2019 Men's Wimbledon Championships

[shawnbm]

^ MonFed I don’t like so much backcourt play either, even by Fed himself, but the strings and racquets have made the game more homogeneous, I believe even more than the different grass. He is a step slower and does not hit the running forehand like a decade ago, but his service and more aggressive backhand return of service still bring him titles—to say nothing of his mental prowess still being keen. I don’t believe all is rigged—and is like to see him win SW19 again.

 

[Front242]

By the same logic (which I disagree with to be clear), since those sets were always going to go to tie breaks then the match was always going to be a case of someone "barely" winning, so why use that against Nadal?

I'm not using it against Nadal, I'm saying anyone making a big deal out of Nadal winning or over inflating his level in that match is overstating things by a lot. Look at what it took for him to win: slow as shit courts, his opponent out drinking the night before and moving really badly all match, not serving anywhere near his best, playing 2 stinker tiebreaks (obviously the 2nd was way, way worse) and well, his backhand is just basically shit. And yet, somehow some people here think Nadal is playing the best out of the big 3 here. Tsonga in the next round was atrocious, slow as a snail since his last surgery and basically looks like he's headed for retirement. Excuse me while I laugh while some people here claim how well Nadal is supposedly playing.

So the closest he was to losing the match was...the match being tied in the third set? I think this answers your own question. And yeah, he may have been in trouble if he was down 2 sets to 1. Except he wasn't. He didn't even lose the first set. He was never down in the match. How is that being close to losing?

I never said he was close to losing. What I said was "1 set all and 5-5 in the 3rd set TB and 2 points determined who went up 2 sets to 1. The Nadal camp wouldn't have been so cocky then..." I stand by it. 2 points decided that set/TB.

Judging by his level for the last, well, eternity, Kyrgios played exactly near his capabilities...

No he didn't. Anyone can see that except some of the Nadal fans here. For one thing he'd never lost a TB before against Nadal. Truthfully, gun to one's head, how many people at the time thought he'd win 2 straight TBS against Kyrgios? All it would've taken was a mere 2 aces in set 3 and less slop all round in that atrocious 4th set TB from Kyrgios and things could've been a lot different. For the record, Miami 2017 is about as good as it gets from Kyrgios and yes, Federer barely won and Kyrgios barely lost. I'm not being biased I'm calling it as it is. 7-6(9) 6-7(9) 7-6(5)

 

[don_fabio]

Hahah my man got up on a wrong foot. He was actually more or less polite, just mentioned a few bombs which was his own way of sayin' "fuck this shit".

 

[brokenshoelace]

No he didn't. Anyone can see that except some of the Nadal fans here. For one thing he'd never lost a TB before against Nadal. Truthfully, gun to one's head, how many people at the time thought he'd win 2 straight TBS against Kyrgios? All it would've taken was a mere 2 aces in set 3 and less slop all round in that atrocious 4th set TB from Kyrgios and things could've been a lot different. For the record, Miami 2017 is about as good as it gets from Kyrgios and yes, Federer barely won and Kyrgios barely lost. I'm not being biased I'm calling it as it is. 7-6(9) 6-7(9) 7-6(5)

You're literally describing a close, competitive match. Yes, at one set all, 3rd set tie break, the match was up for grabs. But being up for grabs doesn't mean one guy was in serious danger of losing...yet. He would have been if Kyrgios had won the tie-break. He didn't. How the fuck is that difficult to understand? And those 2 aces you're talking about NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED. So yes, in your fictional scenario, Nadal was in danger of losing. In real life, he wasn't.

As far as Fed vs. Nick in Miami, a 7-6 6-7 7-6 soreline in a best of 3 set match is literally as close as it comes, so yes, of course that counts as barely winning. 2 tie breaks in a four set win including a comfortable first set win and never being down in the match IS NOT barely winning as it's no way similar to the Miami scoreline you described. How are we even having this conversation?

 

[Front242]

You're literally describing a close, competitive match. Yes, at one set all, 3rd set tie break, the match was up for grabs. But being up for grabs doesn't mean one guy was in serious danger of losing. He would have been if Kyrgios had won the tie-break. He didn't. How the fuck is that difficult to understand? And those 2 aces you're talking about NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED. So yes, in your fictional scenario, Nadal was in danger of losing. In real life, he wasn't.

As far as Fed vs. Nick in Miami, a 7-6 6-7 7-6 soreline in a best of 3 set match is literally as close as it comes, so yes, of course that counts as barely winning. 2 tie breaks in a four set win including a comfortable first set win and never being down in the match IS NOT barely winning as it's no way similar to the Miami scoreline you described. How are we even having this conversation?

Did I say those aces happened? I'm saying Nadal's level is being way, way overrated here on this forum. Very little decided the match and Kyrgios didn't even play anywhere near how he can and yet some people here are proclaiming Nadal's level as the highest at this tournament and should probably take up stand up comedy.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Did I say those aces happened? I'm saying Nadal's level is being way, way overrated here on this forum. Very little decided the match and Kyrgios didn't even play anywhere near how he can and yet some people here are proclaiming Nadal's level as the highest at this tournament and should probably take up stand up comedy.

Nadal hasn't been super impressive, if that's what we're talking about, then yeah. He's been solid and has played better every match, but nothing too breathtaking yet, although I don't think it's that important at this point. The top 3 are rarely in full flight in the first week nowadays. He did beat Kyrgios more comfortably than you made it out to be though.

 

[shawnbm]

I think I in advertently started this. I think the doll played at a fairly high-level. I certainly did not expect him to play at that level for that long against the Australian. He is hitting the backhand with force and aggressively. He is standing up on the baseline and he is controlling points on the surface that is clearly not his best. His service was up in the high 120s on a number of serves. That is always a good velocity for him. He looks impressive and, perhaps most significant of all, he played very well when the chips were down, particularly the tiebreakers. He cannot help Nick do what he has to do, Rafael can only take care of what he has to do and he did that well. Vis-à-vis his competition in the last couple of matches, he has played better, to my eyes, than either Federer or Djokovic.

 

[shawnbm]

The doll should be Nadal—lol

 

[Fiero425]

I think I in advertently started this. I think the doll played at a fairly high-level. I certainly did not expect him to play at that level for that long against the Australian. He is hitting the backhand with force and aggressively. He is standing up on the baseline and he is controlling points on the surface that is clearly not his best. His service was up in the high 120s on a number of serves. That is always a good velocity for him. He looks impressive and, perhaps most significant of all, he played very well when the chips were down, particularly the tiebreakers. He cannot help Nick do what he has to do, Rafael can only take care of what he has to do and he did that well. Vis-à-vis his competition in the last couple of matches, he has played better, to my eyes, than either Federer or Djokovic.

We did hear the same "down under!" Supposedly Fedovic were struggling in comparison to Nadal who had held service 60+ times in a row! By the time that final rolled around, I'm sure his fans were ready to extol Nadal's 2 time OG Career Grand Slam! Nothing more traumatic could have happened as Nole drove right over him when both were playing quite well! It was an arse-kicking for the ages; right up there with Connors over old man Rosewall in '74 W & USO, McEnroe d Connors '84 Wimbl., & Nadal over Roger '08 FO! :whistle:

 

[shawnbm]

I hear ya, Fiero425, I hear ya. You may be right, but we won't know until a week from today anyway. All we can look at is what has transpired and Nadal looks damn good. Confidence is a big factor but even more so for Nadal, than perhaps others. He has to work his way into matches and tournaments; he is not just one to show up and blow over the field (outside of clay, but even then his degree of preparation is meticulous and exhausting). He is doing the right things and I for one believe he is the favorite insofar as I don't see anything standing in his way until Friday of this week and even if he meets Roger, he has gotten the monkey off of his back by straight-setting him in Paris after suffering 5 losses in a row! So, I think things look good in Rafaland.

 

[Front242]

Nadal hasn't been super impressive, if that's what we're talking about, then yeah. He's been solid and has played better every match, but nothing too breathtaking yet, although I don't think it's that important at this point. The top 3 are rarely in full flight in the first week nowadays. He did beat Kyrgios more comfortably than you made it out to be though.

I don't think he did to be honest. Kyrgios had the most say in the outcome by mucking up those TBs but yet still it took all of what I already typed multiple times already in order for Nadal to win and just to back that up, Nadal celebrated like he'd won the whole tournament but it was a 2nd round match...

 

[herios]

The doll should be Nadal—lol

Yeah right. For you perhaps. Don't get me going on this.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

nick k is not as fit as he used to be..now he is 24, we can agree.

lifestyle (boozing in the pub/computer games) and lack of training have caught up with him. oh well.

 

[Moxie]

Hahah my man got up on a wrong foot. He was actually more or less polite, just mentioned a few bombs which was his own way of sayin' "fuck this shit".

I thought the more offensive part was at the front, when he said "Damned English," and the part about bombing it was crass and thoughtless, but I thought the way it was treated was a bit of an overreaction. Does Fabio know it was bombed in WWII? I doubt it. But he knows London was bombed on 7/07/05, so that was tacky.

 

[Moxie]

The doll should be Nadal—lol

I thought you were going for ol'Mastoor's "Nike Dolls." Lol.

 

[Moxie]

^ MonFed I don’t like so much backcourt play either, even by Fed himself, but the strings and racquets have made the game more homogeneous, I believe even more than the different grass. He is a step slower and does not hit the running forehand like a decade ago, but his service and more aggressive backhand return of service still bring him titles—to say nothing of his mental prowess still being keen. I don’t believe all is rigged—and is like to see him win SW19 again.

Any notion that Wimbledon is changing the grass to suit Nadal and hamper Fed is ridiculous, I agree, @shawnbm, and yet 4 Fed fans "liked" Monfed's post. Some folks get pretty hysterical this time of year, in particular. Thanks for keeping a cool head, amigo mio.

 

[mrzz]

I thought you were going for ol'Mastoor's "Nike Dolls." Lol.

Which, by the way, was brilliant.

 

[Moxie]

Which, by the way, was brilliant.

Mastoor could be thuddingly dull, but that was a good one, if it was his coinage. Even if it was born of sour grapes.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think he did to be honest. Kyrgios had the most say in the outcome by mucking up those TBs but yet still it took all of what I already typed multiple times already in order for Nadal to win and just to back that up, Nadal celebrated like he'd won the whole tournament but it was a 2nd round match...

I don't see how Nadal celebrating that win bothers you. It was a much anticipated match, a very tense one, and hard-fought, whatever you have to say about Kyrgios in it. A lot was on the line, and Rafa knew he could get upset in that one. While I have said that Nick played a terrible TB in the 4th, I think Nadal was simply better in the one in the 3rd. Nick blew an early shot to get behind but he was far from out of it, at that point. I know you wanted Kyrgios to rise to the occasion and get the upset, as he has sometimes done over the top 3. However, the less he plays, due to getting bounced early in multiple tournaments, the less he's going to be ready for the big moments. Also, he's less of a surprise than he was when he beat Nadal here 5 years ago. You can't really put the loss down to Nick, but you have such a hard time believing that Nadal can be good on grass, that you cling to the notion.

 

[DarthFed]

Federer said after the match: "during the match I thought that the surface was slower than last year but later I found out that I was a little slow, my legs were not working well and the balls are more heavy and it's not easy to play the first matches here but I have more things to improve inside of my backpack"
I have not any idea what his fans are expecting from this 38 years old player, they would be very happy that he is still playing well

I expect him to play well and he hasn't been for most of the past 18 months now. He's got to prove he can still be competitive for big titles, as everything is on the line.