2014 Aussie Open Final: Nadal vs. Wawrinka

[brokenshoelace]

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

Very enjoyable, actually. As it often is. My favorite slam of the year. It's been that way for a while.

 

[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"

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.

I never said you said this. In fact, this has absolutely nothing to do with you. You said why is it "pointless" and I merely gave you my answer. As I said, feel free to speculate and ponder as much as you want, but to me it is mostly an empty and meaningless conversation to have because it usually ends when it started. There is nothing really valuable to add on my end. Yes, we are all aware the back injury had a largely imperative and instrumental role in determining the outcome of the winner. But that is pretty much it. At least to me. What else can be discussed about his injury? The rest is groundless speculation to me. And this has nothing to do with Nadal but any player, really. I love Nadal. I was gutted to see him injured and felt quite sympathetic to him when he got mindlessly booed on the courts. I just don't wish to partake in a groundless conversation about the "what if's". But, by all means, you go for it.

Thanks for the welcoming, by the way.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

Your opinion about the match is your own and I respect it. Your opinion about how I "should" act, for merely pointing out the obvious, is a different issue. One mommy is enough for me, thanks.

 

[Front242]

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

Very enjoyable, actually. As it often is. My favorite slam of the year. It's been that way for a while.

Yeah some good matches alright. I was disappointed Hewitt lost early though and it was a shame we couldn't see more of Tomic. I don't like his game but that match seemed actually very entertaining till he got injured. He showed a lot of heart like Rafa today eventhough likewise his movement was hampered. I'd imagine had this not been a final, Nadal would also have called it game over after the injury. Kudos to him for playing it out.

 

[britbox]

Front - I think there is a difference between players abusing MTOs and not having them at all. I appreciate it's difficult to prevent abuse but when you've got thousands of fans watching in the stadium and around the world then if a 5 minute break is going to make the difference between a match continuation and a retirement then I'd keep them. All MTO's should be strictly courtside and toilet breaks should be banned altogether.

 

[Kieran]

^^^ @ Murat

Yeah, Azerenko and her PTO. Wimmin's tennis, eh?

We shouldn't overlook that this isn't just another slam final - as if any of them ever are. Rafa had stopped Federer and in the semis and was in line to win his 14th. It's a bizarre and unexpected turn - we're entitled to chinwag about that. As I say, so far nobody has been ungenerous to Stanley...

 

[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.

I never said you said this. In fact, this has absolutely nothing to do with you. You said why is it "pointless" and I merely gave you my answer. As I said, feel free to speculate and ponder as much as you want, but to me it is mostly an empty and meaningless conversation to have because it usually ends when it started. There is nothing really valuable to add on my end. Yes, we are all aware the back injury had a largely imperative and instrumental role in determining the outcome of the winner. But that is pretty much it. At least to me. What else can be discussed about his injury? The rest is groundless speculation to me. And this has nothing to do with Nadal but any player, really. I love Nadal. I was gutted to see him injured and felt quite sympathetic to him when he got mindlessly booed on the courts. I just don't wish to partake in a groundless conversation about the "what if's". But, by all means, you go for it.

Thanks for the welcoming, by the way.

Most conversations here are "pointless" in the sense that they're inconsequential and would have no effect on the match, its outcome, or the world of tennis. But then, where would the fun be in merely congratulation winners, wishing the losers better luck, and moving on every time?

By the same token, if someone played a poor match, with a ton of strategic errors, it would be "pointless" to point it out because the match is done with. In that case, most conversations would stop before ever having the chance to begin.

My only "what if" does not necessarily have to do with the outcome, but with the action. If Nadal hadn't gotten injured, we would have gotten a better match, one way or the other. The injury prevented him from competing, and prevented Wawrinka from keeping up his level even. It was unfortunate. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

I once again concede that Wawrinka was the superior player, including when Nadal was healthy. Something I never debated.

 

[Front242]

Front - I think there is a difference between players abusing MTOs and not having them at all. I appreciate it's difficult to prevent abuse but when you've got thousands of fans watching in the stadium and around the world then if a 5 minute break is going to make the difference between a match continuation and a retirement then I'd keep them. All MTO's should be strictly courtside and toilet breaks should be banned altogether.

Well it's fine if they're legit as this one clearly was and no complaints here whatsoever. Azarenka's one last year was pathetic though.

 

[Moxie]

^ Fine. But what does it change? Rafa, on a different day would have beaten Stan. All you guys are trying to do is add the asterisk, and I'm trying to say that's unseemly. Because you can't change what happened. And there's no need to take away from what Stan did. There's also no blight on Rafa's reputation that he didn't close the #14 today. He'll do it in Paris. Today's match wasn't one for the ages, but the guy who one is the man who puts his name in the books. That's it.

As to the injury, we can discuss it, and as fans, of course, there's concern. I'm not trying to close down discussion, in general. And if you guys want to go after 'what if's,' have at it, but I'm saying it's undignified, and pointless, frankly.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Re: medical time outs: Would everyone have really preferred if Nadal had retired at 6-3 2-0? How much would Wawrinka's win been anti-climactic then? I notice a lot of "black or white" arguments around here regarding medical time outs, time violations, etc... Things really aren't as cut and dry.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^^ @ Murat

Yeah, Azerenko and her PTO. Wimmin's tennis, eh?

We shouldn't overlook that this isn't just another slam final - as if any of them ever are. Rafa had stopped Federer and in the semis and was in line to win his 14th. It's a bizarre and unexpected turn - we're entitled to chinwag about that. As I say, so far nobody has been ungenerous to Stanley...

Yeah, this. As fans, we're invested in players. So to see a potentially legacy-defining match for all intents and purposes, decided by an injury, is disappointing for us, as Nadal fans. People acting puzzled as to why we're talking about it is pretty odd to me. It's only human.

 

[Kieran]

All MTO's should be strictly courtside and toilet breaks should be banned altogether.

I agree about toilet breaks, but in fairness, they all need them at some point, but for some MTO's, clothes need to be adjusted and it's not fit for public consumption. In that case, going off-court is only proper...

 

[britbox]

Re: medical time outs: Would everyone have really preferred if Nadal had retired at 6-3 2-0? How much would Wawrinka's win been anti-climactic then? I notice a lot of "black or white" arguments around here regarding medical time outs, time violations, etc... Things really aren't as cut and dry.

MTOs should be allowed IMO for the reason above. These guys are putting a show on for people who have bought tickets, TV packages etc... If an MTO prevents a retirement then they should be allowed despite the fact they get abused from time to time.

 

[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"

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.

I never said you said this. In fact, this has absolutely nothing to do with you. You said why is it "pointless" and I merely gave you my answer. As I said, feel free to speculate and ponder as much as you want, but to me it is mostly an empty and meaningless conversation to have because it usually ends when it started. There is nothing really valuable to add on my end. Yes, we are all aware the back injury had a largely imperative and instrumental role in determining the outcome of the winner. But that is pretty much it. At least to me. What else can be discussed about his injury? The rest is groundless speculation to me. And this has nothing to do with Nadal but any player, really. I love Nadal. I was gutted to see him injured and felt quite sympathetic to him when he got mindlessly booed on the courts. I just don't wish to partake in a groundless conversation about the "what if's". But, by all means, you go for it.

Thanks for the welcoming, by the way.

My only "what if" does not necessarily have to do with the outcome, but with the action. If Nadal hadn't gotten injured, we would have gotten a better match, one way or the other. The injury prevented him from competing, and prevented Wawrinka from keeping up his level even. It was unfortunate. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Nobody is disputing that, though. I think there is a largely accepted consensus in regards to the imperative impact Nadal's injury had on the match. It is indisputable, actually, I agree with you on that. I just think people do not want to discuss Nadal's injury in the framework of "would he have won the match had it not happened?". I mean, I know I don't. Either way, I am fine with it, really. Just giving my two cents.

 

[Front242]

All MTO's should be strictly courtside and toilet breaks should be banned altogether.

I agree about toilet breaks, but in fairness, they all need them at some point, but for some MTO's, clothes need to be adjusted and it's not fit for public consumption. In that case, going off-court is only proper...

Toilet breaks at the end of sets are fine so long as you don't take an extended break and come back in time for the next set. What's NOT on is taking a pee or dump before your opponent serves for the match

 

[britbox]

All MTO's should be strictly courtside and toilet breaks should be banned altogether.

I agree about toilet breaks, but in fairness, they all need them at some point, but for some MTO's, clothes need to be adjusted and it's not fit for public consumption. In that case, going off-court is only proper...

Taking a leak should be banned (nobody playing tennis ever needs to take one). For No. 2 tasks, the WC should be wired up to the stadium loudspeakers, so the fans can be re-assured it's not being abused.

 

[Kieran]

^ Fine. But what does it change? Rafa, on a different day would have beaten Stan. All you guys are trying to do is add the asterisk, and I'm trying to say that's unseemly. Because you can't change what happened. And there's no need to take away from what Stan did. There's also no blight on Rafa's reputation that he didn't close the #14 today. He'll do it in Paris. Today's match wasn't one for the ages, but the guy who one is the man who puts his name in the books. That's it.

As to the injury, we can discuss it, and as fans, of course, there's concern. I'm not trying to close down discussion, in general. And if you guys want to go after 'what if's,' have at it, but I'm saying it's undignified, and pointless, frankly.

Actuallly, every match is followed by what-ifs. That's the nature of sport. And so far nobody has put an asterisk behind Stan's name, but this is momentous. Rafa's would hold 3 of 4, he'd have 2 career slams, his next major would be RG where he could take 3 in a row into Wimbledon, he'd have 14 majors...

We'd be prudish if we didn't get this off our chest. We're only discussing what we saw, by the way, and don't tell me that if Rafa lost early in Paris and Nole reached the final to face a guy he routinely beats in straights, then got an injury during it and lost, that the injury there wouldn't be noteworthy.

In fact, it would be all that people would talk about

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ Fine. But what does it change? Rafa, on a different day would have beaten Stan. All you guys are trying to do is add the asterisk, and I'm trying to say that's unseemly. Because you can't change what happened. And there's no need to take away from what Stan did. There's also no blight on Rafa's reputation that he didn't close the #14 today. He'll do it in Paris. Today's match wasn't one for the ages, but the guy who one is the man who puts his name in the books. That's it.

As to the injury, we can discuss it, and as fans, of course, there's concern. I'm not trying to close down discussion, in general. And if you guys want to go after 'what if's,' have at it, but I'm saying it's undignified, and pointless, frankly.

I can't change anything that happens in the world of tennis. Doesn't mean I won't talk about it. I don't think Nadal's reputation is affected either, and I don't think it makes Stan's achievement less impressive, or the level he displayed any less amazing.

A guy just got injured in one of the most important matches of his career. People are naturally talking about it. If it takes some of the attention away from the winner, well, tough cookies. It's always been that way. People will never strictly focus on the winner. It didn't happen when Nadal lost to Soderling, it didn't happen when Roger lost to Stakhovsky, and hell, it doesn't happen when Roger loses to Nadal. It's a tennis match contested between two players. Both will get attention, and whether it's fair or not, Nadal will get more attention that most due to who he is, win or lose.

 

[Kieran]

All MTO's should be strictly courtside and toilet breaks should be banned altogether.

I agree about toilet breaks, but in fairness, they all need them at some point, but for some MTO's, clothes need to be adjusted and it's not fit for public consumption. In that case, going off-court is only proper...

Taking a leak should be banned (nobody playing tennis ever needs to take one). For No. 2 tasks, the WC should be wired up to the stadium loudspeakers, so the fans can be re-assured it's not being abused.

:laydownlaughing :lolz:

You think the fans want to hear Federe's farts? He took a toilet break before the fourth set in the final at Wimbledon 2006. Imagine the scene, centre court with Pippa and her comely dimples in attendance, Rafa needs to drop a rope and Roger is sitting courtside arguing with the umpire about his grunting. "This is killing me! He grunts even when he's not on court!"

:lolz:

 

[shawnbm]

I didn't watch the final yet, but I'm hearing from the networks and seeing from some clips that Stan played very well and his victory over Novak May have carried over to the match with Nadal. He's been building since the AO last year and come into his own. I'm happy for the Stanimal. As for Rafael and his tweaking the back, let's hope it is nothing more than a pulled muscle and that he's back in shape. I assume he will be soon and Paris will be well within his grasp once again. What an interesting way to start the year--Li and Stanislas win the first major of the year!