-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Roland Garros - The 2014 French Open (May 25th - June 8)
- Thread starter Smellycat
- Start date
- Status
John Dunbar
correct about everything
raonic serving to stay in the set, has 30-0. then serves two double faults and gets broken. useless. just useless.
Devalue caeeer slam? WTF? Federer only managed to win FO because Nadal wasn't in the finals. Djokovic has to win Nadal to earn this title.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
what a silly argument. might as well say nadal won the us open only because federer was not in the final.
djokovic is a mid-tier great and him getting a career slam would only highlight what a weak era this is.
It's true and you know it. Nadal would have destroyed Federror.
Weak era? I think you know nothing about Tennis, really nothing at all.
So much bullshit, you are the first person on Neogaf that makes me angry.
Didn't you know ? Federer won ALL his Grand Slam titles because Nadal WASN'T THERE !!!!
I don't quite agree with you on Djokovic though, he's not at the level of Roger or Rafa for me, but he's definitely one of the best.
And yeah, Gulbis is on fire, a thing of beauty. Glad he found a way to be more consistent.
FortuneFaded
Member
Monfils - Gulbis final. Believe.
Explain yourself
FortuneFaded
Member
While I don't agree with his position that Novak winning would devalue the career slam, you can't say that Nadal would have destroyed Federer if he couldn't even beat Soderling. Nadal had issues that affected his tournament but you play the hand you are dealt with. It's like saything that Novak would have beaten Murray at the US if it was less windy or Wimbledon if it was less hot.
Well it's pretty easy to understand : for him, having three career slams in the span of a few years, a thing that almost nobody achieved before, means the achievement becomes less prestigious.
I don't really agree though, because Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are clearly among the best, each one have produced incredible performances and they earned it (well Djokovic has still a few matches to win to earn it !). Fighting over who deserves it more or who won more easily is a little bit silly for me.
BigJonsson
Member
Great work by Bouchard, I think she is going to beat Sharapova
Raonic hanging in there with Djokovic
Raonic hanging in there with Djokovic
greenleaves
Member
Gulbis in frightening form. Recovered well after the Federer match.
Gulbis is bullying Berdych in every single respect. And because of this, it has brought Berdych's level of play down. He knows he can't do anything else.
BigJonsson
Member
Raonic down 2 sets to love 
Yeah, Gulbis hits as hard as Berdych but he's quite a lot more creative, he makes more things with the ball, takes better tactical decisions. That's what makes the difference.
Edit : french television site airs all matches live, but I don't know if it works for foreign users. You guys who can't watch can always try here : http://www.francetvsport.fr/roland-...s-berdych-vs-ernests-gulbis-03-06-2014-573643
Lone_Prodigy
Member
At least the first two sets were close for Raonic. But he's clearly not there yet.
He's not serious. He's a Joker.
greenleaves
Member
If Gulbis beats Novak, I wonder if he can hold his nerves in a slam final. He does have a 6-0 record in finals though, so maybe.
Confrontation
Member
Just RIDICULOUS that they got Errani - Petkovic on Chatrier and Nadal - Ferrer on Lenglen.
No pretty sure the former will be the most interesting.
Confrontation
Member
Don't care if Nadal wins with a triple bagel, there's no way Petkovic/Errani should get priority over the 8 times champion against the number 5 ranked player in the quarters.
They are putting one QF from women and men side on each court so its Monfils/Murray that got the priority over Nadal/Ferrer.
Confrontation
Member
Well yeah. They would have to hear about how they're not treating them equally and all that. They already have equal prize money if I'm not mistaken, but to rob people on Center from a potentially awesome men's double-header is a big, big shame.
Oh come off it. If I was there I certainly would feel robbed if I sat through two men's qfs, especially if they played out like today's four.
PS3GamerKyle
Member
Surprised to see Sharapova come back strong after that lousy first set. Wanted Mugu to pull ahead, but alas. She came on my radar after beating Serena, and I really like her style of play (plus she's cute)
And sad to see Bird-man not even getting a set over Gulbis. Didn't see the match, but I wonder if Gulbis used a conveniently timed MTO?
And sad to see Bird-man not even getting a set over Gulbis. Didn't see the match, but I wonder if Gulbis used a conveniently timed MTO?
Come on, let's be real here. Federer lost 5 times against Nadal @FO, he only managed in 2 out of 15 matches on clay to win against him. He also lost in 9 out of 11 GS matches. If Nadal wouldn't have lost against Soderling, it would have been Federers 5th loss against Nadal @FO.
Djokovic won 19 out of 41 matches against Nadal, Federer only 10 out of 33. A career slam for Djokovic would be more deserved than Federers.
FortuneFaded
Member
If we're going to talk hypotheticals, then I might as well say that if Federer had grown up playing on clay like Nadal did then he would be the better clay court player and so Nadal's French Open victories were virtue of his birth. It's pointless. You cannot mitigate circumstances like that. It's not as if it there was a single pivotal moment in a match which swayed the entire outcome (i.e. The feather in the Australian Open). Nadal comprehensively lost to Soderling who was a worse clay court player then Federer. If he didn't have the injury & the off-the-court problems in 2009 then yes, he probably would have beaten Federer in the Final; but you can't ignore them.
The Murray career slam will be glorious.
FortuneFaded
Member
It wasn't me that said that. It was the guys who's correct about everything. I don't think it devalues anything; it's a stupid thing to say.
Nobody knows what could happen on any given day, hence Soderling, hence Rosol, etc. Hell, most people didn't think Stan had a chance against Nadal at the AO this year. That's tennis. That said, I don't agree with the devaluing statement. If you get a career slam, you get it. It's a little weird how personally you seem to be taking his comment though. It's just a comment on an internet forum
I'm taking it personally because it sounds like racism and it's offending.Nobody knows what could happen on any given day, hence Soderling, hence Rosol, etc. Hell, most people didn't think Stan had a chance against Nadal at the AO this year. That's tennis. That said, I don't agree with the devaluing statement. If you get a career slam, you get it. It's a little weird how personally you seem to be taking his comment though. It's just a comment on an internet forum
I agree with FortuneFaded, that's a lot of "ifs". I agree with you that head-to-head should be a factor in this kind of debate, but it shouldn't be the main element to consider, it should be one of many.
I don't get why, when you prefer a player (in your case Djokovic), you should automatically diminish the accomplishments of his opposition. The fact that Novak has his palmares when playing against some of the best players ever (Nadal and Federer in particular) makes him, if anything, more deserving.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
faith, i am sorry if my exaggerated comment hurt your feelings. djokovic is a fantastic player and if he manages to win a career slam he will have deserved it (though it is a pity he managed to vulture that wimbledon title with the hideous grass court game that he has).
but how on earth is it racism? djokovic is the same race as i am.
but how on earth is it racism? djokovic is the same race as i am.
Confrontation
Member
This is right on point here. Capping off a career slam in this fashion would be an absolutely amazing achievement and I don't even like Djoko that much. Especially since Nadal is not showing any signs of slowing down during this tournament.
So it would be a devalue because of his Wimbledon win?
Which race? The human race?
P.s. I also found it offending because Djokovic had to work so hard for everything that he achieved. His parents weren't rich at all, they were poor, they had to borrow huge amounts of money to make this happen what Djokovic have become. Djokovic had to play better than the 2 best tennis players of all time, it's a huge success to win so many times against Nadal & Federer.
Yeah, it isn't a devalue and John Dunbar was just making a silly offhand statement, as he often does. Shame on him. A slam is a slam, and shouldn't be asterisked as people like to do these days so if and when Djokovic wins the FO, it'll be as worthy a career slam as any.
Anyway, while Nadal is looking mighty-fine against the four unseeded players he had to face so far, we still don't really know where he is at yet. By his own admission his back is troubling him again. Guess we will find out what is what tomorrow in his match against Ferrer, which should be interesting.
So Faith, Djokovic may yet get his FO this year, but it won't necessarily be against a fully fit Nadal, if there is such a thing. And even if he is not injured, his decline has been quite plain for everyone to see this clay season, barely scrapping by a victory in Madrid against Nishikori who had to retire. Does that mean we should discredit a win against Nadal in FO like people like to do against Federer winning the FO without playing Nadal, or Wawrinka beating a wounded Nadal in AO? Personally I think no. You can only beat the opponent before you. Also, when it comes to talk of H2H, I should like to mention that it wasn't Nadal who stopped Djokovic from winning the FO in 2011, if you take my meaning.
But all this talk is premature and pointless because for all we know it might be Gulbis/Monfils in the finals this year.
Anyway, while Nadal is looking mighty-fine against the four unseeded players he had to face so far, we still don't really know where he is at yet. By his own admission his back is troubling him again. Guess we will find out what is what tomorrow in his match against Ferrer, which should be interesting.
So Faith, Djokovic may yet get his FO this year, but it won't necessarily be against a fully fit Nadal, if there is such a thing. And even if he is not injured, his decline has been quite plain for everyone to see this clay season, barely scrapping by a victory in Madrid against Nishikori who had to retire. Does that mean we should discredit a win against Nadal in FO like people like to do against Federer winning the FO without playing Nadal, or Wawrinka beating a wounded Nadal in AO? Personally I think no. You can only beat the opponent before you. Also, when it comes to talk of H2H, I should like to mention that it wasn't Nadal who stopped Djokovic from winning the FO in 2011, if you take my meaning.
But all this talk is premature and pointless because for all we know it might be Gulbis/Monfils in the finals this year.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked