2014 Aussie Open Final: Nadal vs. Wawrinka

[brokenshoelace]

Stan looked like he might collapse under the weight of the moment, but he didn't.

DId he really? By getting 15-40 on every Nadal service point and making it absolutely obvious that, even if he tried to throw it away, he'll break anyway. I'm sorry, but Nadal was never back, not even with a prayer.

Did anyone really think he had any chance after that injury? If you did, you have more faith in miracles than I do.

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, when Ferrer beat Nadal under similar (but even less severe!) circumstances, everyone was fine with talking about Nadal's injury, despite it not being as bad as this one. But now, it's somehow pointless to talk about it... why?

 

[Kieran]

Stan looked like he might collapse under the weight of the moment, but he didn't.

DId he really? By getting 15-40 on every Nadal service point and making it absolutely obvious that, even if he tried to throw it away, he'll break anyway. I'm sorry, but Nadal was never back, not even with a prayer.

Did anyone really think he had any chance after that injury? If you did, you have more faith in miracles than I do.

Actually, I didn't have faith in Stan closing it out. And Rafa loosened up a bit. He didn't even bother trying for wide serves in the deuce court, but he began to move very slightly. And Stan kept handing him a chance.

I thought that when Rafa broke back in the 4th, if held for 4-4, Stan might implode.

It was a long shot, but I never write Rafa off - especially when his opponent is suffering the heeby-jeebies...

 

[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.

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.

I am being a good sport, and so should you. Everyone knows that in the universe of reasonable tennis statistics, Rafael Nadal was going to win that match. It doesn't take you telling us that. However, what happened was not the script. Stan was playing some bold tennis. Rafa's back, for what it's worth, featured. But he tried to get himself back in and couldn't, and Stan DIDN'T totally fold like someone reminded him he was supposed to lose. And if you make more than a tiny bit about what "should" have been, I'm going to remind you that you are acting like your nemesis, Cali.

 

[Kieran]

By the way, when Ferrer beat Nadal under similar (but even less severe!) circumstances, everyone was fine with talking about Nadal's injury, despite it not being as bad as this one. But now, it's somehow pointless to talk about it... why?

Well, we know who usually benefits when Rafa gets injured, let's be frank. And so it's survivor guilt, or something like it. But I hope this injury heals quick enough. Rafa is remarkable the way his attitude stays strong despite the injuries he's had and how they've impacted his ability to compete and collect more slams...

 

[masterclass]

It's neither here nor there I suppose, but I personally believe allowing MTO rule is one of the worst rule changes they ever made in tennis. It completely goes against two other rules which states that the umpire is to not allow player time to recover, and that play must be continuous.

When I played, if one got hurt enough to not be able to continue the match, one defaulted, that's it. You either are fit enough to play without aid or not. Now they pump you with anti-inflammatory medication or whatever treatments to help you get out on the court and finish the match.

The rule also creates a lot of controversy as one notices. It allows one to manipulate the flow of the match. Some use it as gamesmanship, some as a timeout to catch a breather or stop momentum, some as a real aid in recovery from an injury incurred on the court.

This rule is more for the fans who paid to see a whole match, but is not good for tennis or the players in my opinion. Playing with actual injury can be more injurious to a player in the long run. On occasion it can allow a player to win a match that would not likely have been won without it, which might be good for the player that got injured, but not for the opponent.

If anything, they should dispense with the MTO and just allow all players 1 timeout per match to be used for anything they want. At least it would be more honest. But I would prefer no time out. But that's me, and I'll probably be called inhumane for this opinion. So be it. Maybe I should post a new thread and have a poll.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[TsarMatt]

But now, it's somehow pointless to talk about it... why?

Because it is tiresome, and, frankly, predictable. It all resorts back to either "Nadal was going to win had he not been injured" or "shut up, we will never know for sure". I just feel as if there is nothing truly valuable that can be said that hasn't already. It feels groundless and rather empty to me. But that's just me. I have no problem with people speculating, but it usually ends where it started, so I don't even bother going down that route.

 

[Front242]

Ok so obviously the Fed, Novak and Rafa fans are all mutually disappointed but overall how did people find this year's AO?

Edit: I guess Fed fans disappointment got a major lift today! Sorry

 

[Kieran]

^^ @Masterclass

A new thread would be a good idea.

There was no controversy about this MTO, but when players take them for having cramp? Then that's wrong.

Maybe Stan should have taking a PTO - it's a Psyche Time Out, to help him recover from the effect of Rafa's injury?

 

[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.

I am being a good sport, and so should you. Everyone knows that in the universe of reasonable tennis statistics, Rafael Nadal was going to win that match. It doesn't take you telling us that. However, what happened was not the script. Stan was playing some bold tennis. Rafa's back, for what it's worth, featured. But he tried to get himself back in and couldn't, and Stan DIDN'T totally fold like someone reminded him he was supposed to lose. And if you make more than a tiny bit about what "should" have been, I'm going to remind you that you are acting like your nemesis, Cali.

Yes, stating something as painfully obvious as "Nadal's chances were severely hampered by the injury" implies I am not a good sport. First of all, I'm on a tennis forum, and am under no obligation to be a good sport. So no, I "shouldn't" be anything, and no, it's not your place to scold me. Secondly, I gave all the credit in the world for Stan the way he outplayed Nadal in that first set (in about 5 or 6 different posts).

So tell me this, in what world is saying "Stan outplayed him in the first set but the injury prevented Nadal from ever making a comeback" A) in bad spirits B) Cali-like? Especially since I never, not for a second, said anything about what "should" have been. I never said Nadal should have or would have won without the injury.

I said the injury affected him greatly, and that people are acting like this is somehow discrediting to Wawrinka to admit. Uh hello, did you listen to Nadal's speech? "I had bad luck but congratulations to Stan?" Omg, that Rafa, what a bad sport. Did you hear Wawrinka's speech? Where he acknowledged Nadal's injury and how it affected things?

Awful sport, the lot of them.

I can't believe I'm seriously being reprimanded for pointing out that an injury that stopped a player from serving, moving and returning affected the outcome. This is somehow equated to Cali saying if Federer employed his strategy of bashing every ball the outcome would be different.

Yup, that's the level of brilliant argumentation offered above, and in hilariously condescending fashion, no less.

 

[Moxie]

By the way, when Ferrer beat Nadal under similar (but even less severe!) circumstances, everyone was fine with talking about Nadal's injury, despite it not being as bad as this one. But now, it's somehow pointless to talk about it... why?

Well, we know who usually benefits when Rafa gets injured, let's be frank. And so it's survivor guilt, or something like it. But I hope this injury heals quick enough. Rafa is remarkable the way his attitude stays strong despite the injuries he's had and how they've impacted his ability to compete and collect more slams...

I disagree that the injury v. Ferrer was less severe. (Groin pull v. back strain.) And I'm less than impressed with both of you for making so much. Yes, the anti-Rafa folks do groan twice as loud as he does when he hurts something, but there's no reason for you guys to buy into "injury-gate." He hurt his back. He didn't beat Stan Wawrinka. It's done, but it's certainly not a tragedy. And I really don't want to hear for the rest of our lives that Rafa might have won this title. He didn't. It's done. Move on.

 

[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.

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.

Sure, we can speculate... I'd have speculated before the match, Rafa would have won the first set and not got injured. I speculated Djokovic would have beaten Wawrinka. 40% of the people speculating on this poll were wrong after the first set and another 40% were on dodgy ground during the second with Wawrinka being up a break.

Nadal's injury cost him any chance of winning this match. I think most people are agreed on that. If he hadn't been injured? Sure, speculate... How do you think it would have played out?

Personally, as I said before I felt a little robbed in not seeing a more natural closure of the match. If you asked me to speculate then I'm basically shrugging my shoulders... No idea. Nadal is the toughest guy to close out on, but Wawrinka was dominating the match to the point of the injury IMO and he'd already closed out on Djokovic (who was my pre-tournament favourite for the title). So, really none the wiser.

 

[brokenshoelace]

But now, it's somehow pointless to talk about it... why?

Because it is tiresome, and, frankly, predictable. It all resorts back to either "Nadal was going to win had he not been injured"

The moment you can point me out to anyone saying the above, I'll happily stop with this argument. Please show me where anyone suggested Nadal was going to win had he not been injured.

And it's predictable to talk about how a back injury affected the match? Any less predictable than praising a player for winning a slam? Both are predictable, and both are understandable and warranted.

Again, please, someone explain to me why is it bad to discuss how an injury affect someone. Was everyone in a collective coma when all Roger Federer has been talking about for the past 2 weeks is how much the back injury affected his results last year? Yeah, I guess he should never mention it, since that's predictable too, and unfair to the guys who have beaten him.

As I said, everyone is extra sensitive to injuries.

I'm not being disrespectful by the way, and welcome to the forums. But I do feel puzzled as to why everyone is so hostile to the idea of pointing out something so obvious but somehow taboo.

 

[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.

Sure, we can speculate... I'd have speculated before the match, Rafa would have won the first set and not got injured. I speculated Djokovic would have beaten Wawrinka. 40% of the people speculating on this poll were wrong after the first set and another 40% were on dodgy ground during the second with Wawrinka being up a break.

Nadal's injury cost him any chance of winning this match. I think most people are agreed on that. If he hadn't been injured? Sure, speculate... How do you think it would have played out?

Personally, as I said before I felt a little robbed in not seeing a more natural closure of the match. If you asked me to speculate then I'm basically shrugging my shoulders... No idea. Nadal is the toughest guy to close out on, but Wawrinka was dominating the match to the point of the injury IMO and he'd already closed out on Djokovic (who was my pre-tournament favourite for the title). So, really none the wiser.

I never speculated. I pointed out how crappy the injury was and got jumped on for some reason. The only thing close to speculation was when I admittedly pointed out that at 6-3 2-0, most still would have placed money on Nadal winning the match. That's not speculation mind you, it has more to do with everyone's mindset while watching the match.

 

[DarthFed]

It ended well but I wouldn't have minded Djokovic winning this one. I sense he might be in a bit of a spiral like 09 and 10 soon. I know everyone will come back with "he had won 28 straight before that" but that's non slams. In slams he has had some major issues the past year in tight moments, closing out sets and matches. Nole winning a bunch of MS events and the YEC at the end of 2013 didn't change that it appears.

As for Roger I think it has been beaten to death. He probably played his 2 best matches since 2012 against Tsonga and Murray but then looked like the evil beast from 2013 in the Rafa blowout. And there was the mess in the Brisbane final before AO. For Roger the smaller tournaments are now important for both ranking and confidence. We will see what he brings in Dubai which is a good court for him. Still the Tsonga and especially Murray match is big because it shows he can still beat one of the elites and possibly be a contender if Nadal isn't in the way.

For Rafa it was just bad luck throughout. He had an amazing chance with the main threats falling like flies but it didn't work out. Not much to read into it.

But Stan winning is incredible, I wonder if GSM has the odds they were giving him at the beginning of the tournament. Even 1/100 would sound high realistically.

 

[Moxie]

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.

I am being a good sport, and so should you. Everyone knows that in the universe of reasonable tennis statistics, Rafael Nadal was going to win that match. It doesn't take you telling us that. However, what happened was not the script. Stan was playing some bold tennis. Rafa's back, for what it's worth, featured. But he tried to get himself back in and couldn't, and Stan DIDN'T totally fold like someone reminded him he was supposed to lose. And if you make more than a tiny bit about what "should" have been, I'm going to remind you that you are acting like your nemesis, Cali.

Yes, stating something as painfully obvious as "Nadal's chances were severely hampered by the injury" implies I am not a good sport. First of all, I'm on a tennis forum, and am under no obligation to be a good sport. So no, I "shouldn't" be anything, and no, it's not your place to scold me. Secondly, I gave all the credit in the world for Stan the way he outplayed Nadal in that first set (in about 5 or 6 different posts).

So tell me this, in what world is saying "Stan outplayed him in the first set but the injury prevented Nadal from ever making a comeback" A) in bad spirits B) Cali-like? Especially since I never, not for a second, said anything about what "should" have been. I never said Nadal should have or would have won without the injury.

I said the injury affected him greatly, and that people are acting like this is somehow discrediting to Wawrinka to admit. Uh hello, did you listen to Nadal's speech? "I had bad luck but congratulations to Stan?" Omg, that Rafa, what a bad sport. Did you hear Wawrinka's speech? Where he acknowledged Nadal's injury and how it affected things?

Awful sport, the lot of them.

I can't believe I'm seriously being reprimanded for pointing out that an injury that stopped a player from serving, moving and returning affected the outcome. This is somehow equated to Cali saying if Federer employed his strategy of bashing every ball the outcome would be different.

Yup, that's the level of brilliant argumentation offered above, and in hilariously condescending fashion, no less.

Excuse me if you felt 'reprimanded.' It was my opinion. You so carefully guard yours, but I do get mine.

 

[Kieran]

By the way, when Ferrer beat Nadal under similar (but even less severe!) circumstances, everyone was fine with talking about Nadal's injury, despite it not being as bad as this one. But now, it's somehow pointless to talk about it... why?

Well, we know who usually benefits when Rafa gets injured, let's be frank. And so it's survivor guilt, or something like it. But I hope this injury heals quick enough. Rafa is remarkable the way his attitude stays strong despite the injuries he's had and how they've impacted his ability to compete and collect more slams...

I disagree that the injury v. Ferrer was less severe. (Groin pull v. back strain.) And I'm less than impressed with both of you for making so much. Yes, the anti-Rafa folks do groan twice as loud as he does when he hurts something, but there's no reason for you guys to buy into "injury-gate." He hurt his back. He didn't beat Stan Wawrinka. It's done, but it's certainly not a tragedy. And I really don't want to hear for the rest of our lives that Rafa might have won this title. He didn't. It's done. Move on.

Ah no, it isn't like that. But what's the big talking point? The injury. We can't close down discussion by ignoring what Basil Fawlty calls "the bleedin' obvious".

Everybody here has been generous to Stan, far as I can see. But we're not masochists. We're entitled to discuss this one, because it's so bizarre and unexpected...

EDIT: let's not even get started on historical significance of the match. It's not just another slam final, you know, and it's been terribly affected by a huge misfortune to the overwhelming favourite...

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, when Ferrer beat Nadal under similar (but even less severe!) circumstances, everyone was fine with talking about Nadal's injury, despite it not being as bad as this one. But now, it's somehow pointless to talk about it... why?

Well, we know who usually benefits when Rafa gets injured, let's be frank. And so it's survivor guilt, or something like it. But I hope this injury heals quick enough. Rafa is remarkable the way his attitude stays strong despite the injuries he's had and how they've impacted his ability to compete and collect more slams...

I disagree that the injury v. Ferrer was less severe. (Groin pull v. back strain.) And I'm less than impressed with both of you for making so much. Yes, the anti-Rafa folks do groan twice as loud as he does when he hurts something, but there's no reason for you guys to buy into "injury-gate." He hurt his back. He didn't beat Stan Wawrinka. It's done, but it's certainly not a tragedy. And I really don't want to hear for the rest of our lives that Rafa might have won this title. He didn't. It's done. Move on.

It was less severe in the sense that while it affected his play, it didn't affect his play to the extent we saw today. In other words, he could still serve, for example, and win cheap points, which is huge when you're injured.

"Injury-Gate" is not for anyone to buy. It's a fact. Nadal got injured. What's there to buy?

I'm sure "injury-gate" had nothing to do with those tears in Nadal's eyes post-match, or him feeling gutted at not having the chance to seriously compete. Nope. Not one bit.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Congrats to Stan. Respect. I hope Nadal's back does not bother him in the long run. Back pain sucks. 20 years I 've been dealing with it.

For me, the only gauge of this match was the first set. And it was played on Stan's terms, and he won it fair and square. What happened after , well, people will speculate forever, although I don't see the point.

A new slam champion...didn't we have a thread for that? I am not sure if anyone picked Stan the Man there.

 

[Front242]

^^ @Masterclass

A new thread would be a good idea.

There was no controversy about this MTO, but when players take them for having cramp? Then that's wrong.

Maybe Stan should have taking a PTO - it's a Psyche Time Out, to help him recover from the effect of Rafa's injury?

Remember Azarenka took a PTO last year against Sloan Stephens at this tournament which I think many, many people agree should NOT have been allowed. She took 10 minutes for a supposed panic attack 'cos she was losing. Disgraceful. It's always left a sour taste with me and likely many others and I have pretty much no respect for her since that. Must admit I had some suspicions Rafa may be up to some dirty tricks at first with that MTO since he's done it before numerous times but today it was the first time I can say I've clearly noticed he wasn't moving properly at all. I saw nothing wrong against Haase, Petzschner (both Wimbledon 2010), Rosol (Wimbledon 2012) and whoever else there was in the past though but no point discussing that. Today he was clearly out of sorts from 2-0 in the 2nd set.