2016 Australian Open: Melbourne Sidewalk Cafe Talks

[Denis]

I am expecting an early exit by Rafa. that should force him to go play the Buenos Aires event. I really cant see him get past the quarterfinals.

I don't see anyone beating him before the quarters. It will be Murray or Stan or someone like Raonic or Nishikori taking him out, if at all. Depending on the draw I would put him on the number 4 spot of favorites, after Novak, Murray, and Stan.

 

[herios]

At the betting houses, the favorites are, in this order:

1. Djokovic
2. Murray
3. Federer
4. Nadal
5. Wawrinka

A really close call between Rafa and Stan, slightly better for Rafa.

 

[herios]

Qualifications draw:

http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/draws/qs/index.html

 

 

[EdbergsGhost]

At the betting houses, the favorites are, in this order:

1. Djokovic
2. Murray
3. Federer
4. Nadal
5. Wawrinka

A really close call between Rafa and Stan, slightly better for Rafa.

Stan quietly won his usual warm up for Oz. At this point my bet is that he would hit through most anyone with the exception of Djokovic. I could be wrong, he's my second choice to win it all.

 

[britbox]

At the betting houses, the favorites are, in this order:

1. Djokovic
2. Murray
3. Federer
4. Nadal
5. Wawrinka

A really close call between Rafa and Stan, slightly better for Rafa.

It's not clear to me why Murray is the second favourite.  Does anybody truly think he is?

 

[mrzz]

Thing is that if you "forget" Djokovic, for me it is up in the air between Murray, Federer and Wawrinka, in no particular order, and Nadal a bit behind those three. But Djokovic is there, and (recent) history says that the guy with the better shot against him at a major is Wawrinka, it is pretty even in that regard in the last two years, in fact. After him, Federer, who at least can beat him outside the majors. Nadal and Murray seem that cannot beat him at all. So, for me, the order is quite clear:

1. Djokovic
2. Wawrinka
3. Federer
4. Murray
5. Nadal

Which is basically the ranking order with Murray losing two places due to his incapacity of beating Djokovic.

 

 

[britbox]

If Murray met Nadal at the AO, my money would still be firmly on Rafa.

 

[Billie]

herios wrote:
At the betting houses, the favorites are, in this order:

1. Djokovic
2. Murray
3. Federer
4. Nadal
5. Wawrinka

A really close call between Rafa and Stan, slightly better for Rafa.

It’s not clear to me why Murray is the second favourite. Does anybody truly think he is?

He is last year's finalist, and he made it to the finals another couple of times.   Andy's performance will be influenced by how his wife feels.  He already said that he would miss AO if that meant being with Kim during the childbirth.

 

[DarthFed]

If Murray met Nadal at the AO, my money would still be firmly on Rafa.

Not sure I agree there. It'd be close to 50-50 if not an edge to Murray. I think Rafa's true level is somewhere between last Fall and what came before it.  For now he doesn't look great by any stretch. I still think if he doesn't get it going by the end of RG that will hopefully signal the end of him.

 

[Moxie]

britbox wrote:
If Murray met Nadal at the AO, my money would still be firmly on Rafa.

Not sure I agree there. It’d be close to 50-50 if not an edge to Murray. I think Rafa’s true level is somewhere between last Fall and what came before it. For now he doesn’t look great by any stretch. I still think if he doesn’t get it going by the end of RG that will hopefully signal the end of him.

How does Rafa not look "great by any stretch?"  He nearly beat Roger in Basel, on his worst surface.  He's rather spanked Wawrinka and Murray in their most recent meetings.  OK, he hasn't beaten Djokovic, but who has?  I know you want to see the end of Nadal, but it's coloring your view.  I agree with Britbox...I think he'd take Murray at this AO.  Or Broken, who's wagering that the only one who will beat Rafa at the AO is the Djoker.

 

[EdbergsGhost]

britbox wrote:
If Murray met Nadal at the AO, my money would still be firmly on Rafa.

Not sure I agree there. It’d be close to 50-50 if not an edge to Murray. I think Rafa’s true level is somewhere between last Fall and what came before it. For now he doesn’t look great by any stretch. I still think if he doesn’t get it going by the end of RG that will hopefully signal the end of him.

Master pusher Murray beat Nadal?    Nadal played a solid match against Djokovic Saturday and got dismantled.  Murray has neither the resolve, nor the ability to do that to the Majorcan.  I still contend that Wawrinka is the #2 after Novak.  I would give Rafa the #3 slot.

1. Djokovic
2. Wawrinka
3. Nadal
4. Murray
5. Federer

 

[DarthFed]

Twisted wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
If Murray met Nadal at the AO, my money would still be firmly on Rafa.

Not sure I agree there. It’d be close to 50-50 if not an edge to Murray. I think Rafa’s true level is somewhere between last Fall and what came before it. For now he doesn’t look great by any stretch. I still think if he doesn’t get it going by the end of RG that will hopefully signal the end of him.</blockquote>
How does Rafa not look “great by any stretch?” He nearly beat Roger in Basel, on his worst surface. He’s rather spanked Wawrinka and Murray in their most recent meetings. OK, he hasn’t beaten Djokovic, but who has? I know you want to see the end of Nadal, but it’s coloring your view. I agree with Britbox…I think he’d take Murray at this AO. Or Broken, who’s wagering that the only one who will beat Rafa at the AO is the Djoker.

So your basis of saying he's playing great is that he almost beat a 34 year old who he usually beats on sight.  And Roger's form since USO has been pretty suspect at best.  We all know how inconsistent Stan is especially at non-slam events.  He beat Rafa at Paris and lost badly to him a week later.  As for Murray we know that he was targeting Davis Cup heavily.  Are we calling Doha a good week?  He struggled through beating a bunch of powderpuffs before that drubbing on Sunday.  Rafa didn't play that bad Sunday for post 2014 standards, it's true.  He was hitting the ball fairly well but the problem is he doesn't move anywhere near as well as he did even just 2 years ago.  He needs both great movement and depth on his ugly shots or he is going to struggle badly.

 

[mrzz]

I think that "not great by any stretch" is a perfect fit for Nadal nowadays. He is surely playing fine, way better than in some abysmal periods of 2015, had a few good moments at the end of 2015, but, as far as 2016 goes, he played "ok" all week, good enough to beat low ranked players, like most of the top 20 could have done, and get demolished by Djokovic (his most loop sided win of the week).

Would I be shocked to seem him in semis at the AO? Course not, if there is something he knows it is how to win tennis matches. However, he could also crash and burn easily, either because the opponent got fire (and in the past he would deal with such things almost easily), either because he is having a real bad day. So it is hard to put him above the others, given how upset prone he is now.

In a face off against the rest of the top 5, honestly to me Murray has the edge (yes, I know the result of their last match). Wawrinka would have it on his racquet, and Federer... well, I would not give Federer the edge, but wouldn't be shocked either.

That is, good, but not great. That's exactly why we're discussing it in the first place.

 

[ClayDeath]

there is talk on the street that Rafa may be going to Buenos Aires if he crashes out early here in Melbourne.

 

getting just 3 games against djokovic only because of charity is not exactly going to be a confidence builder. and that is 9 out of last 10 matches where djokovic has swatted him aside as if he was a mere insect.

also how the bloody hell can you have any confidence when you are just a mere shell and shadow what you used to be.

he simply wont work hard enough to really make any significant strides.  it is all talk and lip service for the fans and the sponsors.

the man cant even get the ball back on serve. now you know that can be fixed. he made 5 Wimbledon finals. he can fix that return.

what he cant fix is extreme fitness and his once supreme physicality. that takes time and he wont put in that time.

fatigue was one of the reasons why he was crushed like a hapless mosquito in Doha. he had no gas on the tank.

do you people remember the Madrid final last year against andy. andy ran right over him in 2 quick and easy sets. he had no gas left in the tank. no gas and no will.

more on this later.

 

 

 

 

[ClayDeath]

and to be honest I would want him to crash out early. he cant win so what is the bloody point. it will only increases the risk of injury.

it is clay or nothing this year. and as nalbandian said: it is clay or the exit.

 

so make the quarters and then escape without an injury with clay on his mind. that is the possible winning ticket. but he will have to step up his work on clay and also on fitness. there is still some time left.

he cant keep on saying he is working hard and yet has zero results to speak of for an all time great that had a winning record against all of the top 30 players and also won slams and masters events for a decade.

at some time fans and the sponsors will catch on. you can just see the game. it is not there. he is not putting in the sufficient time.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
Twisted wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
If Murray met Nadal at the AO, my money would still be firmly on Rafa.

Not sure I agree there. It’d be close to 50-50 if not an edge to Murray. I think Rafa’s true level is somewhere between last Fall and what came before it. For now he doesn’t look great by any stretch. I still think if he doesn’t get it going by the end of RG that will hopefully signal the end of him.</blockquote>
How does Rafa not look “great by any stretch?” He nearly beat Roger in Basel, on his worst surface. He’s rather spanked Wawrinka and Murray in their most recent meetings. OK, he hasn’t beaten Djokovic, but who has? I know you want to see the end of Nadal, but it’s coloring your view. I agree with Britbox…I think he’d take Murray at this AO. Or Broken, who’s wagering that the only one who will beat Rafa at the AO is the Djoker.</blockquote>
So your basis of saying he’s playing great is that he almost beat a 34 year old who he usually beats on sight. And Roger’s form since USO has been pretty suspect at best. We all know how inconsistent Stan is especially at non-slam events. He beat Rafa at Paris and lost badly to him a week later. As for Murray we know that he was targeting Davis Cup heavily. Are we calling Doha a good week? He struggled through beating a bunch of powderpuffs before that drubbing on Sunday. Rafa didn’t play that bad Sunday for post 2014 standards, it’s true. He was hitting the ball fairly well but the problem is he doesn’t move anywhere near as well as he did even just 2 years ago. He needs both great movement and depth on his ugly shots or he is going to struggle badly.

I didn't say he was playing great.  I disputed your saying "he doesn't look great by any stretch."  Perhaps we understand that phrase differently, but I take it to mean "not well at all."  To negate that doesn't imply "great."  I think he's much improved over the last few months, compared to much of 2015.  I don't think that's in dispute.

 

[DarthFed]

I take doesn't look great by any stretch to mean he hasn't played great tennis by any stretch.  My idea of "great" is probably different than yours. Roger and Andy haven't played great tennis for awhile either fwiw but they have shown more of a pulse than Nadal.

 

[Moxie]

I take doesn’t look great by any stretch to mean he hasn’t played great tennis by any stretch. My idea of “great” is probably different than yours. Roger and Andy haven’t played great tennis for awhile either fwiw but they have shown more of a pulse than Nadal.

*sigh*  Fine.  Beating Stan and Andy means nothing.  And I realize that improvement means nothing to you, as you are a results man and peculiarly binary on that.  I can only hope that Rafa improves enough to show you different in 2016.

 

[ClayDeath]

Twisted wrote:
I take doesn’t look great by any stretch to mean he hasn’t played great tennis by any stretch. My idea of “great” is probably different than yours. Roger and Andy haven’t played great tennis for awhile either fwiw but they have shown more of a pulse than Nadal.

*sigh* Fine. Beating Stan and Andy means nothing. And I realize that improvement means nothing to you, as you are a results man and peculiarly binary on that. I can only hope that Rafa improves enough to show you different in 2016.

moxie getting carried away as usual. what else is new.

 

andy was not interested in winning that match. he had history in mind. he wanted davis cup.

 

and rafa has owned stan all his life. he had beaten him 10,000 matches in a row without ever losing a set.

so what is the big deal.

 

talk to us when rafa shows you more than just rio and hamburg titles.

 

rafa wont bother to put in the work required to win the big titles. it is his life and it is his way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ClayDeath]

I take doesn’t look great by any stretch to mean he hasn’t played great tennis by any stretch. My idea of “great” is probably different than yours. Roger and Andy haven’t played great tennis for awhile either fwiw but they have shown more of a pulse than Nadal.

 

rafa is just a shadow of what he used to be and he is not really worried about it.

that should say it all.

 

he has to find that fire in the belly again.