2014 Aussie Open Final: Nadal vs. Wawrinka

[Kieran]

A Fedfan checking in to say that I am genuinely happy for Stan, Not happy JUST cause Nadal lost.

However - the whole time I was watching the award ceremony and listening to the comms later, I could not help but wonder how fiercely they would have been raking Roger over the coals had it been an all-Swiss final and Roger's back trouble had resurfaced and caused him to play badly and lose, and he had had the nerve to mention it like he did after losing to Berdych that time and Jon Wertheim called him low rent. Why does Nadal get such a pass with the press? It irks me no end!

Doesn't turn me into a detractor, but annoys me! Grrrrrr!

Off to eat some SWISS chocolate!!

In fairness, Cosmo, you're not the first Fedfan to compare his back injury to what happened to Rafa and it's not a straight comparison. First, Rafa couldn't move.

Second, it was a slam final.

Third, it was against a guy he always beats, with history on the line on so many fronts.

I don't dispute that Roger was affected by his back, but it's not as if it happened against Sod in Paris - as a straight comparison - and it restricted him so much that he just stood there when the ball passed six feet to his right hand side...

 

[Fiero425]

As folks frequently say, either u r fit enough to play or u don't play. Nadal got injured---perhaps during the match, perhaps before. Perhaps it was nerves that contributed to the injury. Whatever the case, Stan was the fitter, better player and deservedly won. Period.

There you go! Bravo! I wish people were this magnanimous if it were reversed for their fave; but they aren't! :clap

Fiero, I think you're here today to just take a p1$$, are you? I get it, you hate Rafa, you love Roger. You're celebrating this injury by telling everybody to ignore it.

You hate that Roger benefits so much from Rafa's injuries. I understand. But why don't you snap out of it an pay attention here? Rafa couldn't move after the 2nd game of the 2nd set.

You think that might have affected his chances for good - or ill?

Cry me a river! Edberg could barely get out of bed to play Lendl in 1990! The record will not say Lendl won AO only because Edberg got hurt the night before! He retired without whimpering! :cry :cry :cry

 

[Moxie]

A Fedfan checking in to say that I am genuinely happy for Stan, Not happy JUST cause Nadal lost.

However - the whole time I was watching the award ceremony and listening to the comms later, I could not help but wonder how fiercely they would have been raking Roger over the coals had it been an all-Swiss final and Roger's back trouble had resurfaced and caused him to play badly and lose, and he had had the nerve to mention it like he did after losing to Berdych that time and Jon Wertheim called him low rent. Why does Nadal get such a pass with the press? It irks me no end!

Doesn't turn me into a detractor, but annoys me! Grrrrrr!

Off to eat some SWISS chocolate!!

Hi, Cosmo!

In case you haven't noticed, Rafa has also been raked over the coals about the back. What pass would you say he's getting?

 

[masterclass]

Unfortunately, what I feared would happen, did happen. Many "responsible" news sites are spouting headlines:

"Stan Wawrinka beats injured Rafael Nadal to win Australian Open" or variations on that theme.

Even if that is true, Stan played some of the best tennis of his life to unquestionably lead/dominate the match until the injury/MTO, was able to win despite the mental trauma caused by his friend's apparently debilitating injury, so why couldn't he get a more respectable headline, like;

"Stan Wawrinka's power breaks down Nadal to win Australian Open"

Stan Wawrinka beats an injured Rafael Nadal for Australian Open title

- CBS News

Wawrinka beats injured Nadal to capture Aussie Open title

- Foxnews

Australian Open: Stanislas Wawrinka beats injured Rafael Nadal to claim maiden grand slam title

- ABC

Wawrinka beats injured Nadal to capture Australian Open

- The Globe and Mail

Wawrinka upsets injured Nadal to win Australian Open title in Melbourne

- Daily Mail UK

Just disgraceful...

At least the BBC was kinder:

Australian Open 2014: Stanislas Wawrinka beats Nadal in final

- BBC

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Kieran]

As folks frequently say, either u r fit enough to play or u don't play. Nadal got injured---perhaps during the match, perhaps before. Perhaps it was nerves that contributed to the injury. Whatever the case, Stan was the fitter, better player and deservedly won. Period.

There you go! Bravo! I wish people were this magnanimous if it were reversed for their fave; but they aren't! :clap

Fiero, I think you're here today to just take a p1$$, are you? I get it, you hate Rafa, you love Roger. You're celebrating this injury by telling everybody to ignore it.

You hate that Roger benefits so much from Rafa's injuries. I understand. But why don't you snap out of it an pay attention here? Rafa couldn't move after the 2nd game of the 2nd set.

You think that might have affected his chances for good - or ill?

Cry me a river! Edberg could barely get out of bed to play Lendl in 1990! The record will not say Lendl won AO only because Edberg got hurt the night before! He retired without whimpering! :cry :cry :cry

And yet you still know that Edberg was injured, eh?

I cried you a river on Friday when Rafa took Roger to the woodshed.

Again.......... :cry :cry :cry

 

[Kieran]

Even if that is true, Stan played some of the best tennis of his life to unquestionably lead/dominate the match until the injury/MTO, was able to win despite the mental trauma caused by his friend's apparently debilitating injury, so why couldn't he get a more respectable headline, like;

Seriously buddy, I don't know what your problem is. As you yourself say, it's true. So why shouldn't it be reported? You want to censor this information and make it look like the match was different to what it was?

It's not like Stan was home and hosed when it happened...

 

[huntingyou]

Arguments with Rafa haters are a waste of time so people shouldn't bother.

The whole dynamic can be explain on how Rafa fans feel about Novak and how they credit him while Roger fans can barely muster "Rafa was pretty good tonight".

The good thing is, Roger seems to be in good form which mean he will reach the later part of tournaments, even on clay and we will enjoy once again when Nadal pummels him to oblivion for the 10000 time........

 

[Fiero425]

Unfortunately, what I feared would happen, did happen. Many "responsible" news sites are spouting headlines:

"Stan Wawrinka beats injured Rafael Nadal to win Australian Open" or variations on that theme.

Even if that is true, Stan played some of the best tennis of his life to unquestionably lead/dominate the match until the injury/MTO, was able to win despite the mental trauma caused by his friend's apparently debilitating injury, so why couldn't he get a more respectable headline, like;

"Stan Wawrinka's power breaks down Nadal to win Australian Open"

Stan Wawrinka beats an injured Rafael Nadal for Australian Open title

- CBS News

Wawrinka beats injured Nadal to capture Aussie Open title

- Foxnews

Australian Open: Stanislas Wawrinka beats injured Rafael Nadal to claim maiden grand slam title

- ABC

Wawrinka beats injured Nadal to capture Australian Open

- The Globe and Mail

Wawrinka upsets injured Nadal to win Australian Open title in Melbourne

- Daily Mail UK

Just disgraceful...

At least the BBC was kinder:

Australian Open 2014: Stanislas Wawrinka beats Nadal in final

- BBC

Respectfully,
masterclass

This is all I've been saying! I know the press and Rafa sychophants will overplay this injury! It's disgusting and I guess I shouldn't be surprised I'm being attacked for voicing this outrageous reporting! :nono :nono

 

[Kieran]

This is all I've been saying! I know the press and Rafa sychophants will overplay this injury! It's disgusting and I guess I shouldn't be surprised I'm being attacked for voicing this outrageous reporting! :nono :nono

Seriously, you're like a comedy act. It's "outrageous" to report the truth? Who are you? Jo Stalin?

Watch the Freakin' Match!

:lolz: :lolz:

 

[Kieran]

Even if that is true, Stan played some of the best tennis of his life to unquestionably lead/dominate the match until the injury/MTO, was able to win despite the mental trauma caused by his friend's apparently debilitating injury, so why couldn't he get a more respectable headline, like;

Seriously buddy, I don't know what your problem is. As you yourself say, it's true. So why shouldn't it be reported? You want to censor this information and make it look like the match was different to what it was?

It's not like Stan was home and hosed when it happened...

And Masterclass, I must pull you up on this bit of revisionism: "was able to win despite the mental trauma caused by his friend's apparently debilitating injury."

Now, I know you're not the dishonest sort, but maybe in this you typed too quick and didn't see what you wrote.

It wasn't "apparently debilitatiin" - it was "actually debilitating."

And Stan didn't suffer trauma because he was suffering for his injured friend: he began to bottle it. Which he may or may not have done if Rafa had stayed fit - we'll never know, that's the whole point.

But to rewrite it in such a one-sided manner betrays your allegiances, buddy, and in this case, your allegiances aren't to the truth...

 

[Front242]

Arguments with Rafa detractors are a waste of time so people shouldn't bother.

The whole dynamic can be explain on how Rafa fans feel about Novak and how they credit him while Roger fans can barely muster "Rafa was pretty good tonight".

The good thing is, Roger seems to be in good form which mean he will reach the later part of tournaments, even on clay and we will enjoy once again when Nadal pummels him to oblivion for the 10000 time........

If Nadal reaches the latter half too. He may not at Wimbledon and neither may Fed. Nothing is a given for either of them there and anywhere as today showed.

 

[masterclass]

By the way, how is Federer feeling about all this? Besides feeling happy for Stan?

Yeah!

Stan: And then I looked up to God, and it happened! I won! Roger: Cool story, bro.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[brokenshoelace]

Unfortunately, what I feared would happen, did happen. Many "responsible" news sites are spouting headlines:

"Stan Wawrinka beats injured Rafael Nadal to win Australian Open" or variations on that theme.

Even if that is true, Stan played some of the best tennis of his life to unquestionably lead/dominate the match until the injury/MTO, was able to win despite the mental trauma caused by his friend's apparently debilitating injury, so why couldn't he get a more respectable headline, like;

"Stan Wawrinka's power breaks down Nadal to win Australian Open"

Stan Wawrinka beats an injured Rafael Nadal for Australian Open title

- CBS News

Wawrinka beats injured Nadal to capture Aussie Open title

- Foxnews

Australian Open: Stanislas Wawrinka beats injured Rafael Nadal to claim maiden grand slam title

- ABC

Wawrinka beats injured Nadal to capture Australian Open

- The Globe and Mail

Wawrinka upsets injured Nadal to win Australian Open title in Melbourne

- Daily Mail UK

Just disgraceful...

At least the BBC was kinder:

Australian Open 2014: Stanislas Wawrinka beats Nadal in final

- BBC

Respectfully,
masterclass

OK, let's check facts:

Did Wawrinka beat Nadal? Yes.

Was Nadal injured? Yes.

Did Wawrinka beat an injured Nadal? Yes.

Was the headline false? No.

Did Wawrinka outplay Nadal before the injury? Yes.

Would "Wawrinka outplays Nadal for the first set, then Nadal gets injured and Wawrinka wins" a horrible headline? Yes.

So would it make sense to go with "Wawrinka beats injured Nadal?" Yes.

This is literally the first time I see so much uproar about pointing out the truth. Nadal was injured. Wawrinka beat an injured Nadal.

 

[masterclass]

Even if that is true, Stan played some of the best tennis of his life to unquestionably lead/dominate the match until the injury/MTO, was able to win despite the mental trauma caused by his friend's apparently debilitating injury, so why couldn't he get a more respectable headline, like;

Seriously buddy, I don't know what your problem is. As you yourself say, it's true. So why shouldn't it be reported? You want to censor this information and make it look like the match was different to what it was?

It's not like Stan was home and hosed when it happened...

And Masterclass, I must pull you up on this bit of revisionism: "was able to win despite the mental trauma caused by his friend's apparently debilitating injury."

Now, I know you're not the dishonest sort, but maybe in this you typed too quick and didn't see what you wrote.

It wasn't "apparently debilitatiin" - it was "actually debilitating."

And Stan didn't suffer trauma because he was suffering for his injured friend: he began to bottle it. Which he may or may not have done if Rafa had stayed fit - we'll never know, that's the whole point.

But to rewrite it in such a one-sided manner betrays your allegiances, buddy, and in this case, your allegiances aren't to the truth...

You're right. That bit was tongue-in-cheek considering some of the responses here...
It's good the discussion keeps going, no?

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[brokenshoelace]

I wasn't morally scolding you, nor trying to shower Wawrinka with praise. I was trying to make the point that loss sometimes needs to be chalked up, and a bad day is a bad day. I'll leave the mopping up to you, then, when folks accuse Rafa fans of making excuses for loses due to injury. It was bad luck for Rafa that his back bothered him today. It was also bad luck for him that Stan played as well as he did. I'm not sure what else there is to say.

There's a difference between losing a match while looking fine, only for injury reports to conveniently surface months later, and a clear as day injury. Pretty sure the latter wouldn't constitute an excuse, just the truth. Was Nadal injured? Yes. Would anyone debate that? No. That's about it...

 

[tented]

This is all I've been saying! I know the press and Rafa sychophants will overplay this injury! It's disgusting and I guess I shouldn't be surprised I'm being attacked for voicing this outrageous reporting! :nono :nono

Seriously, you're like a comedy act. It's "outrageous" to report the truth? Who are you? Jo Stalin?

Watch the Freakin' Match!

:lolz: :lolz:

Won't happen. That might lead to an informed conclusion, which would interfere with the joy of rambling on about sycophants (s-y-c-o-p-h-a-n-t-s).

 

[Kieran]

You're right. That bit was tongue-in-cheek considering some of the responses here...
It's good the discussion keeps going, no?

Respectfully,
masterclass

It is good the discussion keeps going - despite peoples attempts to shut it down, deny what's obvious and so on. I don't mind it buddy, you're a Fedfan, injuries to Rafa make you's boys very happy...

 

[Fiero425]

Unfortunately, what I feared would happen, did happen. Many "responsible" news sites are spouting headlines:

"Stan Wawrinka beats injured Rafael Nadal to win Australian Open" or variations on that theme.

Even if that is true, Stan played some of the best tennis of his life to unquestionably lead/dominate the match until the injury/MTO, was able to win despite the mental trauma caused by his friend's apparently debilitating injury, so why couldn't he get a more respectable headline, like;

"Stan Wawrinka's power breaks down Nadal to win Australian Open"

Stan Wawrinka beats an injured Rafael Nadal for Australian Open title

- CBS News

Wawrinka beats injured Nadal to capture Aussie Open title

- Foxnews

Australian Open: Stanislas Wawrinka beats injured Rafael Nadal to claim maiden grand slam title

- ABC

Wawrinka beats injured Nadal to capture Australian Open

- The Globe and Mail

Wawrinka upsets injured Nadal to win Australian Open title in Melbourne

- Daily Mail UK

Just disgraceful...

At least the BBC was kinder:

Australian Open 2014: Stanislas Wawrinka beats Nadal in final

- BBC

Respectfully,
masterclass

OK, let's check facts:

Did Wawrinka beat Nadal? Yes.

Was Nadal injured? Yes.

Did Wawrinka beat an injured Nadal? Yes.

Was the headline false? No.

Did Wawrinka outplay Nadal before the injury? Yes.

Would "Wawrinka outplays Nadal for the first set, then Nadal gets injured and Wawrinka wins" a horrible headline? Yes.

So would it make sense to go with "Wawrinka beats injured Nadal?" Yes.

This is literally the first time I see so much uproar about pointing out the truth. Nadal was injured. Wawrinka beat an injured Nadal.

:cry :nono :violins: :sleepy:

 

[Kieran]

This is all I've been saying! I know the press and Rafa sychophants will overplay this injury! It's disgusting and I guess I shouldn't be surprised I'm being attacked for voicing this outrageous reporting! :nono :nono

Seriously, you're like a comedy act. It's "outrageous" to report the truth? Who are you? Jo Stalin?

Watch the Freakin' Match!

:lolz: :lolz:

Won't happen. That might lead to an informed conclusion, which would interfere with the joy of rambling on about sycophants (s-y-c-o-p-h-a-n-t-s).

Maybe he meant PsychoPants, a new nickname for Rafa? :laydownlaughing

 

[tented]

Unfortunately, what I feared would happen, did happen. Many "responsible" news sites are spouting headlines:

"Stan Wawrinka beats injured Rafael Nadal to win Australian Open" or variations on that theme.

Even if that is true, Stan played some of the best tennis of his life to unquestionably lead/dominate the match until the injury/MTO, was able to win despite the mental trauma caused by his friend's apparently debilitating injury, so why couldn't he get a more respectable headline, like;

"Stan Wawrinka's power breaks down Nadal to win Australian Open"

Stan Wawrinka beats an injured Rafael Nadal for Australian Open title

- CBS News

Wawrinka beats injured Nadal to capture Aussie Open title

- Foxnews

Australian Open: Stanislas Wawrinka beats injured Rafael Nadal to claim maiden grand slam title

- ABC

Wawrinka beats injured Nadal to capture Australian Open

- The Globe and Mail

Wawrinka upsets injured Nadal to win Australian Open title in Melbourne

- Daily Mail UK

Just disgraceful...

At least the BBC was kinder:

Australian Open 2014: Stanislas Wawrinka beats Nadal in final

- BBC

Respectfully,
masterclass

OK, let's check facts:

Did Wawrinka beat Nadal? Yes.

Was Nadal injured? Yes.

Did Wawrinka beat an injured Nadal? Yes.

Was the headline false? No.

Did Wawrinka outplay Nadal before the injury? Yes.

Would "Wawrinka outplays Nadal for the first set, then Nadal gets injured and Wawrinka wins" a horrible headline? Yes.

So would it make sense to go with "Wawrinka beats injured Nadal?" Yes.

This is literally the first time I see so much uproar about pointing out the truth. Nadal was injured. Wawrinka beat an injured Nadal.

:cry :nono :violins: :sleepy:

You forgot an exclamation mark.