Fogninniiiiiiiii!

More on the Italian Job that took place at Roland Garros. The guy who could have cost Djokovic the grandslam, not Nadal, or Murray; but fabio fognini. If not for the 4 day lay off and two sets worth of rust given Djokovic in the following semi, I think he beats fed and wins the title. I am not the only one, who sees the Italian Job French open of 2011 for what it is.


"So, thoughts are already on the other side of the Pond. But, as Djokovic left London, thoughts were also rewinding to the other side of the Channel and to his defeat to Federer in the semi-finals of the French Open, and how that match would have played out had the Serb looked a bit more at ease on the slippery clay on a dank Parisian evening. Or if his quarter-final opponent, Italy’s Fabio Fognini, had not withdrawn because of injury, so disturbing the rhythms of Djokovic’s tournament.

Had Djokovic won that match, he would have been well placed to have beaten Nadal in the final since he had got the better of him at the two warm-up tournaments in Madrid and Rome, and we could now be discussing the possibility of the first calendar-year grand slam since Rod Laver’s in 1969.

At the end of the US Open, the obscure Fognini could turn out to be the player who inadvertently stopped Djokovic from landing the calendar Grand Slam. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/8616196/Wimbledon-2011-Novak-Djokovic-expected-to-win-his-first-US-Open-title.html

Fognini's "injury" broke up one of the most historic runs in all of sports. Seemed to be moving fine at wimbeldon.

What a load of rubbish. Utter garbage.

"Rust". So now it's a disadvantage to have a tough match and a disadvantage to have a rest? Was he denied access to practise courts? Was he disallowed from having a full-on practise with whoever not in the draw he could find? Was he forbidden from putting two opponents on the other side of the net and running himself into the ground for 5 hours on his day "off"?

He lost. Live with it.

And even in this article on Djoker, the author can’t avoid discussing GOAT stuff:

“It was after Nadal won last year’s US Open, which completed his career grand slam, that it was possible to take the view that he was a greater player than Federer, but life is not so easy for him now.”

So same old stuff as far as the GOAT debate goes! If Nadal had retired after the USO 2010, it does look like people might have considered him GOAT (He would have won the last 3 slams he contested in then, on 3 different surfaces and would have retired as the number 1 ranked player). Maybe this is an example of greatness being diminished by playing on.

The mistake many people make is to consider journalists to be unbiased expert observers; in most cases they are not, they are fans like everyone else and they produce editorial, not researched journalism. I can, if I care, write just as well as most of them and wouldn't find it particularly demanding to turn out pieces of this calibre.

As many have said, you judge a player at the end of his career. Pete Sampras has the stain of numerous late-career hammerings on his CV, which is because he took it through to the end. Roger Federer is doing the same, and experiencing setbacks against players he would have easily dismissed when at his peak. In both cases some observers use these setbacks to question the players legacy and endow current at-peak players with superior ratings despite them not yet submitting themselves to this ultimate test.

When Nadal is approaching 30 we will be in a better position to judge his standard across a career. It's the same with Djokovic, although having got to this stage with 3 Slams I don't think it's appropriate even to open the book on him yet.

Don't worry Socal, Nole'll do it next year

There is a requirement in the financial industry that financial analysts who recommend investment strategies to their customers in financial vehicles not have vested interests in the said investment vehicles.

Perhaps the same criterion should be applied to Sports journalists not writing about players they are also fans of.

Anyone remember Borg's comeback attempt or Laver's later years?

Do you remember the rain delay @US 2010? Did it break Novak's rhythm or give him time to rest after a five-set match with Federer?
Is the glass half 'full' or 'empty'?

Articles like these give rise to 'fan wars'. Wait till someone brings up delays due to MTOs, Bottle arrangements, toweling, ball bouncing, rain delays, colour of opponents clothing, butterfly sneezes in the Indian Ocean,....

And this is about players who are professionals and earn their living playing a sport.

Disappointed in your descent to this level, SoCal, and that too despite the medical evidence available.

Wish Novak success and may his glorious run continue.

It's a pity, but at least I must say how good it is to see that noleisthebest, in my experience the most consistent and longest-suffering Djokovic fan has kept her perspective.

Others should take note before repeating this sort of guff. "Fognini could turn out to be the player who inadvertently stopped Djokovic from landing the calendar Grand Slam." Idiocy!

Not sure what to make of your posts lately socal. Djokovic won Wimbledon so I am glad your not banging the drum of the 'rigged draw' or 'greatness'

There is no logical case to suggest that had Fognini played, that Djokovic still would've beaten Federer.

He has won AO and Wimbledon. Praise should be of the top order, not criticism of a player that probably won't feature at the quarter finals stage of Grand Slam again.

As British tennis fan, I could say what 'if' the rain hadn't came at Wimbledon in 2001, what 'if' Murray had beaten Roddick in 2009 at Wimbledon.

'If's' are not win trophies.

It's close to being an insult to Federer who played superbly.

Blame the sided French crowd as you like to do. That would make more sense than blaming Fognini.

Possibly worse thread i've seen since "Nole Reality Check".

It's been covered already that Novak succumbed to pressure in the tiebreaks, also lost the first set when in command by spraying shots.

RF also played 1 of his best matches since his last AO win.

Yeah, you're not a fan of reality, we realise that.

You need to realise that Novak will win more slams, whether you like it or not.

Have to agree with everything that's been said so far.

Socal, I always took you as quite a level-headed poster, but some of your recent articles stink of exessive fan-aticism.

If one was to follow your logic in the OP, then all manner of results, victories and competitions could be rendered meaningless.

BTW, don't forget, Nole only got his first slam because Roger was sick

Josiah Maiestas wrote:You need to realise that Novak will win more slams, whether you like it or not.

Another strawman. I think you'll find the "reality" article predicts Nole to be the favourite to win the most Slams in the next 18 months. But, ah well, we already worked out that you don't read all the words on another post didn't we?

I'll try to write shorter sentences for you next time. Really short. Like that.

socal1976 wrote:
Fognini's "injury" broke up one of the most historic runs in all of sports. Seemed to be moving fine at wimbeldon.

Soc: did not expect this pile of garbage from you. You didn't even get your facts right. Fognini pulled out of Wimbledon this year

Yep he seems intent on looking for other reasons why Nole lost it, I think it's already been explained numerous times..

Poor Socal, he is probably sleeping tight in California, about to wake up soon, and we are all here saying nasty things while he can;t defend himself!

wait a minute....it's 10:30 in California, must be one deep sleeper Soc....

Well, its ok you guys can let go of your anger. Fognini pulled out of wimby, well then my apologies to him, I guess he was more banged up then I first assumed. Tenez, is right you really let me have it while I was sleeping and at a morning appointment. No problem, maybe it was just good luck for federer once again. But I have no question in my mind without the 4 day layover Novak wouldn't have laid such a huge dud in sets 1 and 2 which were probably two of the worst sets I have seen him play all year. I love how the noble federer fan can cry till their hearts content about Roger having to wait 1 minute for Nadal to get his ankle taped and how this threw Federer off. But Novak having to wait 4 days to play federer why how could that effect his timing? Anyone complains about the circumstances surrounding any Roger win and the gloves are off. But Roger always loses because he is injured, or Nadal scratched himself too much, or had his ankle taped, Wah! wah! wah! But in anyway delve into the circumstances of any of Federer good fortune and why that is sacrilegous. Roger got lucky with that layover. He played great himself, and in the 4th set Novak played well and Roger won. Maybe if Novak had played a match in between, Roger would have still won with the way he was playing. But frankly Roger got a big boost, big huge monster gigantic boost because of the Fognini incident. The 4 day gap is larger than the gap between the Madrid final and R2 at Rome. It was like Novak was playing the first match of the tournament against Roger in the semis. If Fogi pulled out and is hurting I apologize to him. But I stand by point, fed got a huge lucky break. Played well but had luck on his side also.

Sorry mate,

Utter drivel, try again.

"The Fognini incident". Is that going to star Matt Damon? I do hope so!

Socal, you're coming over all deranged over this. If you can explain (i) why a rest is a hazard, or if it really is then (ii) why Nole couldn't have practised his socks off on the day to keep himself in touch, then we can take this seriously, but as it is you just sound like you've got intoxicated with the Wimbledon win and have suddenly got so frustrated with the one defeat that you want to rationalise it out of existance.

He lost. It happens. Fed played well, and even at this stage of his career if he plays well he can beat anyone. Nole isn't unbeatable, nothing like it.

Don't forget that the defeat prior to this was against the same player, and was decisive. Had he been having too much rest then?

You guys are entitled to your opinions, Fed got a huge monster break, yes he played well no question. But I think Novak who was just starting to hit his stride when he was hit by that Fognini injury layover was a big issue in breaking his rythymn. Novak played a horrific first two sets missing way more than at any point during that whole tournament, including a number of easy hospital ball forehands that I could have hit for winners. Roger got lucky, he capitalized on it and played a great match. But even in his great form he was struggling with Novak in sets 3 and 4 after Novak got the rust off. It was just too late and fed was serving real well. But go ahead bogbrush weren't you the guy that said Rafa's two minute ankle taping threw Roger off, well what did 4 days do to Novak's timing?

Well said Bogbrush,

Of all the excuses spouted for a defeat this has to be the lamest.

Socal, you make it sound like he had a hip replacement in those four days. To suggest that having a four day break equates to starting a new tournament is really clutching at straws. As already mentioned, Djoko would have continued to practice on clay, remained in the same surroundings and remained focused.

If I remember correctly, didn't Federer have a similar break during W 2007; he still went on to win the tournament.

BTW Socal I hope you do realise that an MTO in the MIDDLE of a match is completely different to a prolonged break BETWEEN matches. The former can definitely upset a player's rythmn.

Emancipator, it broke up his rythymn it be like starting your tournament over again against a player who is playing in the semis and is more ready with his timing. It helped, we will never know, Roger the way he was playing maybe still wins. But if Djokovic didn't have the layover he would have played better the first couple of sets, by far the most attrocious tennis I have seen from Novak this year. That and the Feli Lopez match and Bedrych in Dubai was the worst I have seen Novak play this year. Lends me to believe that the layover had something to do with it.

Actually emancipator if a two minute break is enough to break up Roger's timing a four day break will have a much larger effect. Especially, in light of the fact that if Fogi could have played Novak would have tied the record in the quarters and would not have been playing with anywhere near the same pressure in the semis against Fed. Fed got a lucky break, something like ten net cords worth of luck, he still played really well. In the 4th Novak was playing well but Roger served too tough and won the 4th. But by then Novak was already playing from way behind.

Ok..

So you now have a formula for quantifying luck? Anymore gems you wanna hit us with?

I can't be bovvered with this.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, where for art thou oh BOOOOOooooo?

Thouest isest forgivenest oh BOOOOOO000000000000oooooooooo.........

COOOOOOOOOOO00000000000000000000ooooooooooooome baaaaaaaaaaaaack

I think you should release that Boooooooo thing on a dance track or something

Socal watch the 10th game of the fourth set and tell me who was 'rusty'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEU-ummwU0&NR=1

Oh Killar of legends,

whyest dosest thouest mockest meeeeeeeeeeeeee?

I wasn't mocking. I would just like to hear how it would sound, I think it would be a killar track

socal1976 wrote:You guys are entitled to your opinions, Fed got a huge monster break, yes he played well no question. But I think Novak who was just starting to hit his stride when he was hit by that Fognini injury layover was a big issue in breaking his rythymn. Novak played a horrific first two sets missing way more than at any point during that whole tournament, including a number of easy hospital ball forehands that I could have hit for winners. Roger got lucky, he capitalized on it and played a great match. But even in his great form he was struggling with Novak in sets 3 and 4 after Novak got the rust off. It was just too late and fed was serving real well. But go ahead bogbrush weren't you the guy that said Rafa's two minute ankle taping threw Roger off, well what did 4 days do to Novak's timing?

Well, no I wasn't. Where on Earth did you drag that from?

Please provide a link to prove, or withdraw.

So at least we're getting a currency of luck; one rest = 10 bad net cords.

I've missed this kind of surreality since fantasticbingting was last on 606. You're not.... are you?

laverfan wrote:Socal watch the 10th game of the fourth set and tell me who was 'rusty'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEU-ummwU0&NR=1

What a match!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's exhausting just watching it.

With 4 days off in the French Open, I'm surprised Djokovic could still remember how to hit a tennis ball by the time he came to play his semi final against Federer...

Chazfazzer wrote:With 4 days off in the French Open, I'm surprised Djokovic could still remember how to hit a tennis ball by the time he came to play his semi final against Federer...

Et Tu, Chaz.

Considering your argument Socal, I have to say I can't see much merit in it. What I would say is that the fierce partisan support by the French crowd for Roger (I have almost been somewhat amazed by Roger's popularity in Paris) and the darkness could have conspired to make it difficult for Novak. I think the crowd willed Roger to victory. Don't forget that Novak actually served for the fourth set and could have sent the match to a fifth set. Considering what happened at Wimbledon recently, Novak may well have been able to end the match, since play most likely would have been suspended due to darkness.

The Fognini debacle was unfortunate, but that is tennis. As bogbrush said, Roger had a six say layoff during Wimbledon 2007 and was still able to go on and win the title.

Unfortunately, these are the breaks sometimes.

Also, Roger played some very imperious tennis in the FO 2011 semi. He used the drop shot brilliantly (unlike the FO 2011 final against Rafa) and was devastating with his backhand and serve. It's too bad that the two could not have played in the Wimbledon semi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E9lKQHaAwg&feature=related

Yeah, looks like he was really rusty......

Well kemet, I watch Novak virtually every match. And those first two sets against Roger, Novak was well below par. Remember that the Fognini withdrawal actually increased the pressure on Novak even further. If Fogi played he would most likely have been Novak's 42 win in a row tying Mcrenoe. It was a lucky break for Federer because Novak was really starting to find his groove in that French open and then it was like his tournament was suspended for a few days. Novak played well in the 4th set and still lost, but by then he had fallen way too far behind.

Bogbrush, I could swear that a number of fed fan's you included complained about Nadal's ankle taping and how that caused Fed to lose his timing during the RG final. If you didn't say it fine, but number of other Fed fan's did say it. Roger played well, but got a huge dose of luck in his favor, I venture that the next time they play Roger probably won't be that lucky.

socal1976 wrote:Novak played well in the 4th set and still lost, but by then he had fallen way too far behind.

USO 2010 Djokovic beat Federer 5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5 (and Federer had 2 MPs). In this match he[Novak] was not on a 41-0 streak either.

You are giving far too much credit to Fognini in disturbing Novak's rhythym.

Regarding French support for Federer, he does speak French fluently, which the Parisians really appreciate.

Dinara Safina gets a lot of support in Madrid, by the same token.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Novak played well in the 4th set and still lost, but by then he had fallen way too far behind.

USO 2010 Djokovic beat Federer 5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5 (and Federer had 2 MPs). In this match he[Novak] was not on a 41-0 streak either.

You are giving far too much credit to Fognini in disturbing Novak's rhythym.

Regarding French support for Federer, he does speak French fluently, which the Parisians really appreciate.

Dinara Safina gets a lot of support in Madrid, by the same token.

Good effort laverfan but I don't think this sort of logic is going to have any impact on socal; he is completely immersed in a fantasty where Djokovic doesn't lose to anyone unless there's some dark scheme or gigantic bad luck involved. In fact, he's so lost in it that;

* he fails to explain what mechanism actually causes the player to drop standard because of a bye, with some verifiable evidence to support it (such as records of good players tending towards losing matches they expected to win after receiving byes).
* he fails to understand that if this deficit was such an established mechanism, Djokovic had plenty of options available to substitute for the very gentle workout that Fognini would have provided in the quarter anyway.
* he seems not to appreciate that no other poster on this forum, including noted Djokovic fans, give this theory the slightest credence.

Indeed, had there been no bye I am starting to wonder whether the childishly easy quarter would have been produced as an excuse for Djokovic losing. If not, exactly what benefit does a 3 set stroll confer?

The better player on the day won. The players know it, almost everyone watching knows it, and socal is inadvertantly making Djokovic out to be a mental pygmy who is so crushed by the winning streak and/or missing a day that he's unable to turn up for the next match. Not exactly the material that a #1 is supposed to be made of is it? And certainly not a handicap I can imagine Federer or Nadal ever crumbling under.

Fortunately for Djokovic and his reputation, socal is wrong.

bogbrush wrote:Good effort laverfan but I don't think this sort of logic is going to have any impact on socal; he is completely immersed in a fantasy where Djokovic doesn't lose to anyone unless there's some dark scheme or gigantic bad luck involved. In fact, he's so lost in it that;

Thanks. I am trying a logical approach to see if SoCal will see a rational explanation (of the winner being better on the day) rather than the the 'conspiracy' theories that get summoned (a la Don Quixote). Also, it was not an easy victory for Federer. The final with Rafa showed how well Fed played (despite his lapses, losing the first set against Rafa) in those couple of days.

bogbrush wrote:socal is inadvertantly making Djokovic out to be a mental pygmy who is so crushed by the winning streak and/or missing a day that he's unable to turn up for the next match. Not exactly the material that a #1 is supposed to be made of is it? And certainly not a handicap I can imagine Federer or Nadal ever crumbling under. Fortunately for Djokovic and his reputation, socal is wrong.

Absolutely agree. . The Wimbledon win against Rafa clearly shows the strengths of Novak. The loss of a specific record should not be so traumatic to a particular fan of Novak.

What a load of dismissive rudey poo about two fantastic players - a) Djokovic is much better than that b) Fed is much better than that

I love the way my last has been automatically edited from cr*p - it's really sweet and an adjective I seek to use in future

I love the way my last has been automatically edited from cr*p - it's really sweet and an adjective I seek to use in future

rudey poo

Oh wow, gotta admit, I thought you were kidding tp, but you were telling the truth

Well, bogbrush like I said that is my opinion, you are talking to someone who has watched literally a couple of hundred djokovic matches. A lot of those commenting on Djokovic have not followed his career with as much follow through as I or Nitb have. The guy has said it himself that the pressure of the streak and playing for No#1 both impacted his performance in that semi. Of course he gave all credit to Roger, but clearly the added pressure of the streak from the Fogninni withdrawal certainly played a role in adding to the pressure. And the layoff as well impacted him in that semi. But certainly in interviews he say Roger played great was just better that day, what else would he say that would not result in the massive firestorm of animosity like the one I have attracted from Fed fans. Judging by the reaction of the church of Roger, if Novak had said anything other than what he did about that semi he would have been strung up from the highest rail by the fans and media. Let see at what I have said that is so blaspemous to St. Roger:

1. It was fortunate for Roger to have Djokovic iced before a final. That Djokovic was rusty in the first two sets and did not play at anywhere near his pre-streak level.
2. Roger played great and could of won anyway, possibly. But that the layoff, the streak pressure, and the pressure of playing for #1 was part of the reason he played well below par in the first two sets.
3. When Novak snapped out of it the 3rd and 4th set it was too late and Fed capitalized on his good fortune.
4. By the way if you have watched Novak as intently as I have you know that he is a slow starter to begin with, his first service games often takes a quarter of an hour, this added to the pressure he usually has as often he is poor starter but plays great in the middle and end of matches.

Hardly anything is conspiratorial or even controversial. Conspiracy theory, really, this is hardly up to the level of the unholy alliance of Uncle Toni and the Freemasons to deny him the RG title, I am kidding about that by the way. But let me put it bluntly, I will not be questioned by people who cry incessantly on the internet about Nadal fidgeting too much, or having his ankle taped and that is why poor Roger lost his timing. Or be questioned on my opinions by people who whine about ball bouncing and have a 101 rationalizations as to why Nadal continously mauls Roger, or Djokovic has got the better of him recently. Talk about pot calling the kettle black!

I will be gone for a few hours please post what every you like and I will furnish a timely response.

Actually, credit to you. I only just figured it's a troll.

Very nice.

In 1930 FO, their is a precedent to the Fognini-Montanes saga.

"Jean Borotra d. Yoshiro Ohta, 5-7, 3-6, 6-4, 6-1, 9-7 in the fourth round. Ohta led 4-3 in third set, 4-1 in the fifth and had 2 MPs vs Borotra's serve at 5-6, 2 more at 6-7 15-40. Borotra cramps, delays 2 minutes, then breaks serve and wins on third MP".

Borotra lost to Bill Tilden in the SF 2-6, 6-2, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3.

From Bud Collin's History of Tennis, second edition 2010, page 410.

The sheer genius of my posts, it is frankly breathtaking