Thought Djokovic was clearly the leader at it UNTIL the recently 'aborted' divorce. Now he is sailing in the same train as Federer.
Name of the freaking train?
KNOT.
Both have a 'knot' in their marriage that will block 'all out' love - forever.
For rock people, Federer and everyone else knows he was 'forced' to marry Mirka after Mirka 'arranged' the pregnancy to make sure he doesn't wander over to Wawrinka after 'milking the rented cow' for TEN freaking years.
Djokovic was robbed of certain immortality by Rustic playing the 'divorce' game to assert her 'rights'.
That then leaves Nadal - by default.
He may not be as madly in love as probably Djokovic once was - with his family - but he sure seems like an outright winner today. Right?
If Federer is destined to NOT be the GOAT, should they root for Nadal or Djokovic to take that spot?
If Nadal takes the spot, there will be enough holes to allow Federer to still maintain semi-GOAT status, given his / Nadal's record @ WTF, weeks @ No. 1 etc.
If Djokovic takes the spot, Federer is freaking toast - altogether.
Since it's this freaking no freaking a brainer, what's the freaking Dalia Lama?
Could it be this?
"We hate Nadal so much that even if it requires 'sacrificing' Federer, we would rather NOT see him as the GOAT. Give it to Djokovic".
OR
"Even though we hate Nadal SO MUCH the fact that the first option will allow Federer to salvage something outweighs the animosity - barely. So rooting for Nadal".
For rock people, what this means is freaking this:
Aliens arrive on earth. Give humans an option.
Take your best shot: Pick your best sport / athlete for a match against us. If we lose, we will leave. If not, you are ALL freaking toast - after the anal probe, that is.
........universal consensus of you being the MOST talented player - EVER. Add the clown who owns you - everywhere - is the one next in line - if not already 'there'. Not enough? How about that clown is universally considered as 'one dimensional' AND clay monster - near exclusively? Heck, you have a losing record against the 'next in line' clown - TOO. And he is not even a clay beast. Heck, you probably have a winning H2H against him on clay - and the finger wagging BS @ Roland Garros.
OR
Near universal consensus of you being the best player - EVER. Add winning H2H against current GOAT candidates. Not enough? How about better or equal stats @ nearly all 'that matter' stats - vis a vis both? Masters, WTF, weeks @ No. 1.............. Still more? Some (most?) think you own Nadal - every which way. And that's the clown threatening the MOST talented clown ever.
Andy Murray admitted that he still had doubts as to whether he would ever recapture his best form but was encouraged by his performance against Fernando Verdasco here on Wednesday at the US Open, despite a row developing after the Briton accused his opponent of illegally speaking to his coach during heat break.
Murray was beaten 7-5, 2-6, 6-4, 6-4 after more than three and a quarter hours, but the 31-year-old Scot fought to the end of a tight contest played in sweltering conditions. The temperature reached 36 degrees Celsius and the humidity rose above 40 per cent.
Under the tournament’s new heat rule the two players were allowed to take a 10-minute break before the fourth set. However, Murray was concerned about the lack of guidance about the protocol for the breaks.
Players must not talk to their entourage during them, but Murray said he saw Verdasco chatting with his coach in the locker room. Murray said he informed the supervisor, who, according to the Scot, told Verdasco that was not allowed.
“You’ve got to do better than that,” Murray said. “This is one of the biggest events in the world. If you have rules like that, you need to stick with them, because one player getting to speak to the coach and the other not is not fair.”
He added: “I’m not blaming Fernando and his team. They probably weren’t aware that those were the rules. They certainly weren’t trying to break any rules. It shouldn’t be for the player that’s competing against him to have to go to the supervisor.
“If I hadn’t said anything, they would have been chatting, chatting about the match, giving tactics and stuff. I shouldn’t be in that position in the middle of a match at a Slam, having to make sure they're doing their job.”
Verdasco, nevertheless, denied that he had talked to his coach and insisted that he had not been admonished by any tournament official.
Murray was unhappy with Verdasco speaking to his coach during a heat break (AP)
Asked whether he had any doubts about his ability to return to the top, Murray said: “You just don’t know. When I got the injury, I was ranked No 1 in the world. Twelve months later things had completely changed.
“You just don’t know exactly what’s round the corner. If things keep going smoothly and physically I continue to improve, I believe that I will get back to competing for the biggest competitions, because there’s no reason why I couldn’t, but you don’t know.
“When you continue to build up and start playing more tournaments, you don’t know how you’re going to respond. If that’s the case, that makes things a little bit more tricky.
“Because of the path that I’ve been on the last year with many, many ups and downs, trying to come back, it not quite working, then ending up having the surgery, I think it’s completely normal to have those doubts.”
IF Nadal ends his career @ 19 Slams - and Federer stays put @ 20 - this loss may bear brunt of the blame AND the hurt that 'station' will inevitably exact.
Why?
Because:
1. Djokovic was NOT expected to produce the form he unleashed - as opposed to how routine it was for him @ other Slam losses Nadal suffered at the hands of Djokovic @ AO, W and USO.
2. Nadal was in full flight - @ Wimbledon - for the first time - in 7 years.
3. With Federer gone, winning the final was a foregone conclusion - WITHOUT factoring two back to back five setters @ quarters and semis for Anderson.
4. Five set loss with 8-10 in the fifth set further heightens the 'condition' - as it 'humiliates' Nadal's superior conditioning and style of play - clay 'fatigue' notwithstanding.
5. Three Wimbledon titles would have tied Nadal with Becker, McEnroe and Djokovic leaving JUST Borg (5), Sampras (7) and Federer (8) ahead - allowing him to at least realistically 'contest' the clay only tag - forget the distant third Career Slam probability (he has won three US Open and 11 FO titles already).
6. No. 18 would have 'equipped' Nadal to realistically dream of getting to No. 20 by end of next season.
7. Add all of above and it may end up as a source of agony - for perpetuity.
Federer:
1. By near-unanimous consensus this was Federer's LAST realistic shot @ No. 20 - for obvious reasons.
2. He lost a match he had 'won' (had match point @ third set after winning the first two sets) - forget Anderson's stature or lack thereof.
3. He had Isner in the semis AND a weakened, if not crippled, opponent for the final.
4. No. 9 would have allowed Federer some credibility vis a vis Nadal's No. 11 (or whatever he ends up with @ FO).
5. 21 has a FAR greater likelihood of 'standing' alone than No. 20 as things lie today - Djokovic's resurgence notwithstanding. At this point, Federer will be THRILLED to be ahead of Nadal on the Slam pole EVEN if it is by JUST one Slam.
6. Win here would have reversed the 'slide' he has been on since winning 2018 AO allowing him to mentally NOT 'think' of retirement - at least with 'fodder' this compelling.
7. Regaining No. 1 rank - one last time - may have been on the chair? It's not even on the floor now.
As you all probably know, I'm not Little Rafa's greatest fan, to put it mildly. But, on this one, he may have a point.
Not sure we want to penalize the quality of play to save a few seconds.
On the other hand, we clearly want to prevent misusing the time between points.
So, maybe the rule applies to points up to a certain number of shots, or certain duration, which may be easier to implement. For example, 25 seconds rule applies to points lasting up to 15 seconds after which you add an additional second for every additional 5 seconds played. Something like that.
It can be progressive as well, not linear. It won't be hard to implement.
Federer will win at least one Slam - most probably AO. As things stand today, who will defeat him there? Nadal? Sure!!!!!
Since Wimbledon falls almost on his 37th birthday, it may not be as much of a Slam dunk as AO. Still winning two Slams is quite probable. Maybe even possible.
Nadal will win two Slams. FO? USO? If Federer falters @ AO, Nadal may step in to complete the second Career Slam piece. If he does, he may STILL end the season with just two Slams (Nothing @ USO then). Worse case scenario? Just FO.
This back and forth between Federer and Nadal (Federer winning just enough to deny Nadal gaining ground on the Slam pole) will end in 2018 leaving Nadal to then 'employ paper cuts' (winning one Slam per season @ 2019 and beyond) to close the gap.
Point: If Nadal somehow is the all-time leader on the Slam AND the Masters pole - with Federer still holding the 6-0 lead @ WTF - will the WTF advantage matter for Federer @ GOAT table? And that's if Nadal doesn't extend his Masters lead to six from three today thereby neutralizing the advantage - at least statistically.
Shouldn't the following provide some insight as to how long:
Everyone had unanimously predicted Nadal will not last past his 28th birthday. There was more than enough evidence to not even attempt to refute the 'claim'.
If he has not only lasted beyond that date, but is also winning multiple Slams - in one season - there must be something he is engaged in - legal or illegal - that is working.
AND if it has worked thus far, it is reasonable to assume it will continue to - even after factoring in 'advanced' age.
I mean, the likelihood of him shutting down abruptly - for good - continues to wane with above as backdrop. Sure there's always that possibility given the severity of injury but if he has survived this long with this severe an abuse going out in 'phases' appears more plausible - since he is still 31. Add Federer, Connors and Agassi and it may switch to more of a certainty.
If above BS is true, then are we looking @ what three more years - till age 34? Four - till 35 MAX?
That's about 12 Slams (3 years) with no Federer (soon) and no competition.
Shouldn't everything Pederer and Mowgli do from now on - on and off the court - be tempered with GOAT 'impressions'? Duh!!!!!
With that as backdrop, how can winning another WTF (Federer already holds all-time record) trump year-end No. 1 rank when it will tie Sampras' all-time record. Heck, more importantly it will deny Nadal from bagging No. 4 - JUST one short of Federer's (5)?
Conversely, EVEN if Nadal wins WTF the GOAT needle will not move as much as it will with fourth year-end title - specially when things tighten up.
Recent Comments