa came along

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-11-2012, 12:22 PM
Federer was so dominant he didn't realise he lacked Wilanders until Rafa came along

winning 10 times
even on clay
against a.match up nightmare is clutch

wilanders.....what?
liver? coke fillednimmune system?

tangerine_dream
08-02-2012, 05:57 PM
Luckerer is the luckiest player of the modern era.

dencod16
08-02-2012, 06:20 PM
i don't think it's luck at all. Cause those points he won rather than his opponent losing. Most of the top players are lucky because when they are not playing well, there opponent are matching their horrible play.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-02-2012, 06:21 PM
luckovic got the muggiest era to dominate 2011-2012

and he cant even dominate 2012 when federer is in a zimmer frame and winning slams

luckdal was given 2010 as a present from the atp draw schedulers

but luckdal did earn his slams from 2005-2007

IOFH
08-02-2012, 06:26 PM
Nadal certainly is luckier.

duarte_a
08-02-2012, 06:49 PM
Djokovic was lucky yes. He was also lucky in the AO final 2012 and all the 3 matches at slams he had MPs against.

He was unlucky against Roger in the US Open 2007 though having SPs in sets 1 and 2. And also against nadal in madrid 2009.

In the end his lucky moments far surpass his unlucky ones. He is due some bad luck.

RForever
08-02-2012, 06:57 PM
We have a saying: "It is coincidence for the first time, for the second time it is a concurrence of circumstances but for the third time is act of war."
He did it too many times to be just lucky.

Matt01
08-02-2012, 07:47 PM
Nadal certainly is luckier.


And Federer is the luckiest...

IOFH
08-02-2012, 07:48 PM
And Federer is the luckiest...

:spit: Federer is one of the unluckiest human beings, not just tennis players, ever. ;)

nole_no1
08-02-2012, 07:49 PM
This thread is the most retarded thread of the modern era

Alex999
08-02-2012, 09:06 PM
lucky my ars. It's all skills and mental strength. I believe in hard work and persistence. I do not believe in luck at all. You create your own destiny. silly thread anyway. Yeah, right, Nole won 5 slams and everything else because he was lucky ... MTF logic at it's best.

Burrow
08-02-2012, 09:07 PM
Novak Djokovic did make a ridiculous number of dead net cords last year. Remember the ones against Murray in Rome?

nick the greek
08-02-2012, 09:11 PM
Novak Djokovic did make a ridiculous number of dead net cords last year. Remember the ones against Murray in Rome?
No, I don't.I'm sure you made it up.

incognito
08-02-2012, 09:12 PM
If he was lucky in those matches, then you could just as well also argue that he was unlucky in those same matches to face match points. In the USO 2010 SF, a bad linecall in the 5th set (at 2-2?) robbed him of a break point opportunity which could have made him win without having to save match points.

In the USO 2011 SF, a lucky mishit at 3-4 in the 5th set gave Federer the first point on Djokovic's serve, the crowds reaction on Federer's mishit unnerved Djokovic who then lost his service game. It's fair to say that Djokovic got a little lucky to break right back and save match points in the process, but that has to count as some of the most hard-earned luck ever in tennis and the way that game unfolded it was clear that it was just as much about psychology and tactics as it was about luck. After Djokovic blasted that forehand return winner on the 1st match point and managed to get back the difficult body-serve on the 2nd match point, Federer tried to respond in kind by being more aggressive himself. It wasn't a case of choking or brainless ball-bashing, it was pretty obvious that Federer got an instant flashback from the previous year's SF and he didn't want his fate to rest on Djokovic's racket this time. Djokovic had the margins on his side in that game, Federer didn't and that's about it.

As for the RG QF this year against Tsonga, the way Tsonga managed to get to match points could just as well be called lucky. He had to serve his way out of trouble time and time again throughout sets 2, 3 and 4. Djokovic's break point conversion rate must have sucked pretty badly by the time he was down match points in set 4.

Like others have mentioned, you have to earn your luck in tennis. Unlike some other sports, you can't just wait out the time until the referee blows the whistle. Having the margins on your side at crucial moments obviously helps, but it's rarely enough on its own. These top players are winning time and time again, it cannot be an accident that they repeatedly get to these positions. Djokovic grinding out tough wins and saving break/match points in the process cannot be an accident, nor the fact that Nadal time and time again retrieves impossible shots or that Federer always gets it right at the net or when hitting overheads. It's just instinct, it's what they are trained to do...

Burrow
08-02-2012, 09:15 PM
No, I don't.I'm sure you made it up.

How sure? :)

Alex999
08-02-2012, 09:16 PM
Novak Djokovic did make a ridiculous number of dead net cords last year. Remember the ones against Murray in Rome?
yes, but you play any match till the very end. many of Nole's matches were close, for sure, but he prevailed. That's what champions do. No matter how good you are you'll always have some 'good' and 'bad' days, depending on your current form etc. All top 3 had some really bad loses in their career, but they always show up when it really matters ... the key word is consistency.

Burrow
08-02-2012, 09:21 PM
yes, but you play any match till the very end. many of Nole's matches were close, for sure, but he prevailed. That's what champions do. No matter how good you are you'll always have some 'good' and 'bad' days, depending on your current form etc. All top 3 had some really bad loses in their career, but they always show up when it really matters ... the key word is consistency.

I was merely pointing out that Djokovic had quite a few dead netcords in key stages of a handful of matches last year, that's all. Nothing to do with anything you just wrote :)

RForever
08-02-2012, 09:30 PM
Netcords are not that important. Its like 50/50 if it falls to your opponent side or yours.

ossie
08-02-2012, 10:37 PM
that is not luck, it's called clutch and it's something else entirely.

Slice Winner
08-02-2012, 10:52 PM
He plays well, and aggressively, and confidently when facing match points.
He's very clutch normally.

However, you're forgetting that he's already lost two (I think?) matches this year DFing on match point. You can't just look at a couple of matches.

I guess when he starts to decline from his peak, he'll probably have less confidence and won't be able to pull off these amazing comebacks as often.

outrider
08-02-2012, 10:55 PM
What has this to do with luck? Look at Rogger Mugerer at Wimbly. He should lost to Benneteau and then he won a Grand Slam with TWO good matches in the tournament. HAHAHA! Same thing now...pure crap against Falla and Istomin and now he will win this tournament with two good perfomances. Luckerer is back. Pray to god that he won't.

comesbackatlast
08-02-2012, 11:04 PM
For the sake of the argument, I will go with your theoretical statistics as the odds-determining factors of saving match points. Even if we agree with your 60%/40% distribution, there are still things that bother me about it.

You mention the times where he did save MPs, but you leave out the many times when he didn't. For example, I may mention to you the 50 times I guessed the playing card correctly from my 10,000 tries! I am 50 out of 50 in those times; a 100% success ratio!* His conversion percentage may actually be low if you look at it only statistically; if you considering the MPs he failed to save (i.e. lost the match). After US Open 2010 SF, he lost 4 matches in 2010, 4 full matches in 2011, 7 matches so far in 2012. 15 MPs didn't go his way against the 8 you mention, and the choice of this duration is a little bit arbitrary... maybe around the beginning of Nole 2.0? Before you make your calculations, don't forget that he may have saved a match point before succumbing to another in the matches he lost.

But in reality, the reason why not many players save many MPs isn't much about statistics; the mental and physical states of both players are extremely important factors. How would you define luck anyway?

-----
* A 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000158428% statistical probability, by the way! (If I calculated correctly!)

Alex999
08-02-2012, 11:58 PM
I was merely pointing out that Djokovic had quite a few dead netcords in key stages of a handful of matches last year, that's all. Nothing to do with anything you just wrote :)
I was going to reply, somehow I managed to quote you (while reading your post) which was not my intention at all ... sorry, so tired today.

stewietennis
08-03-2012, 12:59 AM
Djokovic's achievements shouldn't be denigrated as being lucky. Every elite athlete from Jordan to Ali to Borg have all been in a situation where they were on the verge of losing but a champion's mentality is what gives them that extra gear to snatch victory from defeat. Being in a position where it looks like you're going to lose but somehow find a way to win not unique to Djokovic.

Topspindoctor
08-03-2012, 01:29 AM
No. Lucky is someone who faces Roddicks and Murrays in multiple slam finals.

Slice Winner
08-03-2012, 01:39 AM
No. Lucky is someone who faces Roddicks and Murrays in multiple slam finals.

"02/07/2012 - 02/08/20012 >>> unfair ban"

:lol:

Yea, Mariano Puerta >>>>> Roddick and Muzza.

Topspindoctor
08-03-2012, 01:42 AM
"02/07/2012 - 02/08/20012 >>> unfair ban"

:facepalm:

Fix'd :D

:lol:

Yea, Mariano Puerta >>>>> Roddick and Muzza.

He was a reasonable clay courter. In fact, it's funny that you mention him, considering it was one of Nadal's most difficult RG wins.

n8
08-03-2012, 01:48 AM
No. Lucky is someone who faces Roddicks and Murrays in multiple slam finals.

*relieved sigh* So good that you're back.

luie
08-03-2012, 01:59 AM
Some players are lucky that Olympic standard testing , isn't used in tennis.

howyesno
08-03-2012, 02:02 AM
yes. as it shows in his gs draws.

Han Solo
08-03-2012, 02:21 AM
Some players are lucky that Olympic standard testing , isn't used in tennis.
I think A LOT of players in the top one hundred are probably lucky that testing in tennis is so laughably weak...

Tomatoes11
08-03-2012, 02:40 AM
No. Lucky is someone who faces Roddicks and Murrays in multiple slam finals.

Federer beating Murray and Roddick is a much tougher task than Nadal beating Federer on clay. So lucky is just so happening to be "paper" when the "rock" goat takes care of all the tough match ups for you. That is lucky.

Tomatoes11
08-03-2012, 02:43 AM
I think A LOT of players in the top one hundred are probably lucky that testing in tennis is so laughably weak...

No, I think it is just the ones who complain about the possibility of incorporating stricter testing policies.

Topspindoctor
08-03-2012, 02:47 AM
Federer beating Murray and Roddick is a much tougher task than Nadal beating Federer on clay. So lucky is just so happening to be "paper" when the "rock" goat takes care of all the tough match ups for you. That is lucky.

Completely wrong. Federer was a VERY good clay courter in his prime, easily second best of the 2000-2010 era, he beat everyone except one guy, pretty much. Nadal was just better on the surface, even most hardcore Fedtards accept it, I think.

Beating his absolute pigeon Roddick (look at H2H!) and a well known slam choker (Murray) is much less impressive. Federer pushed Nadal on clay in 2006 RG, had MPs in 2006 Rome etc. He was never a pushover, Nadal was just that much better. While in the case of Roddick and Murray, you knew they had zero chance, both guys lack the talent and the balls to beat Olderer in a slam final >>> well known fact confirmed by results of their slam finals.

Freak3yman84
08-03-2012, 03:43 AM
You, sir, are an idiot and the worst kind of rafatard i have seen.
Nadal is good only on clay and he took advantage of federer's mono/slump to complete his career slam. It's not federer's fault that nadal wasn't good enough to beat rosol and face federer himself in the finals.

So Nadal never beat Fed in the 2008 final? Or was that fake??

Andy1402
08-03-2012, 03:59 AM
So Nadal never beat Fed in the 2008 final? Or was that fake??

Yeah, he did. But i not so naive as to claim that federer got lucky with 16 slams. He can only face who makes the finals. Nadal wasn't, for years, good enough to make it to finals of non-clay slams.
It's just proven by the fact that he has not won a non-clay event in 2 years.

Freak3yman84
08-03-2012, 04:04 AM
Yeah, he did. But i not so naive as to claim that federer got lucky with 16 slams. He can only face who makes the finals. Nadal wasn't, for years, good enough to make it to finals of non-clay slams.
It's just proven by the fact that he has not won a non-clay event in 2 years.

But you said that Nadal cant win a non-clay slam with a healthy Federer in the finals, so I was simply correcting you and nothing more. Right now Nadal is just as capable on grass as Federer is on clay.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using VerticalSports.Com App

Topspindoctor
08-03-2012, 04:07 AM
You, sir, are an idiot and the worst kind of rafatard i have seen.
Nadal is good only on clay and he took advantage of federer's mono/slump to complete his career slam. It's not federer's fault that nadal wasn't good enough to beat rosol and face federer himself in the finals.

And you have the gall to call people idiots after posting that? :stupid:

juan27
08-03-2012, 04:08 AM
Completely wrong. Federer was a VERY good clay courter in his prime, easily second best of the 2000-2010 era, he beat everyone except one guy, pretty much. Nadal was just better on the surface, even most hardcore Fedtards accept it, I think.

Beating his absolute pigeon Roddick (look at H2H!) and a well known slam choker (Murray) is much less impressive. Federer pushed Nadal on clay in 2006 RG, had MPs in 2006 Rome etc. He was never a pushover, Nadal was just that much better. While in the case of Roddick and Murray, you knew they had zero chance, both guys lack the talent and the balls to beat Olderer in a slam final >>> well known fact confirmed by results of their slam finals.

well.......

federer is not a clay court player , he made very much in clay because this era is weak in clay , federer has a bad h2h against a great court specialist like kuerten!!! and nadal too.

if federer would play more against guys like kuerten , courier , muster , ferrero , moya , corretja , bruguera and more very very good clay specialists he would lose much more on clay.

you say that federer is lucky but nadal is playing in the most weak era in clay , his only true opponents are nole and federer , both guys specialists in fast courts and not in clay.......this is a sign of strong era in clay?????

after 2005 even gaudio and coria ( very good players on clay but not like kuerten , muster and others ) were burn and out of tennis , nadal was alone in clay without great specialists on clay , ferrero or moya were out too.

nadal could defear roger in the big tournaments outside clay when nadal started with his peak and roger started his slow decline.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-03-2012, 04:25 AM
No. Lucky is someone who faces Roddicks and Murrays in multiple slam finals.

Good to have u back doc
See that time out hasn't cooled u down much

Andy1402
08-03-2012, 04:26 AM
But you said that Nadal cant win a non-clay slam with a healthy Federer in the finals, so I was simply correcting you and nothing more. Right now Nadal is just as capable on grass as Federer is on clay.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using VerticalSports.Com App

I didn't say that at all. Nadal is an excellent clay courter but he didn't really win the other three slams till 2008, when federer started declining slowly. Federer, in his prime was better on clay than nadal was/is on grass.

Freak3yman84
08-03-2012, 04:43 AM
I didn't say that at all. Nadal is an excellent clay courter but he didn't really win the other three slams till 2008, when federer started declining slowly. Federer, in his prime was better on clay than nadal was/is on grass.

Federer wasnt declining in 2008. He declined in 2010. And when I said Nadal on grass = Federer on clay, I meant currently and not in Fed's prime.


Sent from my SGH-T989 using VerticalSports.Com App

jcempire
08-03-2012, 04:43 AM
It seems these days, he can't win a major match without saving at least a couple of match points.

To save a match point, you'll need skill, mental toughness, and last but by no means the least a whole of luck.

A match point is like any other point. It is a single point in a match, be it at the very beginning, middle, or end. As a server, I guess your chances of winning the point is let's say 60%, and 40% as a returner on any individual point.

We all know even when a top player plays against a low ranked player, any individual points within a match can go either way. It's just that over a large enough sample size, the better player wins the majority of points.

So let's look at Djokovic

USO 2010 - 2 consecutive match points on his own serve, rough estimate 60% x 60% = 36% of saving two match points consecutively

USO 2011 - 2 consecutive match points against serve, rough estimate 40% x 40% = 16% of saving two in a row

FO 2012 (Tsonga, QF) - 2 consecutive match points on two separate occasions. I think at least one was on Tsonga serve. But let's say they were all on Djoker's serve, 36% for the first two, 36% for the second two, overall 13% of saving all four.

So let's multiply all these together, 36% x 16% x 13% = 0.75% of saving all the match points mentioned above, hence 99.25% of losing at least one of these three matches!!!!

Consider himself a lucky son of a b*tch!!

Hopefully statistically variance catches up with him!

Great post. I be completely agree with you

n8
08-03-2012, 05:04 AM
Yeah, he did. But i not so naive as to claim that federer got lucky with 16 slams. He can only face who makes the finals. Nadal wasn't, for years, good enough to make it to finals of non-clay slams.
It's just proven by the fact that he has not won a non-clay event in 2 years.

End of Season Turning 21
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 0
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 2

End of Season Turning 22
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 0
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 3

End of Season Turning 23
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 2
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 4

End of Season Turning 24
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 3
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 6

End of Season Turning 25
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 6
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 8

Nadal, for years, had made more career non-clay Grand Slam finals than Federer had made non-grass Grand Slam finals (at similar ages).

AntiTennis
08-03-2012, 05:09 AM
End of Season Turning 21
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 0
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 2

End of Season Turning 22
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 0
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 3

End of Season Turning 23
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 2
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 4

End of Season Turning 24
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 3
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 6

End of Season Turning 25
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 6
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 8

Nadal, for years, had made more career non-clay Grand Slam finals than Federer had made non-grass Grand Slam finals (at similar ages).
Nadal started to play professional tennis with 15 years, Roger 17..a lot of people talk about the difference of age between Rog and Rafa, but Rafa started younger..so you expect him to finish his carreer younger than Rog, and that's even without talk about the styles of playing of both players

Arkulari
08-03-2012, 05:24 AM
End of Season Turning 21
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 0
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 2

End of Season Turning 22
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 0
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 3

End of Season Turning 23
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 2
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 4

End of Season Turning 24
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 3
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 6

End of Season Turning 25
non-grass Grand Slam finals for Federer = 6
non-clay Grand Slam finals for Nadal = 8

Nadal, for years, had made more career non-clay Grand Slam finals than Federer had made non-grass Grand Slam finals (at similar ages).

They didn't peak at the same time, so you cannot compare their stats at the same age, because Rafa started to win earlier than Roger. :shrug:

Rafa at 20 was already a GS champ, a signature player while Roger hadn't peaked yet, he did in 2004 when he was 22-23.

The Spaniard is a magnificent clay courter but he's proven himself as able to win in all surfaces (his weakest being indoor but since there's no GS that is played entirely on that then no problem), is he a better grasscourter/hardcourter than Roger at his prime? No way, that's why his resume is still clay heavy even if he's won outside of it.

Now, for the thread question: Roger has said he's been lucky a few times, so of course that's an aspect that comes into the discussion but if the guy has no talent, balls and work ethics there's no way they would be able to win big.

I don't like Djokovic but it doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that he's a great tennis player and has pretty much earned what he's got.

Andy1402
08-03-2012, 05:36 AM
Federer wasnt declining in 2008. He declined in 2010. And when I said Nadal on grass = Federer on clay, I meant currently and not in Fed's prime.


Sent from my SGH-T989 using VerticalSports.Com App

Then i agree.

dazed1
08-03-2012, 06:36 AM
Right now Nadal is just as capable on grass as Federer is on clay.



http://i.imgur.com/unWk5.gif

Satasonic
08-03-2012, 06:40 AM
Djokovic was lucky only during that return in the 2011Open. He has played very well on match points against Tsonga, and from what Ive seen he is just solid. Doesnt go for much on match points and it pays off against clowns. Djokovic isnt that mentally strong either, its just his opponents are mental midgets.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-03-2012, 02:06 PM
Nadal, for years, had made more career non-clay Grand Slam finals than Federer had made non-grass Grand Slam finals (at similar ages).

v17lMr0j2D8

you know you cant compare an early starter to a relative late starter