luckyone wrote:

I’ve seen one piece (granted in The Epxress…) that the French rules permit deferring vaccine if soone has recovered from a COVID infection in the past six months. How accurate that report is obviously required considering the source. But…it could be an avenue.

I think that changed with the vaccine passport that grande brought in and the requirement to be vaccinated to enter a entertainment venue.

See https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/fr ... 77e0c0?amp

I stopped being interested in Tennis sometime in the 80's.

If I'm flipping channels, and I run across a match, I might watch a little, or not.

But in the 70's and 80's, I used to seek out matches to watch. Not now. I feel like I've seen the best/ most interesting players/ matches already.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I stopped being interested in Tennis sometime in the 80's.

If I'm flipping channels, and I run across a match, I might watch a little, or not.

But in the 70's and 80's, I used to seek out matches to watch. Not now. I feel like I've seen the best/ most interesting players/ matches already.

Wow, you missed the entirety of the Graf/Seles rivalry, Sampras and Agassi in their prime, Hingis vs. Davenport/Williams/etc., the flash and power of Ivanisevic and Philippoussis, the rise of Federer, Henman, Rafter, Roddick etc. The 90s and early 2000s were just a gold mine of great matches and talent.

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I stopped being interested in Tennis sometime in the 80's.

If I'm flipping channels, and I run across a match, I might watch a little, or not.

But in the 70's and 80's, I used to seek out matches to watch. Not now. I feel like I've seen the best/ most interesting players/ matches already.

Wow, you missed the entirety of the Graf/Seles rivalry, Sampras and Agassi in their prime, Hingis vs. Davenport/Williams/etc., the flash and power of Ivanisevic and Philippoussis, the rise of Federer, Henman, Rafter, Roddick etc. The 90s and early 2000s were just a gold mine of great matches and talent.

I've heard that a lot. What's missed is that in the early 70s, professional tennis was a new product. The pros and amateurs had just been merged, and there was a lot of excitement and a marketing boom. But I agree with you, the 90s and early 2000s were fantastic. On the women's side, Henin's retirement really threw a wrench in the balance of power -- there was nobody really to challenge or equal Serena Williams until the next crop of players matured-- and women's tennis was not that interesting through the late aughts and early aughts. I mean, Safina, Wozniaki, and Jankovic on top of the rankings (Serena often didn't play enough to hold the top spot)?? Please. Thankfully men's tennis was a real trove of treasures during that time!

zeke wrote:

luckyone wrote:

I’ve seen one piece (granted in The Epxress…) that the French rules permit deferring vaccine if soone has recovered from a COVID infection in the past six months. How accurate that report is obviously required considering the source. But…it could be an avenue.

I think that changed with the vaccine passport that grande brought in and the requirement to be vaccinated to enter a entertainment venue.

See https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/fr ... 77e0c0?amp

I think that the Novak fiasco has shown that going to participate in a sporting event in a different country without being fully vaccinated against COVID-19 is an uncertain venture, whatever info you have about the that requirement being waived. Roland Garros and the likes of Novak? If I were the French government I would say to the organising body that anyone they invite to play must prove their fully vaccinated status before their invitation/application to play is processed.

I don't agree with many of the points written here, but I wanted to thank you all for writing up such detailed responses.

BEG2IAH wrote:

I don't agree with many of the points written here, but I wanted to thank you all for writing up such detailed responses.

Just out of curiosity would points do you mainly not agree with.

Wow. What an epic final for an epic piece of history. Two sets to live down Rafa takes the title for his 21st major. Double career slam. AND he has two Olympic gold medals (something Djokovic will likely never have).

Yes, none of this 3 or 4 set one-sided final nonsense. A monumental battle. Congratulations to Rafa.

A101 wrote:

Just out of curiosity would points do you mainly not agree with.

Sorry, I don't want to waste my energy. When I read that someone wrote here that Novak is "a thoroughly despicable human being," and all posters implicitly agreed, I have no wish to participate any further.

I'm glad Novak wasn't stabbed on court, like Monika Seles was. At least he left Australia unharmed.

Have a good day.

luckyone wrote:

Wow. What an epic final for an epic piece of history. Two sets to live down Rafa takes the title for his 21st major. Double career slam. AND he has two Olympic gold medals (something Djokovic will likely never have).

And the epic final and the epic piece of history happened with the best player removed. This really will be an epic record with a huge asterisk next to it. Something like 21*.

Also, what an epic booing when the finalist came on court. First the political system, now the crowd too. Epic and unvisitable...

BEG2IAH wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Wow. What an epic final for an epic piece of history. Two sets to live down Rafa takes the title for his 21st major. Double career slam. AND he has two Olympic gold medals (something Djokovic will likely never have).

And the epic final and the epic piece of history happened with the best player removed. This really will be an epic record with a huge asterisk next to it. Something like 21*.

The best player (#1 seed) was not removed. He excluded himself from the Australian Open by choosing not to meet the requirements for entering Australia which is where the Australian Open took place.

I don't see that it is inevitable that the #1 seed would have beaten the #2 seed (or that it was inevitable that the #2 seed would beat all lower rated players eg the #6 seed). No asterisk needed for Nadal's 21st grand slam win IMO.

BEG2IAH wrote:

And the epic final and the epic piece of history happened with the best player removed. This really will be an epic record with a huge asterisk next to it. Something like 21*.

Yeah, here`s the thing......outside Serbia and the (ever decreasing) circle of DJO-fans this asterisk you refer to is not nearly as huge as you seem to believe.
And assuming that DJO would have been in that final if he would have played the tournament is, well, to put it mildly: arrogant.
This assumption is also pretty disrespectful to all the other players that complied with the regulations and gave it their best.

DJO is his own worst enemy......he caused his own trouble with regards to entering Australia.
He was also disqualified from the US Open in 2020 for scandalous behaviour, so I guess that counts as another DJO tournament victory for (some) Serbian people and Novak fans!?? The list of fantasy titles for DJO grows quickly like this.

But in the real world, RAFA is the winner this weekend as he complied with all regulations and played the best tennis.
That will be in the history books, I`m afraid.
The history of sports is full of "what if`s?", but they don`t count!

No Tax On Rotax

BEG2IAH wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Wow. What an epic final for an epic piece of history. Two sets to live down Rafa takes the title for his 21st major. Double career slam. AND he has two Olympic gold medals (something Djokovic will likely never have).

And the epic final and the epic piece of history happened with the best player removed. This really will be an epic record with a huge asterisk next to it. Something like 21*.

Also, what an epic booing when the finalist came on court. First the political system, now the crowd too. Epic and unvisitable...

I agree with what the others are saying, call it what you want be it arrogance egotistic selfish entitled he is all the above.


Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

notaxonrotax wrote:

And assuming that DJO would have been in that final if he would have played the tournament is, well, to put it mildly: arrogant.

So it's perfectly ok to safely assume that Nadal will always win French Open, but God forbid you assume Novak would have even reached the final after he won nine titles there and won three out of four previous grand slams. Funny...

BEG2IAH wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

And assuming that DJO would have been in that final if he would have played the tournament is, well, to put it mildly: arrogant.

So it's perfectly ok to safely assume that Nadal will always win French Open, but God forbid you assume Novak would have even reached the final after he won nine titles there and won three out of four previous grand slams. Funny...

Uh funny, but nobody said that. What they said was that the odds were good -- much like how most people had Medvedev winning Sunday's final, but Rafa ended up winning the match itself. But let's have fun using your logic for a bit longer as well. One would have to put an asterisk next to Djokovic's name for his 2016 Roland Garros title, because Nadal withdrew in the third round and Federer never posted. Same for his 2021 Wimbledon title. Rafa never posted and Fed was hobbled and he never had to play him. 2013 Aussie Open, Fed bowed out in the semi finals to not Djokovic, and Rafa never posted, guess that means he didn't have to beat the best guys. 2011 Aussie Open, Rafa retired in the quarters, so he didn't have to beat the best two guys. Would you like to continue this ridiculousness or acknowledge that you beat the 7 guys put in front of you? Meanwhile, Nadal leads Djokovic 10-7 in Grand Slam matches, and 5-4 in finals.

Meanwhile we really need to congratulate Ash Barty for her poise and brilliance under pressure.

luckyone wrote:

Uh funny, but nobody said that.

It's not really hard to read between the lines. If you are trying to use my logic, try harder. Look back at the number of previous grand slam wins at that particular tournament and how many grand slams in succession each of the top three players had prior to reaching the final. That's the logic I used when looking at the odds of Djokovic being in this particular final. Your 'logic' is nothing but an unsuccessful spin. Oh, who is the only player to beat Nadal twice in French Open? It has to hurt a true Nadal fan, doesn't it?

Even after this debacle, Novak is still number 1 in the world (as of this morning's ATP rankings) and Federer will retire at 20 grand slam wins despite his 'elegant' style. At least something good came out of all this.

BEG2IAH wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Wow. What an epic final for an epic piece of history. Two sets to live down Rafa takes the title for his 21st major. Double career slam. AND he has two Olympic gold medals (something Djokovic will likely never have).

And the epic final and the epic piece of history happened with the best player removed. This really will be an epic record with a huge asterisk next to it. Something like 21*.

Also, what an epic booing when the finalist came on court. First the political system, now the crowd too. Epic and unvisitable...

There was absolutely no guarantee that Novax would have made it too the final, in the end final was a good match, it had everything you could wish for, including a humble and well loved champion.

Kiwirob wrote:

There was absolutely no guarantee that Novax would have made it too the final

As there is absolutely no guarantee that NovaK wouldn't have made it to the final.

Kiwirob wrote:

in the end final was a good match, it had everything you could wish for

And to quote Daniil Medvedev: "Before Rafa serves even in the fifth set, there would be somebody, and I would even be surprised, like one guy screaming, C‘mon, Daniil. A thousand people would be like, Tsss, tsss, tsss. That sound. Before my serve, I didn’t hear it. It’s disappointing. It’s disrespectful, it’s disappointing."

BEG2IAH wrote:

A101 wrote:

Just out of curiosity would points do you mainly not agree with.

Sorry, I don't want to waste my energy. When I read that someone wrote here that Novak is "a thoroughly despicable human being," and all posters implicitly agreed, I have no wish to participate any further.

I'm glad Novak wasn't stabbed on court, like Monika Seles was. At least he left Australia unharmed.

Have a good day.

Dramatic, you’re more than a little salty aren’t you!

Novax isn’t well liked, nobody except for Serbians want to see him win 21 GS’s, I’d be surprised if he’s allowed to compete at RG or the US Open, not that I want to see him play again.

Novax is also getting on in years, the future of mens tennis is Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, the sooner he’s gone the better.

Kiwirob wrote:

Novax isn’t well liked, nobody except for Serbians want to see him win 21 GS’s, I’d be surprised if he’s allowed to compete at RG or the US Open, not that I want to see him play again.

Novax is also getting on in years, the future of mens tennis is Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, the sooner he’s gone the better.

People who have wishes like yours feed his hunger to beat every record there is and I'm sure he will top Nadal very soon. I agree Medvedev and Zverev are the future, but Tsitsipas who is beyond arrogant and always court-coached by his daddy is definitely not.

BEG2IAH wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

And assuming that DJO would have been in that final if he would have played the tournament is, well, to put it mildly: arrogant.

So it's perfectly ok to safely assume that Nadal will always win French Open, but God forbid you assume Novak would have even reached the final after he won nine titles there and won three out of four previous grand slams. Funny...

He was thrashed in the US Open final, also on the same surface as Australia, by a younger player who has won 4 of there last 7 head to heads.

Anyway Federer is the GOAT, that’s universally acknowledged, Novax may well win another title but his impact on the sport in minuscule compared to Ferderers.

BEG2IAH wrote:

Oh, who is the only player to beat Nadal twice in French Open? It has to hurt a true Nadal fan, doesn't it?

No I can't say that it does. Being an adult, I don't receive any validation or lack thereof when an athlete wins or loses a match--and if you'll scroll up the thread, you'll see I was doubtful Rafa had a chance to win this tournament. Djokovic was the better player on those two days. Much like Nadal was the better player seven other days at Roland Garros. We're talking about two players who have a 30-28 Djokovic-Nadal career head to head with each other. Nadal has a 7-2 H2H advantage at RG and 2-1 at the US Open, while Djokovic is 2-1 at Wimbledon and 2-0 in Australia. Nadal has 13 slams on his best surface (clay, with one chance per year), and 8 off it (6 hard court, two grass). Djokovic 12 on his (hardcourt, two chances per year), and 8 off it (2 clay, 6 grass). Both have a double career Slam, though Nadal also has an Olympic singles (2008) and doubles (2016) Gold, both on hardcourt which some people count and some don't. Of the other members Big 3, only Federer has a Gold, doubles in 2008. Murray actually outclasses all of them with two singles Golds. Off their best surfaces they're both outposting and/or equaling legends of previous eras (Agassi-8, Becker-6, Connors-8, Edberg-6, Lendl-8, McEnroe-7, etc). In other words, they're pretty much evenly matched and the result is going to depend on who plays better on the given day. Given that both have more time behind them than in front of them, I don't see Djokovic winning fistfuls of Roland Garros titles anymore than I see Nadal winning seven more Australian titles. No credible fan is going to deny either player's on court merits (unless one of them is accidentally but still foolishly pelting a line judge in the neck with a ball...) -- it's the off-court realm where Djokovic seems to really want to win, but loses, and handily scoring own goal after own goal.

The rest of my "logic" was intentionally and satirically absurd, which seems not to have registered.

Kiwirob wrote:

He was thrashed in the US Open final, also on the same surface as Australia, by a younger player who has won 4 of there last 7 matches.

It's "trashed" and "their," but hey you are wrong. Novak won three out of their last seven matches prior to US Open. All of Novak's losses were not at grand slam tournaments.

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp- ... /D643/MM58

luckyone wrote:

The rest of my "logic" was intentionally and satirically absurd

I'm glad we agree on something.

Kiwirob wrote:

BEG2IAH wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

And assuming that DJO would have been in that final if he would have played the tournament is, well, to put it mildly: arrogant.

So it's perfectly ok to safely assume that Nadal will always win French Open, but God forbid you assume Novak would have even reached the final after he won nine titles there and won three out of four previous grand slams. Funny...

He was thrashed in the US Open final, also on the same surface as Australia, by a younger player who has won 4 of there last 7 matches.

It merits mention that it was the same younger player who beat Djokovic that Rafa just beat. Djokovic did not play well in the 2021 US Open, for reasons that are hard to criticize. He was under a lot of pressure to complete the Grand Slam. He never played well in the tournament, lost a lot of sets he shouldn't to players far less capable than he, and had nothing to bring to the table against a player at the next level. Much like Serena Williams in her post-baby Slams.

BEG2IAH wrote:

And to quote Daniil Medvedev: "Before Rafa serves even in the fifth set, there would be somebody, and I would even be surprised, like one guy screaming, C‘mon, Daniil. A thousand people would be like, Tsss, tsss, tsss. That sound. Before my serve, I didn’t hear it. It’s disappointing. It’s disrespectful, it’s disappointing."

Medvedev is a bit of a churl who needs to sort out his emotions if he doesn't want them to cost him more matches. This isn't his first adversarial interaction with a crowd. He's not the first player to not have the crowd on his side when they want to see history -- ask Osaka or Andreescu when they played Serena Williams at the '18 and '19 US Opens. Or then there's the most petulant display I'd ever seen on a tennis court met by a hostile crowd -- the '99 Roland Garros final Graf-Hingis.

BEG2IAH wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

He was thrashed in the US Open final, also on the same surface as Australia, by a younger player who has won 4 of there last 7 matches.

It's "trashed" and "their," but hey you are wrong. Novak won three out of their last seven matches prior to US Open. All of Novak's losses were not at grand slam tournaments.

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp- ... /D643/MM58

It’s thrashed. Let’s pretend “Novax trashed his hotel room after being thrashed in the final”.

Notice I said 4 of the last 7 matches not last 10. In recent meetings Medvedev is ahead.

BEG2IAH wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

He was thrashed in the US Open final, also on the same surface as Australia, by a younger player who has won 4 of there last 7 matches.

It's "trashed"

You must not recall the cheers he was receiving toward the end of that match. By the score though, sorry you are incorrect, it was a thrashing. He was never in the match.

Kiwirob wrote:

Notice I said 4 of the last 7 matches not last 10. In recent meetings Medvedev is ahead.

If I know how to count to 7, the attached table shows that Daniil won 3 out of 7 matches before US Open 2021. Not sure what you are counting.

BEG2IAH wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

And assuming that DJO would have been in that final if he would have played the tournament is, well, to put it mildly: arrogant.

So it's perfectly ok to safely assume that Nadal will always win French Open, but God forbid you assume Novak would have even reached the final after he won nine titles there and won three out of four previous grand slams. Funny...

I did not say that, you know, that NAD would always win Roland Garros.
Please don`t put words in my mouth.

You are clutching at straws, I get that, your opinions are not well liked just like DJO himself is not well liked.
But I did not write what you claimed I wrote....which also means you apparently have no argument against anything I wrote about DJO.

Asterisks and "what if`s" don`t mean anything in the history of sport.....no matter what fanatical fanboys like to believe.

No Tax On Rotax

notaxonrotax wrote:

I did not say that, you know, that NAD would always win Roland Garros.
Please don`t put words in my mouth.

When and where did I mention you?

BEG2IAH wrote:

And the epic final and the epic piece of history happened with the best player removed. This really will be an epic record with a huge asterisk next to it. Something like 21*.

Novax removed himself. The only place there’s an asterisk is in the heads of bitter fans.

@BEG2IAH

It’s woulda coulda shoulda position you have taken, the fact is he did not play due to his playing of stupid games. Only has himself to blame for not being there.

He played Russian roulette with the Australian Federal Government and lost