2014 Aussie Open Final: Nadal vs. Wawrinka

[TsarMatt]

It is baseless speculation to ponder about the "what if Nadal did not get injured" concept. It is essential to stick to facts here, and the facts read that Stan completely outplayed Rafa for a set and a bit. I think that is what we all need to know.

A full match never lasts a set and a bit unless someone withdraws. So it's only normal to speculate about what was going to happen.

I know people are sensitive to injuries here, but this is one incident in which it's fair to discuss what could have been.

Yes, but one can go completely unhinged thinking about the "what if's". I mean, what if Stan challenged that line ball last year against Djokovic at the AO? Would he be here now? Would he have won AO '13?What if Djokovic made that overhead smash at RG SF '13? It does your head is and sort of devalues the real winner of the match. At least to me.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It is baseless speculation to ponder about the "what if Nadal did not get injured" concept. It is essential to stick to facts here, and the facts read that Stan completely outplayed Rafa for a set and a bit. I think that is what we all need to know.

A full match never lasts a set and a bit unless someone withdraws. So it's only normal to speculate about what was going to happen.

I know people are sensitive to injuries here, but this is one incident in which it's fair to discuss what could have been.

Yes, but one can go completely unhinged thinking about the "what if's". I mean, what if Stan challenged that line ball last year against Djokovic at the AO? Would he be here now? Would he have won AO '13? It does your head is and sort of devalues the real winner of the match. At least to me.

I don't think you can quite compare one point (albeit a critical one) to a player playing tennis while essentially handicapped. Not a in slam final. This is a big what if. We're talking about a player who literally, could barely do anything out there. Let's be honest, had it been any other circumstances, Nadal would have retired from that match almost 3 full sets earlier.

 

[Front242]

Depends. Stan didn't know what he was doing and was basically playing like this.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Depends. Stan didn't know what he was doing and was basically playing like this.

I'm not sure of any scenario when it's better to be the injured player over the healthy player, especially when the healthy player is already ahead on the scoreboards. So sorry if I don't sympathize with how much Nadal's injury affected Stan's concentration. That's Stan's fault, and it's something he can control (and in fairness, he did). Nadal's injury was just a piece of bad luck that there was nothing he can do about.

 

[masterclass]

Please read again. I clearly said in the first two sets prior to the injury. Anyone who doesn't think Wawrinka's level didn't drop dramatically after Nadal's MTO and injury didn't watch the match with unbiased eyes. It's unfortunate that Nadal got his injury just when it looked like Wawrinka was ready to steamroll him as his confidence surged from taking the first set, but these things happen I guess.

Of course, no one knows for sure what would have happened if there had been no injury, but without question, the injury and it's noticeable affect on Nadal clearly stopped Stan's momentum even though he managed to grab the second set.

From there on out, it was a difficult match to watch and I imagine to play, for both players.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Front242]

They were both very much up against it. Obviously not being able to move properly is worse but being so dazed and confused your game goes to pieces isn't much better. Just ask Fed. He's the maestro at many things and these days going to pieces is one of the main things he does best.

 

[TsarMatt]

It is baseless speculation to ponder about the "what if Nadal did not get injured" concept. It is essential to stick to facts here, and the facts read that Stan completely outplayed Rafa for a set and a bit. I think that is what we all need to know.

A full match never lasts a set and a bit unless someone withdraws. So it's only normal to speculate about what was going to happen.

I know people are sensitive to injuries here, but this is one incident in which it's fair to discuss what could have been.

Yes, but one can go completely unhinged thinking about the "what if's". I mean, what if Stan challenged that line ball last year against Djokovic at the AO? Would he be here now? Would he have won AO '13? It does your head is and sort of devalues the real winner of the match. At least to me.

I don't think you can quite compare one point (albeit a critical one) to a player playing tennis while essentially handicapped. Not a in slam final. This is a big what if. We're talking about a player who literally, could barely do anything out there. Let's be honest, had it been any other circumstances, Nadal would have retired from that match almost 3 full sets earlier.

It's not about the applicability of the "what if" scenarios, but merely its relevance after a match has ended. To me, it is pointless after a certain degree, especially when determining the outcome of a match. One could argue endlessly that Nadal would have inevitably came back and won the tournament. You could use all types of factoids to verify your argument, such as Stan never beating Rafa before or Nadal was far from playing his best in the first set or whatever. Yes, this may be all true, but it simply feels baseless to speculate over because we will never know what could have happened. The first set and a bit was the only indication we got of two healthy men playing a Slam final. The only facts, if you will. And from what I saw, Stan outplayed Nadal, so I will stick to that, congratulate Stan for his victory and wish Rafael all the best.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

Whatever the reason, it doesn't change the score. It isn't like Stan hasn't had a great overall tournament and is a total surprise here. He took out Djokovic the #2 and three time defending champ here and a resurging Berdych ranked ahead of him at the time. So Stan put his time and effort into winning this. It doesn't do to deal in what ifs because it is quite real that Stan is now a slam champ. I mean he made the US Open semis last year and followed it up with a slam win. He is on the rise, and he will add a nice mix to the draw now. Commies to Rafa for staying out there despite not being at his best, but Stan looked pretty determined to try and win this regardless. It isn't like Wawrinka came out with a defeatist mindset.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Of course, no one knows for sure what would have happened if there had been no injury, but without question, the injury and it's noticeable affect on Nadal clearly stopped Stan's momentum even though he managed to grab the second set.

More than it stopped Nadal from having any chance of competing? I'm honestly still baffled most of the arguments are talking about how much the injury affected Wawrinka... You'd think he was the one who sustained it.

Yes, it did affect his play. But he recovered. For Nadal, there was no way he was ever going to recover since he couldn't serve, move, or do anything really. So again, I ask, who had it worse?

 

[britbox]

I think there is a feeling of being robbed in respect of not seeing played out without the injury drama which is fair enough. But on the flipside, Stan has had a great tournament, taken out both seeds and is a worthy champ.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali's been posting particularly insane stuff this fortnight. Only explanation I have is he literally didn't see the match (and not in that sarcastic "Oh, you must have watched a different match" kind of way. I mean literally didn't watch it and just checked the result).

The first thing I said about this match is that I had just woken up to the result. Did you not see that?

I have subsequently found out that Nadal hurt his back after losing the first set. Then I found out that Nadal managed to win a set after the injury.

 

[Moxie]

It is baseless speculation to ponder about the "what if Nadal did not get injured" concept. It is essential to stick to facts here, and the facts read that Stan completely outplayed Rafa for a set and a bit. I think that is what we all need to know.

A full match never lasts a set and a bit unless someone withdraws. So it's only normal to speculate about what was going to happen.

I know people are sensitive to injuries here, but this is one incident in which it's fair to discuss what could have been.

I don't actually think so. You show up on the day, and you play the match. Stan brought a lot of game from the start. Whatever was going on with Rafa (from earlier or from the 2nd set,) is a fitness issue. But his back did loosen up, and Wawrinka got tight. Rafa got himself back into it with a least a prayer. Stan looked like he might collapse under the weight of the moment, but he didn't. And a lot of us would have thought that had Rafa gotten to a 5th, he might have pulled it off, but he didn't. If Rafa had gotten way ahead in the first, he might have pulled it off. But Stan was the star for the first and into the 2nd. And he played his cards to take it home.

 

[calitennis127]

4 people voted stan in 4..

I was one of them, although I always bet against Nadal in big matches because I just can't stand the way he so often wins at the latter stages of the biggest events - and many times Nadal has won instead. But I will say that this is what SHOULD happen more often and SHOULD HAVE happened more often.

What? An injury to Rafa affecting his GS chances?

Unfortunately, it's happened all too frequently... :nono

You're blaming this on an injury? Please.

That is completely ridiculous. He was in fine enough health to straight set Federer.

Did he have a bad back against Federer that was preventing him from serving and moving?

No. I just found out about the injury at the start of the second set.

I wasn't waking up at 3am to watch a freakin' Nadal-Wawrinka match. Sorry

 

[brokenshoelace]

Cali's been posting particularly insane stuff this fortnight. Only explanation I have is he literally didn't see the match (and not in that sarcastic "Oh, you must have watched a different match" kind of way. I mean literally didn't watch it and just checked the result).

The first thing I said about this match is that I had just woken up to the result. Did you not see that?

I have subsequently found out that Nadal hurt his back after losing the first set. Then I found out that Nadal managed to win a set after the injury.

Trust me, after you watch the match, you'll found that it was Wawrinka who managed to lose a set after the injury. And please, watch the match, because the injury was more than just one of those "yeah, his movement was slightly affected." He couldn't do anything. The only reason the match continued was because it's a slam final, and I still have no idea how Wawrinka lost a set.

 

[Front242]

Of course, no one knows for sure what would have happened if there had been no injury, but without question, the injury and it's noticeable affect on Nadal clearly stopped Stan's momentum even though he managed to grab the second set.

More than it stopped Nadal from having any chance of competing? I'm honestly still baffled most of the arguments are talking about how much the injury affected Wawrinka... You'd think he was the one who sustained it.

Yes, it did affect his play. But he recovered. For Nadal, there was no way he was ever going to recover since he couldn't serve, move, or do anything really. So again, I ask, who had it worse?

He was lucky to recover tbh. His play wasn't convincing imo till the last 2 games of the 4th set since Nadal's injury. He was passive as hell, crap on serve and hitting weak shots since the point Nadal got injured. He was crap on serve in set 1 mind you. But his groundstrokes there were unreal.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not sure of any scenario when it's better to be the injured player over the healthy player, especially when the healthy player is already ahead on the scoreboards. So sorry if I don't sympathize with how much Nadal's injury affected Stan's concentration. That's Stan's fault, and it's something he can control (and in fairness, he did). Nadal's injury was just a piece of bad luck that there was nothing he can do about.

This.

I know Wawrinka needed a cuddle and a hot-water bottle to recover from rafa's injury, but it was Rafa's injury. It only became a problem for Stan because he let it...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I was one of them, although I always bet against Nadal in big matches because I just can't stand the way he so often wins at the latter stages of the biggest events - and many times Nadal has won instead. But I will say that this is what SHOULD happen more often and SHOULD HAVE happened more often.

What? An injury to Rafa affecting his GS chances?

Unfortunately, it's happened all too frequently... :nono

You're blaming this on an injury? Please.

That is completely ridiculous. He was in fine enough health to straight set Federer.

Did he have a bad back against Federer that was preventing him from serving and moving?

No. I just found out about the injury at the start of the second set.

I wasn't waking up at 3am to watch a freakin' Nadal-Wawrinka match. Sorry

You missed out on some pretty sweet shotmaking by Stan in the first set. And Nadal crying after sustaining an injury, for what's that worth.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It is baseless speculation to ponder about the "what if Nadal did not get injured" concept. It is essential to stick to facts here, and the facts read that Stan completely outplayed Rafa for a set and a bit. I think that is what we all need to know.

A full match never lasts a set and a bit unless someone withdraws. So it's only normal to speculate about what was going to happen.

I know people are sensitive to injuries here, but this is one incident in which it's fair to discuss what could have been.

I don't actually think so. You show up on the day, and you play the match. Stan brought a lot of game from the start. Whatever was going on with Rafa (from earlier or from the 2nd set,) is a fitness issue. But his back did loosen up, and Wawrinka got tight. Rafa got himself back into it with a least a prayer. Stan looked like he might collapse under the weight of the moment, but he didn't. And a lot of us would have thought that had Rafa gotten to a 5th, he might have pulled it off, but he didn't. If Rafa had gotten way ahead in the first, he might have pulled it off. But Stan was the star for the first and into the 2nd. And he played his cards to take it home.

People here are acting like things are mutually exclusive. Yeah, you show up and you play the match. Which Nadal did. Unfortunately he got a severe injury (in the sense that it severely affected his game). Now, is any of that debatable? These are facts, are they not?

And therefor, is it not reasonable to think that maybe, someone like Rafael Nadal could have perhaps had a better chance of winning if he didn't have an injury that prevented him from freaking playing tennis?

I know you're being a good sport, but give me a break.

 

[Front242]

I wasn't waking up at 3am to watch a freakin' Nadal-Wawrinka match. Sorry

:laydownlaughing

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think there is a feeling of being robbed in respect of not seeing played out without the injury drama which is fair enough. But on the flipside, Stan has had a great tournament, taken out both seeds and is a worthy champ.

Nobody called Stan a fraud or an undeserving champ. I think we're all full of praise for what he's done. I think people are being too touchy about this. As if talking about Nadal's injury somehow deducts the slam from Wawrinka's resume. It doesn't.

When I see someone claiming Nadal would have absolutely won if not for the injury, I'd be the first to object, believe me. Outside from that, I've yet to see one faulty argument from any Nadal fan re: the back injury, and I'm as surprised as you are.