How does that SARS and Bird flu feel now Roddick? And of course more draw discrimination for Novak by the olympic draw committee

First topic message reminder :

I will say it I am generally not a big fan of the ROD, his game or his bullying mentality towards officials and umpires. Not a fan of his big comedy routine at Novak's expense at the USO. What is comedy for me is how attrocious Roddick's returning is and remains and his movement at this age is worse than it has ever been. Oddly Roddick had won 2 out of the last 3 tournaments against weak fields with one grass court title before this match. Glad to see one of my least favorite players and frat boy impersonator Andy Roddick get breadsticked on Grass and have his vaunted serve crushed.

Now on to the subject of the now laughable anti-Novak draws that the brits are now getting in on the act as well. Not only does Novak draw the goat 15 of 17 slams. This will now be the 3rd time this year in a row that when Novak and 2 other top 4 players enter the tournament (ie Nadal is out) that Novak's half magically gets the other top 4 guy in the semi. In Dubai only Murray, Novak, and Fed in the draw Novak gets Murray in his half and fed gets a big 4 free half. In Monte Carlo only 3 of the top 4 showed up. And guess who got Murray in their half Nadal or Djokovic? Bingo Djoko again. And now the olympics only 3 of the big 4 show up again, guess which of the top players draws murray in their
half? Bingo Djokovic. Not to mention getting 3 times finalist Rodddick as a second round match Tsonga and milos in your half at the outset as well. Now we have the 15 out of 17 thing with fed add this to the odd list of coin toss streaks that Novak has been drawing up the short straw over and over and over again. When 3 big 4 show up Novak will always be the top 2 guy that will be forced to play a big 4 opponent in the semi? How much more protection does fedal need, frankly it is getting laughable at how the draw committees are protecting and pumping these guys up with the draw. (this is my personal opinion and not the opinion of the website founders or owners and is just meant as speculation)

I'd agree with that Murdoch, but the conspiracy is the topic of the thread so...

It Must Be Love wrote:The BBC commentators actually talked about how Djokovic may be rusty as he has had a week's gap before the FO semi.
Does that mean he would have won if he had played the QF? No, not necessarily.
Also we have to consider that Fognini could have won the match, or even took Djokovic to 5 sets which meant Djokovic would have been slightly fatigued. However considering the form Djokovic was in FO 2011 it is unlikely Fognini would have even won a set.


I do think Federer fans have done well to make this into a 'comical' point rather than a serious one. This probably wasn't helped by the title of Socal's thread 'Fogniniii' which isn't the most serious.
But nevertheless it is a point. If you do have a sudden week's break it may mean you are a bit rusty, this isn't a comical point it's a serious one. Alternatively it can also be argued that if it does to 5 sets you would be slightly fresher.
I remember Murray had a few withdrawals in a row in Miami this year and the media reported that this may affect him negatively.

He didn't have a weeks gap, he had 4 days instead of the standard 2. He played Monday, missed Wednesday, played Friday. Oh how did he withstand that? Awful, experience or him, just terrible....

See how easy it is to lose track when someone whitters on about something endlessly?

reckoner wrote:I'd agree with that Murdoch, but the conspiracy is the topic of the thread so...

Yep. But the conspiracy theory can have many objections raised against it but I don't think the idea that Novak in fact has not been given a tough draw is one that stands up.

reckoner wrote:Just like fans of a certain player who think he's a tennis great without winning a slam you mean?

It's a general point and can be seen in a lot of places.

People do this to themselves, ts very damaging.

HM Murdoch wrote:

lags72 wrote:Your latest worry is that Djokovic has been dealt a raw deal on the Olympics. Ironically, many might say that he actually got the kindest draw out of all the top 3 players :

Lags, your point, which takes the first three rounds as a whole, is accurate but I think you are being a little selective in your parameters and interpretation. On the same basis one could make the equally valid point that Djoko had to face a higher ranked opponent in round 2 than Fed or Murray will face in any of their first three rounds.

Taking the draw as a whole though, I don't think anyone could argue that Fed's likely QF and SF opponents, Tisparevic and Ferrer, are much less dangerous than Novak's (Tsonga and Murray).

If we avoid any talk of conspiracies etc, surely the basic facts that Novak has a rotten draw and Fed has a pretty comfortable one are not in dispute?

HMM : Obviously I'm with you as regards avoiding conspiracy talk - if only because it always is, by its very nature, ultimately more about tenuous speculation rather than proven fact.

However I'm going to disagree on your somewhat black & white conclusion that Novak has a '"rotten" draw and that Federer (and indeed Murray, as mentioned by socal) has a "pretty comfortable" one. The highest ranked player in the first 3 rounds was Roddick and someone had to get him. But at 21 he's hardly on another planet (these days) from Wawrinka who is himself ranked 24. And we've seen in the not too distant past just what Falla and Bennetteau can do on grass when they're having a good day.

Plus, even if we do take account of your own reasonable point that Djokovic "had to face a higher ranked opponent in round 2 than Fed or Murray will face in any of their first three rounds" then this, sadly, will not actually give any weight to socal's particular theories. After all, Roddick remember, is the guy who - socal tells us in the opening article - has "atrocious returning" and "movement worse than it has ever been." So not a lot for socal to worry about there......

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:The BBC commentators actually talked about how Djokovic may be rusty as he has had a week's gap before the FO semi.
Does that mean he would have won if he had played the QF? No, not necessarily.
Also we have to consider that Fognini could have won the match, or even took Djokovic to 5 sets which meant Djokovic would have been slightly fatigued. However considering the form Djokovic was in FO 2011 it is unlikely Fognini would have even won a set.


I do think Federer fans have done well to make this into a 'comical' point rather than a serious one. This probably wasn't helped by the title of Socal's thread 'Fogniniii' which isn't the most serious.
But nevertheless it is a point. If you do have a sudden week's break it may mean you are a bit rusty, this isn't a comical point it's a serious one. Alternatively it can also be argued that if it does to 5 sets you would be slightly fresher.
I remember Murray had a few withdrawals in a row in Miami this year and the media reported that this may affect him negatively.

He didn't have a weeks gap, he had 4 days instead of the standard 2. He played Monday, missed Wednesday, played Friday. Oh how did he withstand that? Awful, experience or him, just terrible....

See how easy it is to lose track when someone whitters on about something endlessly?

Djokovic played his R4 match on Sunday, not Monday. But I see your point, it was not a week, not too long.

The principle is just garbage too; if it was so damaging who stopped him getting a decent knocked out player and staging a full on match. He could have put £50k on the match, that would have kept it interesting. No shortage of Fognini standard opponents who'd give their time for that.

He didn't, because he knew it made no difference. He just rested up, trained and got ready.

socal

First half of your article - great stuff. It always amuses me those who make out Roddick to be some kind of great 'all American' good guy. To those, I say go away and look at his French Open antics when playing Monfils in 2009!!

Second half - Behave please!!

banbotram - pretty much every player has - at some time or another - behaved in a manner which does them little/no credit as a professional. I can see you are no fan of Andy Roddick but of course that's all down to individual preference, and I have no quibble at all with expression of personal opinion (unless it happens to cross the line into needless and outright abuse of a player, or fellow member - which of course yours most certainly does not).

However.... w.r.t. your high praise of the first half of socal's article versus your less than complimentary view of the second half. Both halves are in fact inextricably linked. The same Roddick that gets slated to high heaven in the first half is then conveniently lauded as a three times Wimbledon finalist in the second. No surprise though, really. Whatever it takes to keep the draw rigging conspiracy alive I guess......

bogbrush wrote:

reckoner wrote:Just like fans of a certain player who think he's a tennis great without winning a slam you mean?

It's a general point and can be seen in a lot of places.

People do this to themselves, ts very damaging.

That's actually very true - we do see this sort of fuzzy thinking happening more and more. This caught my eye recently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/23/lie-detectors-inconsistency-evidence

lags72 wrote:I'm going to disagree on your somewhat black & white conclusion that Novak has a '"rotten" draw and that Federer (and indeed Murray, as mentioned by socal) has a "pretty comfortable" one.

I'd disagree with socal about Murray's draw, his is pretty tough too.

When I talk about tough draws, I'm largely disregarding the early rounds. Yes, upsets can happen but for players of Fed and Djoko's standard, it doesn't much matter if the opponent is ranked 30 or 50. The difference in those rankings does not represent a huge gulf in class and Fed & Djoko would be big favourites every time.

It's in the business end of the competition that the draw becomes more important. Looking at the seedings, I think most would agree that the toughest quarter final opponent would be Tsonga and the weakest would be Tipsarevic. The toughest semi final opponent would be Murray and the weakest would be Ferrer.

Fed got the weakest opponent for both QF and SF, Djoko got the hardest for both. That's why I think Novak's draw is so tough and Fed's so (relatively) comfortable.

No sooner do I write that I disregard the early rounds, Novak loses the first set to Hewitt!

HMM - we'll have to disagree on this one but that's fine, I respect your views

By the way.... you caught me out earlier with the convenient assumption that Tipsy would be one of Federer's opponents - and, by implication, weaker than the sort of guy Djoker might be facing at the equivalent stage. I'd personally favour Isner over Tipsaveric later today, despite what the rankings say. And if Isner does come through, then I think "comfortable opposition" for Federer is not the sort of description too many observers of the game would be inclined to use in relation to Isner.

Lags, no problem, you are certainly not the first to disagree with me! But yes, I agree with you about Isner, he is a certainly a bigger threat than Tipsy. BO3 on grass against a serve like that can end up being a lottery.

That's the loophole in discussing the draw - it seldom pans out the way it's seeded to! (ask Mr Berdych!)

reckoner wrote:Socal you were COMPLETELY wrong to accuse the British of 1) ruining Queens (it was some silly American) and 2) rigging the Olympic draw.

You owe these fair isles an apology!

To her majesty and her loyal subjects regardless of their scottish, welsh, or english ancestry I apologize for the mischarecterization. There are some silly americans that is for sure no shortage there.

HM Murdoch wrote:

lags72 wrote:I'm going to disagree on your somewhat black & white conclusion that Novak has a '"rotten" draw and that Federer (and indeed Murray, as mentioned by socal) has a "pretty comfortable" one.

I'd disagree with socal about Murray's draw, his is pretty tough too.

When I talk about tough draws, I'm largely disregarding the early rounds. Yes, upsets can happen but for players of Fed and Djoko's standard, it doesn't much matter if the opponent is ranked 30 or 50. The difference in those rankings does not represent a huge gulf in class and Fed & Djoko would be big favourites every time.

It's in the business end of the competition that the draw becomes more important. Looking at the seedings, I think most would agree that the toughest quarter final opponent would be Tsonga and the weakest would be Tipsarevic. The toughest semi final opponent would be Murray and the weakest would be Ferrer.

Fed got the weakest opponent for both QF and SF, Djoko got the hardest for both. That's why I think Novak's draw is so tough and Fed's so (relatively) comfortable.

Exactly, spot on Murdoch a lethally logical post that cuts to the heart of the issue. What really makes the draw tough is drawing the tougher semi and quarter. And again, surprise, surprise Novak has the toughest quarter and semi draw. The toughest semi draw is a given for Novak in every slam pretty much, ie drawing the Goat 15 out of 17 times the only worse draws possible mathematically in terms of semis for Novak would have been to draw the Goat 17 or 16 times out of 17.

banbrotam wrote:socal

First half of your article - great stuff. It always amuses me those who make out Roddick to be some kind of great 'all American' good guy. To those, I say go away and look at his French Open antics when playing Monfils in 2009!!

Second half - Behave please!!

Roddick frankly is a priick and a bully. I used to kind of sort of like him when I was really young, this is like 12 or 13 years ago because he was American, then I had the misfortune of watching him play. I was in college at the time and I had a roomate who hated Roddick I was ho hum about him and then I asked him why he hated Roddick. And he said it perfectly Roddick was like the diick at your local college fraternity. Tall, good looking, and athletic but somehow still and awhole nonethless. His game is attrocious the least talented really of his generation of players but to his credit he is a great fighter and hard worker with a world class serve and has built a great career for himself.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:The BBC commentators actually talked about how Djokovic may be rusty as he has had a week's gap before the FO semi.
Does that mean he would have won if he had played the QF? No, not necessarily.
Also we have to consider that Fognini could have won the match, or even took Djokovic to 5 sets which meant Djokovic would have been slightly fatigued. However considering the form Djokovic was in FO 2011 it is unlikely Fognini would have even won a set.


I do think Federer fans have done well to make this into a 'comical' point rather than a serious one. This probably wasn't helped by the title of Socal's thread 'Fogniniii' which isn't the most serious.
But nevertheless it is a point. If you do have a sudden week's break it may mean you are a bit rusty, this isn't a comical point it's a serious one. Alternatively it can also be argued that if it does to 5 sets you would be slightly fresher.
I remember Murray had a few withdrawals in a row in Miami this year and the media reported that this may affect him negatively.

He didn't have a weeks gap, he had 4 days instead of the standard 2. He played Monday, missed Wednesday, played Friday. Oh how did he withstand that? Awful, experience or him, just terrible....

See how easy it is to lose track when someone whitters on about something endlessly?

Djokovic played his R4 match on Sunday, not Monday. But I see your point, it was not a week, not too long.

5 days was the gap and that was a longer gap than the gap between his first match in Rome and the madrid final that year for the record. So it was a very big gap in the middle of a tournament something out of the normal. Also please consider the pressure of the consecutive match streak and the additional pressure of playing for the number 1 ranking again these are points conveniently disregarded by some of the idot masses who have made fogninni effect their battle cry.

socal1976 wrote:
5 days was the gap and that was a longer gap than the gap between his first match in Rome and the madrid final that year for the record. So it was a very big gap in the middle of a tournament something out of the normal. Also please consider the pressure of the consecutive match streak and the additional pressure of playing for the number 1 ranking again these are points conveniently disregarded by some of the idot masses who have made fogninni effect their battle cry.

Socal relax , a champ should know to withstand pressure, if Djoko couldn't withstand that pressure he don't deserve to win and hence rightly the loss, people were joking when Fed talked about the monster at his back a victim of his own success, but inspite of all that he kept winning and winning, still some idiots never ceased asking questions on Fed's legacy and even ex-champs like Martina thought Fed could never return back to no.1, even some die hard Fed fans would not have believed if somebody said Fed will get back to no.1 this year after the AO.

So Fog's theory and all those reasons and excuses can be given but the fact is Djoko was inferior to Fed that day and rightly lost the match, with or without Fog's factor Djoko would have lost to that Fed, Fog's factor is a very slight misfortune happened his way but that was compensated big way by 2 flucky wins over Fed in 2 consecutive USO inspite of being double match points down.

So your boy had a fair share of luck, luck don't stay with anybody all the time and rightly it didn't stick with him in FO 2011, so get over it and forget the silly Fog story, coz you are now getting emotional more than logical.

Good to see ya socal

Actually my boy hasn't had a fair share of luck that was this thread is about how is it lucky to get the hardest semi possible 15 out of 17 times? how is it lucky that 3 straight tournaments this year when 3 out of the top 4 shows up that Djokovic always gets the other top 4 guy in the semi? If anything it seems that Nadal and Federer are the ones that have been lucky frankly and more than their fair share, to the point frankly where many people are starting to question whether some of this luck is manufactured.

Fed at his prime was able to beat his competitors out and win slams, Nadal at his prime did the same so if Djoko have to join their legacy he should do it too.

Djoko should be more than comfortable to face Fed at 30's and 31's, in my view there should be no complaints there.

socal - you really do worry too much. Especially about Rafa and OAP Fed.

Have faith, Novak will be back to Number One in just a matter of days, clutching Gold and fully fired up to defend his USO in style.

And all will be sweetness & light once again .....

lags72 wrote:socal - you really do worry too much. Especially about Rafa and OAP Fed.

Have faith, Novak will be back to Number One in just a matter of days, clutching Gold and fully fired up to defend his USO in style.

And all will be sweetness & light once again .....

Do you think so Lags? I don't , he neither gonna win any of the two you mentioned, however he will return to numero Uno in the future.

Well of course I can't be 100% sure on either of the two, ic. Que sera sera.

But Djoker winning Gold for Serbia would at least help reduce socal's stress levels, surely ......

Although I am obviously always concerned about the stress levels of all posters on 606v2, I have the following brief statement to make .......

S%d Socals stress levels!!! What about my stress levels???

Hoping for (but not expecting) a Murray Gold or Silver. Unfortunately that would require a win over Djoko (should they both make the semi). A Djoko Gold would mean a bronze at best for Murray so is not a wish I can get on board with.

lags72 wrote:Well of course I can't be 100% sure on either of the two, ic. Que sera sera.

But Djoker winning Gold for Serbia would at least help reduce socal's stress levels, surely ......

For what for he should be stressed I don't know, his/her man had a great year 2011, currently lying at 2 won AO reached FO finals so whats there to be disappointed, if she thinks Djoko is the GOAT then she will always be stressed there is no cure for it.

5 day break destroys Djokovic's mind?

I don't think of him as such a mental midget. And as for physical preparation, it's a dream.

bogbrush wrote:5 day break destroys Djokovic's mind?

I don't think of him as such a mental midget. And as for physical preparation, it's a dream.

BB I guess Socal prefers Djoko to have the evening match against Nadal in USO on super saturday semi's, so after 5 hrs of griding till late past midnight he will be fit mentally and physically for the finals against Fed.

The odds when you toss a coin, of heads is 50%, the odds of tails is....50%.

This NEVER changes.

You can keep beating the drum but the goat skin is already broken and it makes NO SOUND anymore, whatsoever.

Since the sport of tennis began, an opponent can only ever play, and therefore win against, or lose against, the opposing player, drawn against them.

Get used to it, it will never, ever change!

Perhaps like Shin Lam, there should be a 'consolation' trophy for the 127/63/31/15/7 who go home.

Dare I mention Paris 2011?

invisiblecoolers wrote:Fed at his prime was able to beat his competitors out and win slams, Nadal at his prime did the same so if Djoko have to join their legacy he should do it too.

Djoko should be more than comfortable to face Fed at 30's and 31's, in my view there should be no complaints there.

Yes I am sure fed was quaking in his boots in 05 and 06 worrying about whether he would get Ferrero or Roddick in his half, lol? I love you fed fans and your nonexistant parallels and analogies.

lags72 wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

lags72 wrote:Your latest worry is that Djokovic has been dealt a raw deal on the Olympics. Ironically, many might say that he actually got the kindest draw out of all the top 3 players :

Lags, your point, which takes the first three rounds as a whole, is accurate but I think you are being a little selective in your parameters and interpretation. On the same basis one could make the equally valid point that Djoko had to face a higher ranked opponent in round 2 than Fed or Murray will face in any of their first three rounds.

Taking the draw as a whole though, I don't think anyone could argue that Fed's likely QF and SF opponents, Tisparevic and Ferrer, are much less dangerous than Novak's (Tsonga and Murray).

If we avoid any talk of conspiracies etc, surely the basic facts that Novak has a rotten draw and Fed has a pretty comfortable one are not in dispute?

HMM : Obviously I'm with you as regards avoiding conspiracy talk - if only because it always is, by its very nature, ultimately more about tenuous speculation rather than proven fact.

However I'm going to disagree on your somewhat black & white conclusion that Novak has a '"rotten" draw and that Federer (and indeed Murray, as mentioned by socal) has a "pretty comfortable" one. The highest ranked player in the first 3 rounds was Roddick and someone had to get him. But at 21 he's hardly on another planet (these days) from Wawrinka who is himself ranked 24. And we've seen in the not too distant past just what Falla and Bennetteau can do on grass when they're having a good day.

Plus, even if we do take account of your own reasonable point that Djokovic "had to face a higher ranked opponent in round 2 than Fed or Murray will face in any of their first three rounds" then this, sadly, will not actually give any weight to socal's particular theories. After all, Roddick remember, is the guy who - socal tells us in the opening article - has "atrocious returning" and "movement worse than it has ever been." So not a lot for socal to worry about there......

Lags are you serious? hewitt is ranked in the mid 100s because he is just coming back from injury, but he just came off a final and has won 7 titles on grass. Do you really believe that hewitt despite his age is a lesser opponent on grass than Falla, Niemmenen, or Bennetteau? Hewitt is a great grass court player who has been hamered by injury. But he just got to the final of a grass court tournament and is way, way, way more dangerous with his speed and flat shots than his ranking. You look at ranking an ignore quality of opposition on grass. This shows me a fundamental misunderstanding about how tennis works and the surfaces and pedigree of players. Rankings in the lower and middle ranks are not necessarily a tell tale of the difficulty of the opponent in isolation. Hewitt is a universe more dangerous on grass despite his diminished physcial skills. Same thing for Roddick the guy can serve 150 miles an hour on grass, he is much better than his number 21 ranking on Grass where as wawrinka is not anywhere close to as successful player on grass. Playing Pete Sampras at RG and playing him at wimbeldon are 2 different things. Novak got easily the two greatest grass court players (albeit passed their prime) out there in the early rounds. While hewitt and Roddick are old thoroughbreds to some extent benny and nimennen are just old.

Benneteau just achieved his highest career ranking of 26 in April 2012. He also beat Federer in Paris a couple of years ago.

Nieminen won Sydney as a WC, IIRC and played the doubles finals as well.

Did Ferrer not play the QF of W 2012 and almost got Murray in trouble? He has a 51-9 record in 2012. Granted he did not play too well today vs. Nishikori.

Isner and Del Potro have been conveniently ignored in this 'level' of opposition discussion.

Did Nishikori not beat Djokovic in Basel on a WTF-like surface? See if someone can name the players that he beat in Basel and Shanghai 2011.

Oh great, one minute Roddick is a useless "frat boy" and the next he's an "old thoroughbred".

Boy, it's to be hoped your clients get a better service than this. This standard would get laughed out of court.

Roddick 150mph on Grass still??

This year he barely hit 130mph at Wimbledon. A stat that was touched on by many commentators as his serve games held % dropped from the high 80's down to the 60's.

When we are comparing draws it is better to go by the form book of 'here and now'

I don't think many players in the top 20 would complain about drawing Mr Mechano!

bogbrush wrote:Oh great, one minute Roddick is a useless "frat boy" and the next he's an "old thoroughbred".

Boy, it's to be hoped your clients get a better service than this. This standard would get laughed out of court.

I hope you aren't this dense and can understand gradations and relative arguments or else all your employees are really being run by a bigger idiot than even I assumed. Are you the inspiration of Ricky Gervais The Office? For the 100th time you short bus rider, Roddick when compared to Niemmenen is a thoroughbred. Roddick when compared to other past number ones and slam winners isn't that impressive of a talent. I know no person that can manage to formulate working sentences can be this dense and incapable of understanding obvious logic. Therefore I chalk this up to your endless attempts to stalk me like an abusive husbhand hepped up on methamphetamine chasing me from thread to thread. You just don't get a clue when people really don't want to talk to you do you?

legendkillarV2 wrote:Roddick 150mph on Grass still??

This year he barely hit 130mph at Wimbledon. A stat that was touched on by many commentators as his serve games held % dropped from the high 80's down to the 60's.

When we are comparing draws it is better to go by the form book of 'here and now'

I don't think many players in the top 20 would complain about drawing Mr Mechano!

Lets go on current form he is ranked in the top 25 and has won 2 of his last three tournaments that he has entered in prior to the olympics.

If we're going on current form then both Isner and Ferrer are two very recent grass court tournament champions i.e. the last month or so. Both were drawn in Fed's half, not Djoko's.

Oh yes I am sure murray is an easier draw on grass than Ferrer in the semi, come on for the love of god julius you are pushing the devil's advocate thing to the point of absurdity. I would take Ferrer all day and twice on sunday as the easier draw on grass. Didn't murray just beat ferrer and take a set off fed at the wimby final. Isner? really how did he do at wimbeldon? Generally the big tall oafey guys don't do well on grass.

They just handed Roger a silver medal for showing up basically.

I found it wholly ironic that socal should quote Hewitt making the Final at Newport as evidence of just what a "tough draw" it's been for Djokovic.

The best player Hewitt had to face en route to that final was the (then) 105th-ranked Vasek Pospisil - that well-known grass court specialist

BUT who did Hewitt then lose to in the Final itself .... Ah yes, step forward none other than John Isner who turns in Fed's half at the Olympics ......

socal, one minute you're slating Roddick, then you're rating Roddick on the basis of recent form. Then when I suggest Ferrer's recent form is also important, then you suddenly don't think recent form is important.
I can't keep up with all your contradictions.

Isner has just won a grass court tournament. Tsonga has never won a grass court tournament. If Roddick's recent grass court win carries some weight, why doesn't Isner's? I can only think of one reason - Roddick is in Djoko's half and Isner isn't, therefore Roddick must be the more dangerous opponent - because the only dangerous opponents in the entire tournament are in Djoko's half and if he wins it will be worth 2 gold medals.

Julius lets go on recent form, Ferrer just go beat by murray at wimbeldon. Ferrer is Roger's semi! So who has the harder semi based on class or form? Clearly Djokovic does. What is the contradiction that you are creating for yourself?

Again, I am starting to worry about you guys. Roddick is not a higher echelon player clearly. But if asked as a second round opponent would i prefer to play Roddick, Niemenen or Benny on grass I would want to see roddick last of all those three. I don't understand the difficulty some of you have in understanding relative concepts. Roddick compared to other grandslam winners is not anything special, but compared to the niemmenen's and bennetteau's of the world on grass he is easily and without question the toughest of those three on that surface.

Socal, maybe address the points I raised?

But please don't worry about us. We're fine.

Don't know about you lot, but I feel like it might not be worth the effort of trying to reason here with socal - at least not as far as those fearful draws are concerned .....

Lags I haven't seen reason or much of it sadly in your recent posts. Your claim that Isner is the toughest quarter matchup is wrong. Based on pedigree or current form, it seems that you are the one who does not want to accept objective facts and unreasonably hold onto a postion.

Julius which points are you talking about? I explained your supposed non existant Roddick contradiction. Roddick when taken in the pespective of a second round matchup on grass is tougher than the second round matches that Federer and murray received. And when you look at recent form Ferrer who lost to murray is not as tough a semi as Djoko gets with Andy. I don't see much other then these two indisputtable facts that pretty much defeat the point you are trying to make. If I missed something let me know what specifically.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Oh great, one minute Roddick is a useless "frat boy" and the next he's an "old thoroughbred".

Boy, it's to be hoped your clients get a better service than this. This standard would get laughed out of court.

I hope you aren't this dense and can understand gradations and relative arguments or else all your employees are really being run by a bigger idiot than even I assumed. Are you the inspiration of Ricky Gervais The Office? For the 100th time you short bus rider, Roddick when compared to Niemmenen is a thoroughbred. Roddick when compared to other past number ones and slam winners isn't that impressive of a talent. I know no person that can manage to formulate working sentences can be this dense and incapable of understanding obvious logic. Therefore I chalk this up to your endless attempts to stalk me like an abusive husbhand hepped up on methamphetamine chasing me from thread to thread. You just don't get a clue when people really don't want to talk to you do you?

I just have to clear up the disinformation and nonsense you post. No reply is necessary from you, indeed it is incidental to the factual corrections I'm putting up left, right and centre.

socal, I think you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make, but I suspect any re-wording/reiteration would not benefit either of us.

I do agree, of course, that Murray is the toughest of the semi-finalists that Fed/Djoko could have faced.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I do agree, of course, that Murray is the toughest of the semi-finalists that Fed/Djoko could have faced.

Bingo, also Tsonga is the tougher quarterfinalist as well.