Its official now, Novak is the back to back world #1

First topic message reminder :

It has been an up and down year for Novak, having both lost and regained the number 1 ranking within the last few months. Some close matches and unfavorable circumstances went against him this year where in 2011 he was not having these issues. But with all that being said he still won a slam and outpaced all of his nearest rivals in points. And by the end of the year he is pretty fit and playing probably the best tennis of the season. He now has made the semis of the last 8 straight tournaments and 14 of the 15 tournaments he entered this year with his only early exit being on Ian Tiriac's dodgy clay court in the quarters. We have also seen him accomplish feats of fighting back with his back up against the wall and cementing his reputation as the hardest player to serve out a grandslam match on.

And going into next season Djokovic have to be optimistic as he seems to be again building momentum at the tale end of the year and should be poised for greater success in 2013. He went 6-8 against his biggest rivals with a mid season slump against them and I am sure for next year he will be looking to correct that number. All in all a great year anyway you slice it and I am sure we will see a better version of Djokovic in 2013 if injuries are permitting. Novak now is one of only 9 players in the history of the game to repeat as world #1 in back to back years since the founding of th ATP ranking system. Joining an elite club with Borg, Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, Hewitt, Mcenroe, Federer and now Djokovic.

HM Murdoch wrote:Careful Socal, that's some dangerous talk you are saying in these quarters!

While it's perfectly acceptable to observe that Fed has gone of the boil since Cincy, it's not very popular to suggest that Novak or Rafa can have periods of poor form. That apparently diminishes the achievements of other players.

It is perfectly acceptable to observe that Fed has gone off the boil since Cincy, and is suffering from fatigue and niggling injuries (according to Fed), just as it is perfectly acceptable to say Rafa has been injured for the last 6 months.
What would not be acceptable, to me at least, is to say that Djoko has thus been fortunate to get back to No. 1. There's nothing fortunate about it.
However, if anyone argues that Fed was fortunate to get back to No 1, then to be consistent they would also have to argue that Djoko is also fortunate.
There are posters from all sides who apply one set of rules for their favourite player and one for the rest.

Niggles everyone has them Julius, if he is tired he should get in better shape, a torn back muscle or Nadal busting his knee again is different than niggles and fatigue. Name one guy on tour still playing that doesn't have niggles and fatigue. Playing with a torn muscle is a little bit different than Roger being tired while flying around in Nike's 30 million dollar jet.

socal1976 wrote:Niggles everyone has them Julius, if he is tired he should get in better shape, a torn back muscle or Nadal busting his knee again is different than niggles and fatigue. Name one guy on tour still playing that doesn't have niggles and fatigue. Playing with a torn muscle is a little bit different than Roger being tired while flying around in Nike's 30 million dollar jet.

If Djoko and/or Nadal push themselves so hard to achieve success that they can't last the season without inevitable injures, then they need to either get in better shape, or learn to play a game that's easier on the body.
Everyone's been saying for years that Nadal's knees won;t hold out with the physical game he plays, then when it happens, it's somehow fortunate for his rivals (including Djokovic!)?
If Djoko then chooses to follow suit with the physical game and pushes himself so hard that he gets injured, it's not unfortunate, it's a consequence of what he had to do to get 3 slams the way he did. Choosing to play Davis Cup at the end of 2011 wasn't unfortunate, it was a conscious, and probably ill-thought choice. A mistake, just as much as a double-fault at set point.
(btw, didn't he perform better at Paris with a torn bacl muscle that he did this year?)

Like I say, different rules for people's favourite player.

I agree, and Roger is the guy who has the different set of rules in his favor. In fact I give fed massive credit with how elegant and smooth and injury free he has been. I think Roger is probably the most fortunate star in terms of longterm health that I can remember in the sport, and that fact has won him as many slams as his forehand has. So it isn't like anyone is discounting the value of his athletic grace and durability. And as for Novak he has now played an average of 80 plus matches for the last 6 seasons he generally is very durable as well but fed is otherworldly in that respect.

JuliusHMarx wrote:What would not be acceptable, to me at least, is to say that Djoko has thus been fortunate to get back to No. 1. There's nothing fortunate about it.
However, if anyone argues that Fed was fortunate to get back to No 1, then to be consistent they would also have to argue that Djoko is also fortunate.
There are posters from all sides who apply one set of rules for their favourite player and one for the rest.

Indeed. The irony is that I don't think anyone on this forum has said any player is fortunate to be number 1.

The difference is that if we look at factors that went in Djoko's favour i.e. Fed withdrawing from Paris, the SF v Ferrer at USO being postponed until better conditions, then the response tends to be quite rational.

If we look at factors that went in Fed's favour i.e. terrible form from Rafa and Novak at the end of 2011, Madrid being on blue clay, then there are a number of people that get very annoyed.

lol Julius pretending to be fair

Julius, whenever a Federer fan says something like this you totally ignore it, but whenever a Djokovic/Nadal fan says this you drive in with police sirens in the background saying 'this is not fair, this type of analysis is not acceptable' etc.

But absolutely @ JHM....however, what a dull world it would be if bland balanced opinions were projected all the time.

Socal, it's hard to go through all points you've made...some points I agree with to a degree (I did discuss the Nada-Djokovic burnout aspects too) but disagree that if he's on song he's the best. Don't forget what can happen if Nadal is on song too...you say Djokovic had off court issues in 2012 (yes) but so did Nadal in 2011. For me, 2012 Djokovic would still have struggled against 2008-2010 Nadal.

Anyway, he's done amazingly well to get back to #1, he's been pretty consistent all year so hats off!

HM Murdoch wrote:The irony is that I don't think anyone on this forum has said any player is fortunate to be number 1.

lol, I was just thinking that, typical Julius
Nothing twists the situation better than misquoting, (without actually saying who the quote is from so he can't be held accountable- although it's obvious who is being implied!), and then ridiculing that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Choosing to play Davis Cup at the end of 2011 wasn't unfortunate, it was a conscious, and probably ill-thought choice. A mistake, just as much as a double-fault at set point.

It really really isn't Julius.
A DF at set point symbolises many things, but mainly indicates a mistake at tennis, which is what we should judge these guys on. (when considering who is better at the sport).
The other is a scheduling error, (i.e. which events you should/ should not play) which we consider if we see who is better at scheduling, rather than tennis level.

The fact external factors come into play very often.
To say that it is unacceptable to consider these factors as having an influence is frankly ridiculous.

However we have to be fair in different scenarios, and also we have to recognise that some external factors will have a heavier influence than others. eg look at Nadal vs Ferrer AO QF 2011 compared to Nadal vs Ferrer FO 2012. From what knowledge we have it is clear that 'fortunate' factor, i.e. Nadal's injury @AO, meant that that match was more heavily influenced by an external factor.

Oh right, so saying the only reason Fed got to No 1. is because his rivals were injured isn't saying, or even implying, he was fortunate.
Of course not, how silly of me

socal1976 wrote:I agree, and Roger is the guy who has the different set of rules in his favor. In fact I give fed massive credit with how elegant and smooth and injury free he has been. I think Roger is probably the most fortunate star in terms of longterm health that I can remember in the sport, and that fact has won him as many slams as his forehand has. So it isn't like anyone is discounting the value of his athletic grace and durability. And as for Novak he has now played an average of 80 plus matches for the last 6 seasons he generally is very durable as well but fed is otherworldly in that respect.

They're all fortunate - they're all born with natural athleticism, natural H2E co-ordination etc. In that sense everyone who's ever been in the top 10 is fortunate.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Choosing to play Davis Cup at the end of 2011 wasn't unfortunate, it was a conscious, and probably ill-thought choice. A mistake, just as much as a double-fault at set point.

It really really isn't Julius.
A DF at set point symbolises many things, but mainly indicates a mistake at tennis, which is what we should judge these guys on. (when considering who is better at the sport).
The other is a scheduling error, (i.e. which events you should/ should not play) which we consider if we see who is better at scheduling, rather than tennis level.

IMHO, if your goal is to be No 1 then you have to get everything right - not just what you do on court. Make a mistake in any area, and it could cost you. No?

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:The irony is that I don't think anyone on this forum has said any player is fortunate to be number 1.

lol, I was just thinking that, typical Julius
Nothing twists the situation better than misquoting, (without actually saying who the quote is from so he can't be held accountable- although it's obvious who is being implied!), and then ridiculing that.

Typical of me? I do it repeatedly, do I? You must remind me of when I started doing it and how often. Should be easy, since it's typical of me.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Oh right, so saying the only reason Fed got to No 1. is because his rivals were injured isn't saying, or even implying, he was fortunate.
Of course not, how silly of me

Julius, this epitomises the problem.

At what point has anyone said the ONLY reason Fed got to number one was due to rivals' injuries?

Some people have said it's a contributory factor but that's really not the same thing, is it?

HM let me put it this way.
It has been said that Fed would not have got to No 1 if his rivals had not been injured. To me that is the same as saying he's been fortunate to get to back to No.1 .
I could throw the question back out there if you want

Has Fed been fortunate to get back to No 1?
Yes/No

Any one-word answers from anyone?

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It has been said that Fed would not have got to No 1 if his rivals had not been injured.

Where?

lydian wrote:But absolutely @ JHM....however, what a dull world it would be if bland balanced opinions were projected all the time.

Socal, it's hard to go through all points you've made...some points I agree with to a degree (I did discuss the Nada-Djokovic burnout aspects too) but disagree that if he's on song he's the best. Don't forget what can happen if Nadal is on song too...you say Djokovic had off court issues in 2012 (yes) but so did Nadal in 2011. For me, 2012 Djokovic would still have struggled against 2008-2010 Nadal.

Anyway, he's done amazingly well to get back to #1, he's been pretty consistent all year so hats off!

I don't think Nadal was off song in 2011 despite his personal issues. The guy reached the finals of 7 tournaments in a row, pretty much all of them slams and masters and lost to one player because his game plan just didn't work against a Novak that was fit and also didn't have to play Nadal with WTA serve which was what afflicted him in 2010 and 09. Nadal outside of Djokovic won a much higher percentage of matches against the top 10 in 2011 than what his career average was. Therefore if one guy just improving and becoming better than you is a slump then I guess 2011 was a slump, despite the fact that he won RG and played in the finals of almost every tourney he entered for the first 8 months of season. Nadal in early 2012 elevated his game but I think it is a stretch to claim he was in any type of slump in 2011, he didn't seem to be slumping when he manhandled Fed and Murray over and over again in the early part of the 2011 season.

Federer has been unusually fortunate with injuries in his career, no one doubts his accomplishments, but stating the man has had good fortune in some crucial respects is hardly controversial. He was fortunate Dave Nalbandian enjoyed eating empanadas and Marat liked supermodels more than tennis. And he has been excellent at capitalizing whenever Nadal and Djoko have gone down in the last couple of seasons. So he still had to win all those points and no one else got more points in those periods, the man deserved it, but why are we so scared of the factual context?

I'm not saying "slump" for Nadal in 2011 but it's well known around summer he was having issues with Toni, and his parents were reconciling again. He's already admitted his patents were the main reason he didn't play at Wimb09 not the knees. Family issues really get to him being the close knit set up they are. Do you not remember the weird dejected, philosophical interviews at French Open 11 for example?

Nadal in 2012 was doing well, leading the points race when he withdrew.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Oh right, so saying the only reason Fed got to No 1. is because his rivals were injured isn't saying, or even implying, he was fortunate.
Of course not, how silly of me

Right Julius, where did anyone say that was the only reason he got to number 1??

It most definitely isn't, because the whole tennis circuit could acheive the number 1 ranking, so to suggest it's the only reason is frankly laughable.
Was it good fortune for Federer?
Yes, I think it was.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It has been said that Fed would not have got to No 1 if his rivals had not been injured.

Where?

The most recent one is this :-
"No BB, federer didn't regain the number 1 because Novak slumped, a crucial reason that he did regain the number 1 was because Novak tore a muscle in his back."

Perhaps socal can correct me, but my interpreation of that is that Fed would not have got to No 1 if Djoko had not been injured. Regardless of agreeing/disagreeing, I think that's a reasonable interpration.

If we're going to get pedantic about my use of the 'only', I will replace it with the word 'crucial'.

lydian wrote:I'm not saying "slump" for Nadal in 2011 but it's well known around summer he was having issues with Toni, and his parents were reconciling again. He's already admitted his patents were the main reason he didn't play at Wimb09 not the knees. Family issues really get to him being the close knit set up they are. Do you not remember the weird dejected, philosophical interviews at French Open 11 for example?

Nadal in 2012 was doing well, leading the points race when he withdrew.

Yes but he just finished his most fruitful part of the year he was unlikely to outpoint Djokovic on hardcourt or in the indoors. Novak is a very good indoor player, Nadal isn't. Nadal still hasn't beaten Novak on a hardcourt in over 2 years if I am not mistaken so Nadal leading the points race at the end of a clay court season is hardly surprising but an unlikely predictor of his form come the US summer swing or the indoor swing.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Oh right, so saying the only reason Fed got to No 1. is because his rivals were injured isn't saying, or even implying, he was fortunate.
Of course not, how silly of me

Right Julius, where did anyone say that was the only reason he got to number 1??

It most definitely isn't, because the whole tennis circuit could acheive the number 1 ranking, so to suggest it's the only reason is frankly laughable.
Was it good fortune for Federer?
Yes, I think it was.

OK, you think Fed was fortunate to get back to No 1. Yet HM pulls me up for suggesting that posters are saying Fed was fortunate - and you then agree with him "JHM is twisting things in his typical manner" - and then you say Fed was fortunate, which was what I said you were implying all along.

Djokovic has been extremely fortunate that his rise has coincided with the decline of Federer and the injury to Nadal.

In 2011, he barely squeaked past Fed in most of their matches, despite the former being a pensioner in tennis terms and 5-6 years past his prime. If he had had the misfortune of playing against peak Federer he would still be a slamless wonder.

He has been fortunate that the playing conditions have been so dramatically slowed down. He has even stated this himself in the recent SKY interview where he admitted that the slower conditions have favoured him, Nadal and Murray. I mean can you imagine this Bamby skating around on the old grass of W? He'd have been a sure fire first round loser.

He has been fortunate that string technology and slower balls have swung the game in favour of the receiver.

He has been fortunate to have won a slam when Federer was riddled by mono.

He has been fortunate to regain the number one ranking this year because Roger was burn't out, mentally fatigued, injured (lots of little niggles) due to his exploits over the previous 12 months.

He has been fortunate that Federer is so busy being a father, husband, ATP president, global icon, etc that he doesn't really have time to concentrate on his tennis like a 25 year old.

This Djokovic, so damn fortunate.

Oh hang on.. I got it wrong.. it's that old guy, what's his name? Olderer; he's the only one who ever gets fortunate.



emancipator

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It has been said that Fed would not have got to No 1 if his rivals had not been injured.

Where?

The most recent one is this :-
"No BB, federer didn't regain the number 1 because Novak slumped, a crucial reason that he did regain the number 1 was because Novak tore a muscle in his back."

Perhaps socal can correct me, but my interpreation of that is that Fed would not have got to No 1 if Djoko had not been injured. Regardless of agreeing/disagreeing, I think that's a reasonable interpration.

If we're going to get pedantic about my use of the 'only', I will replace it with the word 'crucial'.

There is a big difference between the world 'crucial' and 'only' Julius lol

Socal saying it was a reason/factor of Federer getting to number 1 is different to him saying if not for that Federer would not have got to number 1.
Personally I feel that if Djokovic hadn't been injured in end of 2011 he would have been in a better position to hold the number 1 ranking for longer in 2012, that's my opinion.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:The irony is that I don't think anyone on this forum has said any player is fortunate to be number 1.

lol, I was just thinking that, typical Julius
Nothing twists the situation better than misquoting, (without actually saying who the quote is from so he can't be held accountable- although it's obvious who is being implied!), and then ridiculing that.

Typical of me? I do it repeatedly, do I? You must remind me of when I started doing it and how often. Should be easy, since it's typical of me.

You can remind via PM, if you prefer.

JuliusHMarx wrote:HM let me put it this way.
It has been said that Fed would not have got to No 1 if his rivals had not been injured. To me that is the same as saying he's been fortunate to get to back to No.1 .
I could throw the question back out there if you want

Has Fed been fortunate to get back to No 1?
Yes/No

Any one-word answers from anyone?

Personally, I don't see injuries as being much of a factor.

Describing him as fortunate would be wrong as it suggests that luck had more to do with it than the huge number of events he won! The single biggest factor in Fed getting back to number 1 was that he played great tennis and won lots.

But I'll ask you in return -did Del Potro going lame when 2-0 up at FO work in Fed's favour? Did the switch to blue clay in Madrid work in his favour? What about playing matches under the roof at Wimbledon?

Would it be wrong to describe these external factors as fortunate?

If we can call these fortunate, is it wrong to ascribe any good fortune to his rise back to number 1?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:The irony is that I don't think anyone on this forum has said any player is fortunate to be number 1.

lol, I was just thinking that, typical Julius
Nothing twists the situation better than misquoting, (without actually saying who the quote is from so he can't be held accountable- although it's obvious who is being implied!), and then ridiculing that.

Typical of me? I do it repeatedly, do I? You must remind me of when I started doing it and how often. Should be easy, since it's typical of me.

You can remind via PM, if you prefer.

Well by my count it's 3 times on this thread

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It has been said that Fed would not have got to No 1 if his rivals had not been injured.

Where?

The most recent one is this :-
"No BB, federer didn't regain the number 1 because Novak slumped, a crucial reason that he did regain the number 1 was because Novak tore a muscle in his back."

Perhaps socal can correct me, but my interpreation of that is that Fed would not have got to No 1 if Djoko had not been injured. Regardless of agreeing/disagreeing, I think that's a reasonable interpration.

If we're going to get pedantic about my use of the 'only', I will replace it with the word 'crucial'.

There is a big difference between the world 'crucial' and 'only' Julius lol.

Not a big difference, but yes, a difference, which I acknowledge. Remind me to nit-pick your posts to death sometime.

Julius there is a big difference between the word crucial and ONLY they completely change the meaning of the argument being made. Roger was still the guy on the tour who won all those points hence he was the number 1 and deserved it. But a CRUCIAL, not only reason, but a CRUCIAL REASON was that both his main rivals suffered serious injuries in that 52 week period and he didn't. Don't act like the difference between the two is semantic, it certainly is not. And you know my sensitivity about being accurately quoted something that rarely happens on this site unfortunately.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:The irony is that I don't think anyone on this forum has said any player is fortunate to be number 1.

lol, I was just thinking that, typical Julius
Nothing twists the situation better than misquoting, (without actually saying who the quote is from so he can't be held accountable- although it's obvious who is being implied!), and then ridiculing that.

Typical of me? I do it repeatedly, do I? You must remind me of when I started doing it and how often. Should be easy, since it's typical of me.

You can remind via PM, if you prefer.

Well by my count it's 3 times on this thread

Even if that were true, in what way does 3 times in 3000 posts make it 'typical'. You do know what 'typical' means I take it?

lydian wrote:I'm not saying "slump" for Nadal in 2011 but it's well known around summer he was having issues with Toni, and his parents were reconciling again. He's already admitted his patents were the main reason he didn't play at Wimb09 not the knees. Family issues really get to him being the close knit set up they are. Do you not remember the weird dejected, philosophical interviews at French Open 11 for example?

Nadal in 2012 was doing well, leading the points race when he withdrew.

Oh please Lydian, that's just life, everyone has issues. Some of us care to keep them concealed, other's like to do an Oprah Winfrey.

The weird, dejected, philosophical interviews were as a result of Novak handing him his a*rse on a plate seven times in a row. I remember some of excuses, like 'heatstroke' in Miami. Nadal always has an excuse and his fans are just as bad.

emancipator wrote:Djokovic has been extremely fortunate that his rise has coincided with the decline of Federer and the injury to Nadal.

In 2011, he barely squeaked past Fed in most of their matches, despite the former being a pensioner in tennis terms and 5-6 years past his prime. If he had had the misfortune of playing against peak Federer he would still be a slamless wonder.

He has been fortunate that the playing conditions have been so dramatically slowed down. He has even stated this himself in the recent SKY interview where he admitted that the slower conditions have favoured him, Nadal and Murray. I mean can you imagine this Bamby skating around on the old grass of W? He'd have been a sure fire first round loser.

He has been fortunate that string technology and slower balls have swung the game in favour of the receiver.

He has been fortunate to have won a slam when Federer was riddled by mono.

He has been fortunate to regain the number one ranking this year because Roger was burn't out, mentally fatigued, injured (lots of little niggles) due to his exploits over the previous 12 months.

He has been fortunate that Federer is so busy being a father, husband, ATP president, global icon, etc that he doesn't really have time to concentrate on his tennis like a 25 year old.

This Djokovic, so damn fortunate.

Oh hang on.. I got it wrong.. it's that old guy, what's his name? Olderer; he's the only one who ever gets fortunate.



emancipator

Not quite sure I understand this post
Is this your opinion?

If so, then that's perfectly fine. You don't give much explanation, just one line per point (Edit: apart from the interview one), and some of them don't strike my as very convincing, but if it's your opinion fair enough

socal1976 wrote:Julius there is a big difference between the word crucial and ONLY they completely change the meaning of the argument being made. Roger was still the guy on the tour who won all those points hence he was the number 1 and deserved it. But a CRUCIAL, not only reason, but a CRUCIAL REASON was that both his main rivals suffered serious injuries in that 52 week period and he didn't. Don't act like the difference between the two is semantic, it certainly is not. And you know my sensitivity about being accurately quoted something that rarely happens on this site unfortunately.

I have acknowledged that my use of the word 'only' was incorrect. My original statement was that some posters were saying Fed was fortunate to get back to No 1 and HM said that no-one was saying that.
In fact, IMBL is saying exactly that.
For clarification, would you also say that Fed was was fortunate to get back to No 1?

JuliusHMarx wrote:
In fact, IMBL is saying exactly that.

Well you asked whether you thought injury to Djokovic/Nadal was fortunate for Federer.
I could either answer it was:
a) good fortune
b) bad fortune
c) no difference

I think a), as an injury to a rival means there are less of a threat, generally. Of course you may disagree and pick option b), or c); you are perfectly entitled to do so.

It Must Be Love wrote:

emancipator wrote:Djokovic has been extremely fortunate that his rise has coincided with the decline of Federer and the injury to Nadal.

In 2011, he barely squeaked past Fed in most of their matches, despite the former being a pensioner in tennis terms and 5-6 years past his prime. If he had had the misfortune of playing against peak Federer he would still be a slamless wonder.

He has been fortunate that the playing conditions have been so dramatically slowed down. He has even stated this himself in the recent SKY interview where he admitted that the slower conditions have favoured him, Nadal and Murray. I mean can you imagine this Bamby skating around on the old grass of W? He'd have been a sure fire first round loser.

He has been fortunate that string technology and slower balls have swung the game in favour of the receiver.

He has been fortunate to have won a slam when Federer was riddled by mono.

He has been fortunate to regain the number one ranking this year because Roger was burn't out, mentally fatigued, injured (lots of little niggles) due to his exploits over the previous 12 months.

He has been fortunate that Federer is so busy being a father, husband, ATP president, global icon, etc that he doesn't really have time to concentrate on his tennis like a 25 year old.

This Djokovic, so damn fortunate.

Oh hang on.. I got it wrong.. it's that old guy, what's his name? Olderer; he's the only one who ever gets fortunate.



emancipator

Not quite sure I understand this post
Is this your opinion?

If so, then that's perfectly fine. You don't give much explanation, just one line per point (Edit: apart from the interview one), and some of them don't strike my as very convincing, but if it's your opinion fair enough

The point is that anyone can be made to look fortunate.

And yes fortune may play a part, but it tends to even out over the course of a year, career etc.

Some things which are perceived to be down to fortune are wrongly attributed as such and likewise with misfortune. For example, Socal's assertion that Federer has been fortunate to avoid serious injuries in his career. I don't think that's entirely correct. Federer may have good genes, but he also takes care of himself AND he has developed a style of play that eases the toll on his body. It's not fortunate that his rivals are not able to play with the same degree of ease and efficiency.

This 'fortune' about Federers fitness is rubbish.

He plays a game that puts less wear on his body, yet he's been bedevilled by back trouble and suffered with Glandular Fever.

I don't think Djokovic has had any similar affliction.

Its quite clear that some posters aren't content with their man making #1, they have to try to make out that even when he wasn't, he was really. If only he hadn't been so unlucky.
But obviously not the only reason, I mean Federer did well. Even though he got lucky. Nobody says its the only reason, they just want to taint it but have the backstop of saying he did well.

Yep BB, and the same narrative of fortune and misfortune can be made for any player in any year, but suddenly all this talk of fortune seems to have appeared.. coincidentally in a year in which Federer got back to number one.

Emancipator said:

He has been fortunate to have won a slam when Federer was riddled by mono.

I agree that Djokovic was fortunate here...

Eman, I don't think it's necessary that fortune levels out during someone's career.
Haas has suffered from injury, is his playing style that different from Federer's?

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
In fact, IMBL is saying exactly that.

Well you asked whether you thought injury to Djokovic/Nadal was fortunate for Federer.
I could either answer it was:
a) good fortune
b) bad fortune
c) no difference

I think a), as an injury to a rival means there are less of a threat, generally. Of course you may disagree and pick option b), or c); you are perfectly entitled to do so.

Actually I asked "Has Fed been fortunate to get back to No 1?"
How typical of you to twist the situation by misquoting.

emancipator wrote:Yep BB, and the same narrative of fortune and misfortune can be made for any player in any year, but suddenly all this talk of fortune seems to have appeared.. coincidentally in a year in which Federer got back to number one.

lol Eman, are you being serious?

Can you not remember the Federer fans last year drilling how lucky Nadal was etc...

And the statement:
'the same narrative of fortune and misfortune can be made for any player in any year'
does not strike me as very convincing, as two years can never be the same.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Julius there is a big difference between the word crucial and ONLY they completely change the meaning of the argument being made. Roger was still the guy on the tour who won all those points hence he was the number 1 and deserved it. But a CRUCIAL, not only reason, but a CRUCIAL REASON was that both his main rivals suffered serious injuries in that 52 week period and he didn't. Don't act like the difference between the two is semantic, it certainly is not. And you know my sensitivity about being accurately quoted something that rarely happens on this site unfortunately.

I have acknowledged that my use of the word 'only' was incorrect. My original statement was that some posters were saying Fed was fortunate to get back to No 1 and HM said that no-one was saying that.
In fact, IMBL is saying exactly that.
For clarification, would you also say that Fed was was fortunate to get back to No 1?

Yes both in 2012 and in 2009 when Nadal went down because Nadal early 09 just looked untouchable before the soderling loss and having to shutdown for injury. Every great has a bit of good fortune Roger when it comes to injuries has probably been the most fortunate great player in that regards probably ever. I will say this the fluidity of his movement helps him immeasurably in that he is very graceful and efficient and that helps a great deal in regards to injury. But some of it is just plain luck as well, like Nadal being born with congenitally bad feet or Djoko having to have surgery and changing his diet to get over asthma and allergies. Roger has never had these issues except for a bout of mono some of that is because of his movement some of it is down to luck or good fortune or good genes even.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
In fact, IMBL is saying exactly that.

Well you asked whether you thought injury to Djokovic/Nadal was fortunate for Federer.
I could either answer it was:
a) good fortune
b) bad fortune
c) no difference

I think a), as an injury to a rival means there are less of a threat, generally. Of course you may disagree and pick option b), or c); you are perfectly entitled to do so.

Actually I asked "Has Fed been fortunate to get back to No 1?"
How typical of you to twist the situation by misquoting.

Did you directly ask that to me?

And a long history of a bad back, socal. It's cost him many times and nearly dd him at Wimbledon 2012.

Exactly what has Djokovic's bad luck with injuries been? More than Federers back and mono?

I said:

Was it good fortune for Federer?
Yes, I think it was.

It referring to the injuries part we were discussing earlier.

Ok this is getting tiresome.

IMBL, when i say that 'the same narrative of fortune and misfortune can be made for any player in any year', what I mean is that events throughout the year can be interpreted in a particular light to either cast them as fortunate or unfortunate. So for example the net cord that landed in on break point was good fortune. The fact that player A had to play a long match the day before was unfortunate. So and so's dog dying was unfortunate. The wind really helped so and so, etc etc.

Such events occur in each and every year.

The two years don't have to be identical but guranteed that they'll both have their fare share of events that can/will be interpreted as fortunate, unfortunate or of no consequence (depending on who your favourite is).

bogbrush wrote:And a long history of a bad back, socal. It's cost him many times and nearly dd him at Wimbledon 2012.

See, if a Federer fan says that it's herioc, if Nadal fan says that he/she will be told of for making excuses.

Personally I feel that's fine if it's your opinion, but if I may ask where did you deduce he had a long history of bad back?

emancipator wrote:
The two years don't have to be identical but guranteed that they'll both have their fare share of events that can/will be interpreted as fortunate, unfortunate or of no consequence (depending on who your favourite is).

Why a fair share?
If, hypothetically (and I'm not saying this has happened), your main rivals all get mono/injury and they are out for a year, can we not say subjectively that they had more fortune than in other years?

bogbrush wrote:And a long history of a bad back, socal. It's cost him many times and nearly dd him at Wimbledon 2012.

Show me a tennis player at 30 and Ill show you a guy with a lot days in the year with a stiff back. Your statement is correct on the back but, I am talkig in comparison to pretty much any great I can ever remember Roger has had the least down time to injuries of any star I can remember. And I do think a large part of that is due to his almost preternatural efficiency of motion. But a significant part of it is luck as well. For the nearly 1000 matches the guy has played he basically has the least injury and wear and tear issues of anyone who has ever played that much, at least that I remember.