2020 French Open Final: Novak Djokovic vs. Rafael Nadal

[GameSetAndMath]

Forever the back-hand compliment. I do agree that Rafa gives 100% as often as possible. And injury is sometimes an issue, as you cop to. However, you do slide in the slap, as bolded above. Then you wimp out with your last, and very telling comment: Roger and Novak only fail because they didn't play their best on the day. You fall into the old trope that Rafa is somehow "work-a-day," and Roger and Novak are excellently talented artists who just sometimes fail to live up to their art. Talented, but temperamental. If they lose, they "squandered" it. What bullshit. Sport is not the same as art. If and when Roger and Novak lose, they lose for the same reasons all the greats and lesser lights do...they got beat. You may not like how the sausage gets made, but this is sports, not the painting of the Sistine Chapel. Just because you like the style of play of Roger or Novak or whomever, it doesn't matter. When they lose, it's not just because they didn't "play to their potential." It's also because they just lost. Like today. Or the 2008 RG final. Those guys got their asses handed to them, and there was no amount of their potential that was going to save them.

You are indulging in strawman argument. I completely agree with you sport is not the same as art. At the end of the day, it does not matter whether one wins ugly or beautifully. What matters is whether you won or not. But, that is not my point at all.

When anyone loses, there are always multiple factors that contributes to the loss. Most importantly how much you contributed to your own loss and how much the opponent did. Rafa rarely contributes heavily to his own losses.

Even more basic question is that did you give your all to the match? Most often Rafa did even in his losses. The same cannot be said of Fed or Nole.

Also, I am not referring to today's match or a single match in particular. I am saying this as a general statement across the career for all three of them, including their matches against other NB3 players.

 

[calitennis127]

Interesting article here on Nadal’s favorite 4 wins at Roland Garros. Not surprisingly, the 2013 semi against Djokovic comes in at number 1:

https://www.atptour.com/en/news/nadal-100-roland-garros-match-wins-2020-tribute

 

[Carol]

 

[Carol]

LOL Rafas’s response was funny

 

[Kieran]

What are the most important attributes of great champions of any sports? An unnatural will power, strength of mind, a hatred of losing, and almost Ahab-like determination not to fail, defiance, resistance. Without this, no champ. It's always about what's between the ears. No guts, no glory, and so on. Rafa is incomparable in this respect, and so although I do notice a tinge of the backhanded compliment in what GSM says, the backhand part of it landed in the tramlines and Rafa towels off after winning another rally - but the compliment is a good one, and it tells us of the distinguishing features of all the greatest champions. It's praise indeed, that in the most important part of the game, Rafa is peerless. Pete was cussed, too. Roger never really went away in matches, he's stubborn as hell, but he doesn't have the same depths in this regard as Rafa. Still, he has enough to won twenty slams, so he's obviously not just a pretty face. Novak toughened up - by learning from Nadal.

We've seen plenty of pretty boys in tennis who can flick dropshots between their legs off the serve, with their back to the net, and they make for good YouTube chewing gum, but we never see them as champions. They're cappucinno froth, they're the head on the pint of Guinness, but not the drink. Piss water. Skill and thrills - no will. It's not enough for fans, who want to see grace under pressure and courage, great deeds and high stakes battles on court...

 

[calitennis127]

What are the most important attributes of great champions of any sports? An unnatural will power, strength of mind, a hatred of losing, and almost Ahab-like determination not to fail, defiance, resistance. Without this, no champ. It's always about what's between the ears. No guts, no glory, and so on. Rafa is incomparable in this respect, and so although I do notice a tinge of the backhanded compliment in what GSM says, the backhand part of it landed in the tramlines and Rafa towels off after winning another rally - but the compliment is a good one, and it tells us of the distinguishing features of all the greatest champions. It's praise indeed, that in the most important part of the game, Rafa is peerless. Pete was cussed, too. Roger never really went away in matches, he's stubborn as hell, but he doesn't have the same depths in this regard as Rafa. Still, he has enough to won twenty slams, so he's obviously not just a pretty face. Novak toughened up - by learning from Nadal.

We've seen plenty of pretty boys in tennis who can flick dropshots between their legs off the serve, with their back to the net, and they make for good YouTube chewing gum, but we never see them as champions. They're cappucinno froth, they're the head on the pint of Guinness, but not the drink. Piss water. Skill and thrills - no will. It's not enough for fans, who want to see grace under pressure and courage, great deeds and high stakes battles on court...

Much of this post, especially the second paragraph, is clearly a shot at me, so allow me to respond. I think Nadal does absolutely have unique mental qualities (as I have always said), but if you look at why he won yesterday’s match (as well as others), I don’t see how you can omit his preparation and the fact that he always puts his best foot forward in the biggest matches. He doesn’t merely work his way into the match or try to find a groove. He is ready from the first point to play 5th set Grand Slam final tennis.

Clearly over the weekend he and his team prepped for the Djokovic dropshots. This helped him win a few points that could have swung the momentum the other way. Nadal was also razor sharp on serve in the first two sets until he got a bit tired in the 3rd. Instead of, say, serving 40% in the first set, he set the tone by serving well over 60%.

Furthermore, I don’t think you can overlook how well his game is suited to the clay (and also how much Federer and Djokovic have failed to bring their best game to Roland Garros). Nadal was the same human being at Wimbledon 2019 or Australian Open 2020 that he is now, but I don’t recall Kieran writing poetic descriptions of Nadal’s greatness after his losses to Federer and Thiem. Nadal has an excellent combination of skills for the clay and he uses them to maximum effect at Roland Garros.

 

[calitennis127]

The fact is, Kieran is over-romanticizing what are ultimately some nitty-gritty details that work in Nadal’s favor. Nadal has had the “will to win” at Wimbledon just as he has Roland Garros, but he has only won Wimbledon twice. Why? Because his game is best suited for clay. And to his credit, he has taken full advantage of it. He has also expanded his game off of his preferred surface more than any 1 of the Big 3 to challenge the others. You can’t fault him for that.

At the same time, it’s hard not to point out that Nadal was trying very hard against Thiem at the Australian Open but he still lost the match. Off of clay, his game is often insufficient to carry him to victory even with the mental strengths he clearly possesses.

 

[kskate2]

Loved this tweet from Iga Swiatek

"Congratulations@Rafael Nadal! It's amazing to kind of share this experience with you
Am I even allowed to say this?.

Awww. She is hopelessly devoted. Xisca better watch out!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kskate2]

Hunting You ..yes it would be nice to hear from that brother.. who knows maybe KS will send out a SOS or take the I-94 west to go find DarthFed.. Although we are polar opposites. I do miss engaging in competitive banter with him. Lord Kieran maybe we can get Elon Musk to lend us a spacecraft like the USS Enterprise team did for the search for Spock to find the ole Sith Lord.

Hey. I would love to oblige you, but I flew the coupe in Chi. I’m in Boltland now

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kieran]

Brother Cali, as so often, you have a knack for stating things which I think you believe, and you say them with such conviction that we all often get involved in trying to disillusion you, and in fact, trying to get you to pay closer attention to what we actually have said. It's not so much that you construct strawman arguments, because I think to do that would require cynicism that seems largely absent from your character (at a guess), but instead I'd classify them as UFE's, or delusions.

You believe you read what you're responding to, but you're actually responding to something that wasn't said. An obvious example of this is your fantasy that "much of this post, especially the second paragraph, is clearly a shot at me ", when it obviously isn't. I was engaging with GSM's compliment and analysing it from a friendly perspective, because I think he highlighted something instructive for tennis people and sports fans anywhere, which is that the mental aspect of the game is where the real business goes down, and that a stronger mentality is essential in making champions...

 

[calitennis127]

Brother Kieran, some quick chronology: I was the one who initially made the point about Nadal maximizing his opportunities more than any of the Big 3, which imjimmy responded to, and then GSM responded to imjimmy. GSM agreed with what I said, so if you were responding to him, you were also responding to me because I was the one who made the initial point that he agreed with.

And, once again, you are opting for emotionally driven rhetoric over tennis substance. Nadal has a winner’s mentality at the Australian Open and Wimbledon too. It just doesn’t do him as much good there as it does as Roland Garros. Why didn’t Nadal’s insatiable appetite for victory get him a win over Thiem? Was he not as voracious as usual?

 

[Kieran]

Brother Kieran, some quick chronology: I was the one who initially made the point about Nadal maximizing his opportunities more than any of the Big 3, which imjimmy responded to, and then GSM responded to imjimmy. GSM agreed with what I said, so if you were responding to him, you were also responding to me because I was the one who made the initial point that he agreed with.

And, once again, you are opting for emotionally driven rhetoric over tennis substance. Nadal has a winner’s mentality at the Australian Open and Wimbledon too. It just doesn’t do him as much good there as it does as Roland Garros. Why didn’t Nadal’s insatiable appetite for victory get him a win over Thiem? Was he not as voracious as usual?

What GSM said was what I was replying to. Your posts on maximising opportunities were too longwinded for me, and you dollop on so much propaganda that I sometimes itemize my time differently, to read something else. I prefer if you'd be less wordy and more concise. As for your chatter about Rafa having a winners mentality in Australia, etc, well of course he does, but I've nowhere stated that having a winner's mentality is in itself sufficient. I know I'm going to have to explain that to you again, but I'm giving you credit in the meantime for understanding what I said. You don't need to be contentious about it, just nod your head if you understand...

 

[calitennis127]

What GSM said was what I was replying to. Your posts on maximising opportunities were too longwinded for me, and you dollop on so much propaganda that I sometimes itemize my time differently, to read something else. I prefer if you'd be less wordy and more concise. As for your chatter about Rafa having a winners mentality in Australia, etc, well of course he does, but I've nowhere stated that having a winner's mentality is in itself sufficient. I know I'm going to have to explain that to you again, but I'm giving you credit in the meantime for understanding what I said. You don't need to be contentious about it, just nod your head if you understand...

Great, I’m nodding. If you would like to offer your criticism of my perspective, then let me offer this about yours: you always opt for romanticized descriptions of mindset over examining substance. If, for example, Nadal wins a set 6-0 over Djokovic because he won numerous games that got to deuce and Djokovic himself only served at 40%, then you will avoid any talk of those details as minor and instead write a eulogy-like paragraph on the greatness of Nadal the competitor, dismissing any talk of detail as trivial or missing the big picture.

Why did Djokovic miss so many first serves in the first set? Did Djokovic control his destiny at all in this match?

Easy answer to both for Kieran: nope, it was all about Nadal’s mental greatness and nothing else.

 

[Kieran]

Great, I’m nodding. If you would like to offer your criticism of my perspective, then let me offer this about yours: you always opt for romanticized descriptions of mindset over examining substance. If, for example, Nadal wins a set 6-0 over Djokovic because he won numerous games that got to deuce and Djokovic himself only served at 40%, then you will avoid any talk of those details as minor and instead write a eulogy-like paragraph on the greatness of Nadal the competitor, dismissing any talk of detail as trivial or missing the big picture.

Why did Djokovic miss so many first serves in the first set? Did Djokovic control his destiny at all in this match?

Easy answer to both for Kieran: nope, it was all about Nadal’s mental greatness and nothing else.

Similarly, I’m nodding because I understand what you say, and then I’m shaking my head because you nodded even though you haven’t understood me.

The more things change, as the French might say...

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I think if Nadal wins 100 slam titles including 50 wins over Federer and Djokovic in slams, maybe, just maybe, Cali will finally say that Nadal is great without trying to find excuses.

 

[calitennis127]

Similarly, I’m nodding because I understand what you say, and then I’m shaking my head because you nodded even though you haven’t understood me.

The more things change, as the French might say...

No, I understand perfectly what you said. I just am not saying what you want me to say, which is that all of Djokovic’s problems in the final had to do with Nadal playing great.

To be fair, Djokovic and Federer have put themselves in a decent number of positions to take Nadal out at the French Open. This means that they were playing well enough to make it to the latter stages of the tournament. So it wouldn’t be accurate to blame all of their problems against Nadal on poor form, otherwise they would not have gotten as far as they did in the tournament. Djokovic would have beaten almost everyone in the final yesterday other than Nadal. If I am being fair to Nadal, I must concede that.

On the other hand, it is absurd for you to insist that none of these matches at the French Open are two-sided stories and that Djokovic and Federer have had no control whatsoever over the proceedings. For years, any mention that either of them could have done something better is dismissed by you as nothing more than lack of appreciation for Nadal’s greatness. So, for example, any mention of Djokovic’s serving woes in the semifinal against Tsitsipas (which you were factually inaccurate about) is dismissed as irrelevant and insulting to Nadal.

 

[Carol]

Incredible what Nadal has done even with everything was against him, the balls , cold, playing three times at night , tough opponents as Sinner and the Argentine but finishing every match in three sets and in the final also with the roof on (no rain) he did the best demostración of art, perfection and ablility to beat a player who they have said (his trainer Ivanisevic) he was unbeatable. Beautiful game Nadal!
PD. Hi Kieran, nice to see you again around

 

[Kieran]

No, I understand perfectly what you said. I just am not saying what you want me to say, which is that all of Djokovic’s problems in the final had to do with Nadal playing great.

So again, I’m nodding my head. You haven’t understood me at all...

 

[Kieran]

Incredible what Nadal has done even with everything was against him, the balls , could, playing three times at night , tough opponents as Sinner and the Argentine but finishing every match in three sets and in the final also with the roof on (no rain) he did the best demostración of art, perfection and ablility to beat a player who they have said (his trainer Ivanisevic) he was unbeatable. Beautiful game Nadal!
PD. Hi Kieran, nice to see you again around

Hey Carol!

how are you? Still issuing the old Vamos with glee? They ought to stamp that on Rafa’s tombstone: “Here lies Young Ralph, Tennis Champ. Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair. Vamos!”

 

[Carol]

Hey Carol!

how are you? Still issuing the old Vamos with glee? They ought to stamp that on Rafa’s tombstone: “Here lies Young Ralph, Tennis Champ. Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair. Vamos!”

Still using VAMOS!!!! and still its working well