wow you are stupid wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Djokovic has 17 grand slams. He is one of the greatest players of all time - and an incredibly tough competitor. In recent years he has owned Nadal (and Federer). There's no comparison with runners like Ingebrigtsen or Lewandowski.
And Nadal has 20. Nadal is also 100-2 at RG. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
A Nadal fan-boy. And doping denier.
sparky polastry wrote:
Nadal has faced doping accusations since he was a teenager, and it doesn't seem unlikely. Tennis has a doping and match fixing problem and the ATP protects anyone who is even close to the top of the sport.
That being said, he's hardly an outlier in tennis in recent years as far as players extending their primes into their mid 30s (and beyond). He has always been one of the fittest players on tour, and that continues, but he's not physically dominant in that respect. There are many players at or above his level in court coverage and defense. He has declined physically, and it's reflected by Djokovic and Federer dominating him on all non-clay surfaces for the past 3 seasons. But, his dominance on clay is based on his intensity and mental game, which is perhaps the greatest in the history of all sports, and most of all his forehand, which is the ultimate weapon on the surface and especially at RG. Today's result was more lopsided than expected, but not shocking or unbelievable to anyone who follows the sport.
You are right that players are extending their careers. But you have it round the wrong way about court speed and fitness. Nadal is still way ahead of anyone else, which is why he is a brick wall on a slower surface like clay, where he can get to every ball and return it with interest. He can't do that on faster surfaces, which is why he has been beaten 11 times straight by Djokovic off-clay.
The simple fact is that technology now exists to extend and athletes prime years. Even 10-15 years ago prime athletes started to visibly slow down and decline starting in their early to mid 30s. That window seems to have been extended at least 5 years. It means treating this as a new era and throwing records and comparisons out the window.
astro wrote:
The simple fact is that technology now exists to extend and athletes prime years. Even 10-15 years ago prime athletes started to visibly slow down and decline starting in their early to mid 30s. That window seems to have been extended at least 5 years. It means treating this as a new era and throwing records and comparisons out the window.
Except the comparisons amongst the top players shouldn't show a widening gap - a gulf - like we saw today.
So winning 6-0 and 6-2 against Djokovic is evidence of doping? Nadal has a won 99 out of his 101 matches in the french open. Meanwhile Djokovic even struggled in his semis.
What is the stack height on his shoes?
You have issues. Please seek help.
Looks like Nadal is developing some old man strength bright on schedule.
The two best runners start with Chep wrote:
So winning 6-0 and 6-2 against Djokovic is evidence of doping? Nadal has a won 99 out of his 101 matches in the french open. Meanwhile Djokovic even struggled in his semis.
+1
I love a good doping argument maybe more than anybody—
—but this is not such an argument.
On behalf of this board. I declare the initial proposition rejected on the insufficient evidence proffered.
If Djokovic was so great on clay, then how did Nadal ring up 13 French Open titles during their careers, including four straight three times?
Armstronglivs,
I think Bjorn's era was tougher. He had Connors, McEnroe, and Lendl to deal with. He also didnt play in many Australian opens, perhaps he could have had 1 or 2 more titles.
No reason a 34 year old in this era can't be at the top of his game even in his 17th season. These millionaires have access to sports medicine, strength training, nutrition and recovery modalities that didnt exist when a 39 year old Connors was busting his butt on center court.
Nadal was fresh today on his best surface- he didn't play in New York last month. Djokovic did. Djokovic didnt have all those little clay tournaments to get himself ready for Nadal. He didn't come to play today. 30 minutes into the match Nadal was dripping with sweat while Djokovic didn't look like he warmed up yet.
Im more impressed with Nadal's mental toughness than I am with his game.
The two best runners start with Chep wrote:
So winning 6-0 and 6-2 against Djokovic is evidence of doping? Nadal has a won 99 out of his 101 matches in the french open. Meanwhile Djokovic even struggled in his semis.
You don't understand why Djokovic is the world no.1 and Nadal no.2. Djokovic is consistently the better player and has owned Nadal over the last couple of years. He has often beaten him on clay and did so at the French when they last met.
Nadal got thrashed by the Argentinian Schwartzman at the last clay tournament in Rome before the French - which Djokovic won. The final in Roland Garros wasn't even close - it was an annihilation, and from an aging player. But nothing raises flags to the fans now in professional sport.
Yes Nadal does show doping, but so does Djoker. If I have to choose between those two dopers, I'm choosing Nadal every time. Vamos RAFA!
Armstronglivs wrote:
The two best runners start with Chep wrote:
So winning 6-0 and 6-2 against Djokovic is evidence of doping? Nadal has a won 99 out of his 101 matches in the french open. Meanwhile Djokovic even struggled in his semis.
You don't understand why Djokovic is the world no.1 and Nadal no.2. Djokovic is consistently the better player and has owned Nadal over the last couple of years. He has often beaten him on clay and did so at the French when they last met.
Nadal got thrashed by the Argentinian Schwartzman at the last clay tournament in Rome before the French - which Djokovic won. The final in Roland Garros wasn't even close - it was an annihilation, and from an aging player. But nothing raises flags to the fans now in professional sport.
So what dope did he take to turn things around in a week or so?
They are both doing there is no question of that. You do not dominate young players the way they do in such a physically demanding sport.
Why don't the young players just dope?
bangdingow wrote:
They are both doing there is no question of that. You do not dominate young players the way they do in such a physically demanding sport.
It is much the same as most other professional sport now. It wouldn't be what it is without doping. As usual, dopers are well ahead of anti-doping.
Why does their dope only work sometimes? Do they have an agreement? Was Djoker clean for this match?
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Why don't the young players just dope?
Some will be. Doping isnt confined to the best - who are often the most experienced - but the best will likely be doping. That's how you now get to be the best. It has changed the sport. Where once players over 30 were supplanted by the younger generation the younger players can't break through in this era. They are playing athletes who don't age. We are seeing it in all sports, and yet it is a quite recent phenomenon.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Why don't the young players just dope?
Some will be. Doping isnt confined to the best - who are often the most experienced - but the best will likely be doping. That's how you now get to be the best. It has changed the sport. Where once players over 30 were supplanted by the younger generation the younger players can't break through in this era. They are playing athletes who don't age. We are seeing it in all sports, and yet it is a quite recent phenomenon.
So Nadal was not doping when Schwartzman beat him a few weeks ago? Or Schwartzman was using better stuff then but not at the FO?