Djokovic Handles Haas, Isner Ousts Raonic To Reach Canadian Open SFs

This is going to be an easy masters series for Djokovic to win. 1000 easy pts. He got lucky with no top players there to stop him like during the clay and grass seasons where he would always lose.

August 11th, 2012 at 11:21 am

Gaga, I don’t think is going to be as easy as you put it for Djokovic. He had to play last week until Sunday in London and he made the travel this week to Toronto. He played yesterday a very demanding couple of matches, especially the last one that ended almost today and he has to play against a top ten more rested later today, I wouldn’t be surprised if he loses today and if he doesn’t then tomorrow he’d probably face Isner who beat him the last time they played. I’m sorry Gaga but I have to desagree with you this isn’t a easy Masters for Djokovic.

August 11th, 2012 at 2:18 pm

Like I said it will be easy.

Gasquet in the final!

August 11th, 2012 at 5:44 pm

Yes…very similar to how Fed used top pile up grand slams before Nadal came on board. Beating Davydenkos and Lubijics to win slams….

August 11th, 2012 at 6:23 pm

ckr…in Rogers’s 17 slam title finals, he never faced Davydenko or Ljubicic.

August 11th, 2012 at 7:10 pm

The Great Davy shall not being bad mouthed in anyway! You must be forgetful, forgetfulling all the times I gave a better fight than both Roger’s US Open Final opponents!

August 11th, 2012 at 9:17 pm

Thank goodness for Fot! Speaks reason.

Ckr Says:
Yes…very similar to how Fed used top pile up grand slams before Nadal came on board. Beating Davydenkos and Lubijics to win slams….

August 11th, 2012 at 6:23 pm

Ckr…no way. It’s a shame really when you don’t understand the rudimentaries of tennis. Some people never will though. How many slams did nadal will on clay (out of his overall total?)

August 12th, 2012 at 11:46 am

How many slams Nadal has won or will win on clay is irrelevant. As Fot said, Federer never faced Davydenko or Ljubicic in a final. And if he had? Then it would’ve been pretty good, imo. Davydenko is definitely one of the better players to have never reached a slam final. And before he broke his wrist, he was giving everyone on tour all sorts of fits, including and especially Federer and Nadal. When you’re winning a lot of titles and slams the way Federer was (and Nadal, and Sampras, and all of the greats) you’re bound to play some scrubs here and there. But the fact that Ljubicic and Davydenko come to mind so quickly is a testament to the fact that they were in fact very good players who did consistently well at big events. Otherwise there’d be no reason to remember them at all.

August 12th, 2012 at 12:31 pm

Davydenko was easily in the top 5 best hardcourt players of the last decade. (Now he sucks, so it’s easy to forget he was in the top 8 for something like a million consecutive years.)

August 12th, 2012 at 1:51 pm

Good point madmax:

– Clearly Nadal piles up most of his grand slam titles on clay. The great majority (64%) of Nadal’s 11 slams came on clay. This is significant because clay is a minority surface on the tennis tour: clay makes up only 25% of the grand slams… clay makes up only 20% of the grand slams plus World Tour Finals… and clay makes up only only 34% of the 67 tournaments played on the ATP tour.

– Davydenko still has a winning record against Nadal (and Ljubicic is 2-2 against Nadal on outdoor hardcourts). Since Nadal’s prime started in 2008, Davydenko has a 6-3 winning record over Nadal. On the other hand, Federer has a clear 17-2 career winning record against Davydenko (in Roger’s prime, he never lost to Davydenko).

– Nadal piled up 27% of his grand slams beating Mariano Puerta, Tomas Berdych and Robin Soderling in the final.

August 12th, 2012 at 2:16 pm

Nadal is the clay GOAT. On other surfaces than clay he needs a million things to go his way to win a slam. He is like Agassi who won just 1 FO and 1 Wimbledon while Nadal has only won 1 AO and 1 USO. Both overachieved at their worst slams to win a title at each of them. Agassi won 2 USOs at his second best slam while Nadal won 2 Wimbledons at his second best slam. The only difference is that Agassi won 4 titles at his best slam, the AO, while Nadal might end up with twice that number at his best slam, RG.

August 12th, 2012 at 10:46 pm

Tired of hearing “oh if so in so” was in the tournament then Novak would not have won…….well “sos and so” is not in the tournament. They can’t play, they can’t get it together because they are not in shape to play, Novak is, and was. So whoever is left to play earned it ere points. Case closed and congrats to Novak!

August 13th, 2012 at 1:02 am

Nadal has had 2 years where he outgunned Fed in the so called faster slams
But you most look closely at those 2 years in order to find out that Fed was well below par for that to happen.

2008 monoyear Dave has given us already very good analysis about that year and the follow up on the backissue

2010 Fed started with a bang winning the AU Open
only to be put to bed the remaining of the year by a terrible lung infection which took away all of his stamina well earned fysical peak after au Open vivtory.
He probably picked that up while performing charity work in Africa.

Anyway it totally took out the sting for 2010 and enabled Nadal to win his second Wimbly and only US Open slam How could he be so lucky?

Nadal only reached those slam finals in 2011 because Fed was not there to stop him in semi luck of the draw perhaps.

So Nadal got his non clay slams but he should be lucky that he could get them against a fysicall below par Fed Fed is again in prime shape and eager to go on for years and years learning each year how to better himself fysically. Nadal is at a total stop. He is trying hail Mary appearances for US Open. That is the act of a wounded animal and wounded in the sense of not knowing what to do about current affairs in tennis.

August 13th, 2012 at 3:48 am

^Beware of the wounded animal!!

August 13th, 2012 at 4:10 am

The truth is Nadal won his non clay slams by taking advantage of the window of opportunity from 2008-2010. In those 3 years, Federer was past his peak and it was before Djokovic entered his peak and now Murray and Del Potro are entering their peaks as well. It was in 2009 than Nadal mucked it up because he was a non factor during FO/Wimbledon 2009 period where if healthy he could have won at least 2009 RG…

August 13th, 2012 at 7:27 am