Quote:
Originally Posted by kingweed
What? Really?
Tsit was only 68% to win at 2-0. Dropped to around 58% when down a break in that third.
A feat that had only been achieved by anyone 4 or 5 times in the Open Era, and yeah, I had Tsitsipas as a massive favorite to win the 3rd or 4th set. Once it got to a final set though, I felt the balance had sufficiently swung to Djokovic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerHero77
So what match meant more, the win over Nadal or winning the final down 2 sets? I have to go with the final win as it validated the triumph over Nadal, and winning the last 3 sets the way he did.
In terms of grand slam totals, if Djokovic lost to Nadal, Nadal wins final and the net difference is -1 for Novak.
Beat Nadal but lose final, net result is no change
Beat Nadal and win final, net result is +1 for Novak.
Given that Nadal is a dog to win any slam other than RG, winning there is critical for him. Djokovic is a threat at every grand slam, so in this respect, stopping Nadal was more important for Djokovic than winning the final.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingweed
“Djokovic has now done something Federer and Nadal have not: win the first two slams of the year. “
He done that in 2016. Murray went onto win Wimbledon and Stan the US
My excuse is sometimes using my phone to post here which makes it harder to get things right, switching between wikipedia and a browser. This current post is from my computer where I'm less likely to make mistakes.