Analyzing Nick's Masterpiece Nadal Beatdown

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Halep vs Muguruthless is a welterweight vs a heavyweight. The fact that Halep is where she is is nothing short of a miracle. She deserves a lot of credit for her career even if she never wins a major or gets to no. 1. She is one of the biggest overachievers in history.

 

[TFBlogGuest]

catherine writes:

Hartt- I'd hate to think any player is content to be a perpetual runner-up. And Simona seems to expect a lot of herself, the way she talks sometimes. Yet she doesn't behave that way on court - stuck miles behind the baseline and not varying her strategy or using half the shots in her locker. Given, she doesn't have a naturally aggressive mind-set but that's something that can be trained into her in match-play. She won't win without it, as you suggest. Her attachment to Cahill is two-edged. Yes,she knows and trusts him but that seems to have bred dependence.The occ is a crutch and a pretty useless one, and a hopeless emotional bind. Maybe she should try a split from Cahill, psychologically, just create a gap which will help the coaching relationship. That's something which is helpful to a lot of teaching situations - keep essential distance from your students and you'll be a better teacher and have better students.

 

[TFBlogGuest]

catherine writes:

Scoop - don't see any reason Simona couldn't win a major, in a few years time. She needs to mature.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Catherine; Do you ever wonder if Halep and Cahill are more than just coach and player? Interesting to see her join him in the photo pit for Kyrgios vs Nadal. Nothing would surprise me...

 

[TFBlogGuest]

Hartt writes:

Catherine, I agree that Halep aspires to be No. 1. I like her and would be pleased if she achieved that. I just wonder if it is an achievable goal, especially with other WTA players, like Muguruza, continuing to improve. As far as her dependence on Cahill goes, I agree that it is not helping her. Cahill has said that he does not want her asking for OCC so often. But that is the player's decision and he can hardly refuse during a match when she calls on him.

 

[TFBlogGuest]

catherine writes:

Well Scoop, nothing would surprise me either but I'm afraid we can't speculate too openly on those matters. If you were to ask my opinion in a general sense I'd say no, although an emotional tie is certainly there and maybe shouldn't be, but of course Simona could soon find other distractions - hope she does. I've always thought of her as young for age. BTW - did you read Serena's comments in her Vogue interview about her relationship with Patrick and how she feels about it now ? Interesting.

 

[TFBlogGuest]

catherine writes:

Hartt - re occ he (she) who pays the piper calls the tune and it's Simona paying Cahill to come running

 

[TFBlogGuest]

Hartt writes:

Scoop, if you want some real controversy how about the reports that there may have been match-fixing in the Dolgopolov vs. Monteiro match? I was surprised there was not more in the tennis press about it, but the British papers have started to have reports. A couple sites wrote about it yesterday. Tennispulse.com had a pretty complete story, "Dolgopolov vs. Monteiro Possibly a Match Fixing Affair". The betting patterns were so suspicious that several betting sites closed betting before the match even began. And there are reports that Dolgopolov tanked the match. Whether he was involved with match fixing is hard to know, but it should be a huge story.

 

[Carol]

Did you see the end of the match? Nick was extremely gracious in defeat. Much more so than the grumpy crooked mouth scowl your favourite player puts on when he loses. Regarding injuries, you really need to sort out your deplorable bias 'cos you never questioned Murray's hip injury as he's your 2nd favourite player I believe and yet you claim Kyrgios complains about his hip and shoulder when he loses. When Nick is injured he either retires from the match or doesn't play the tournament. It's as simple as that.

Hey, leave Nadal alone and more when your favorite is the worst loser of the tour, YES, the worst, he always has been and he always will be.
Kyrgios is a lier, no one likes to lose, correct, but if the opponent plays better they don't need to do so much show, if they are INJURED then they need to be out FOR MORE THAN ONE MONTH, otherwise it's just a discomfort........OF THE EGO

 

[Carol]

scoopmalinowski writes:

Nadal never beats himself. Kyrgios is his kryptonite. When Kyrgios is inspired hes too much for Nadal on hard court. Kyrgios just needs to be inspired fully for every match.

So according to you Nadal played well but Kyrgios better, isn't? whatever.....

 

[Front242]

Hey, leave Nadal alone and more when your favorite is the worst loser of the tour, YES, the worst, he always has been and he always will be.
Kyrgios is a lier, no one likes to lose, correct, but if the opponent plays better they don't need to do so much show, if they are INJURED then they need to be out FOR MORE THAN ONE MONTH, otherwise it's just a discomfort........OF THE EGO

What a load of rubbish. So if Federer plays the USO he had nothing more than discomfort of the ego? He just skipped a tournament he had high chances of winning for nothing. Good theory. You need help. Federer has been very gracious in defeat for years too but you haven't noticed as you're blinded by hatred.

 

[Carol]

What a load of rubbish. So if Federer plays the USO he had nothing more than discomfort of the ego? He just skipped a tournament he had high chances of winning for nothing. Good theory. You need help. Federer has been very gracious in defeat for years too but you haven't noticed as you're blinded by hatred.

The only one blinded by hatred is you taking any opportunity to critic Nadal, to critic the surfaces, the lights, this and that. Federer never has been gracious in defeat even that you refuse to see it so you are the one who needs help. If Roger at his 36 years old is going to play the USO it means that maybe he had some little discomfort but far to be a back injury which it would be impossible to practice and to play soon. And yes, he needs to practice like everyone

 

[Busted]

In fairness, he's number 1 because Murray skipped 2 masters and has under performed for months and Federer skipped Cinci due to injury. A healthy Federer would likely have won Cinci and so far he's player of the year with 2 slams anyway. Back to Kyrgios, he's made 2 slam quarter finals to date and best result at the USO is 3rd round. As much as I like him, he's not winning the USO and his fitness is always questionable which is the most likely reason he's not winning. Making the 2nd week would be a good result for him even with the state of the top players missing.

Also, the toying with part applies to everyone as Kyrgios is a crowd pleaser and likes to put on a show. He does trick shots in most matches.

And...Federer skipped the entire clay court season. That's 3 clay Masters he didn't play - where he'd have probably made at least the semis or finals in 1 - especially given the weak fields. And he didn't play Cinci either. So there's 4 big tournaments that Federer took 0 points in - and Nadal still only leads him by 500 points despite play 4 more 1000 events and 1 500 event and 1 250 events. Then again - it's gonna be hard as hell for Roger to defend 2 Slams and both IW and Miami NEXT YEAR. He ain't getting any younger and his back is dodgy right now...

As far as Kyrgios in the Nadal match? Aside from Nadal playing like crap on hard courts again? It's what I've come to expect from Kyrgios - gets excited to play Fed, Nadal or Djokovic - then loses a match or two later to somebody he should beat with his eyes closed.

 

[Busted]

The SABR moves are being done repeatedly by Nick. He did it few times today also. Hope, he pays royalty toTMF at least every time he uses.

LOL. He did it against Dimitrov, too. It's like he thinks he's proving he's as talented as Federer is...except we saw how well it worked AGAINST Federer...as in...it didn't...

 

[Busted]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Hartt; Rafa made finals of Aus, IW and Miami. Those are very good results on hard court.

And he LOST them all. He has not won a hard court event since Doha in Jan 2014. "Close" only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades - and marriage. That's like saying Federer had "good results" in his 4 French Open final LOSSES against Nadal. I guarantee you - he'd have rather have won than had "very good results."

 

[Carol]

Federer didn't play clay to be more ready for Wimbledon? he didn't because he knew he wouldn't have won. And talking about the 'ranking' it's not Rafa's fault that Roger skipped the clay season

 

[Front242]

The only one blinded by hatred is you taking any opportunity to critic Nadal, to critic the surfaces, the lights, this and that. Federer never has been gracious in defeat even that you refuse to see it so you are the one who needs help. If Roger at his 36 years old is going to play the USO it means that maybe he had some little discomfort but far to be a back injury which it would be impossible to practice and to play soon. And yes, he needs to practice like everyone

Dunno why I'm even bothering to waste my time but here:

Regarding the loss to Donskoy this year. Federer led 5-1 in the third set tiebreaker, but Donskoy refused to fold. “I had my chances,” Federer said. “I should somehow close it out. Don’t know how it got away, but he did very well, and yeah, it’s a rough one, for sure.” <----- That's gracious in defeat. He led by a large margin but still said his opponent did very well, which he did.

Regarding the loss to Cilic at the 2014 USO: "
"Federer praised his opponent after the match: “He served great when he had to, played with no fear, full of confidence.

“It’s exciting to have different faces [in a slam final] from time to
time. I’m more surprised with Cilic, to be honest, because he’s older.
There are significant differences in his game from the first time I played
him when he was 17."

Regarding the loss to Kyrgios at Madrid 2015. “My problem was I couldn’t return his first serve,” Federer said. “I had a horrible performance on return of serve. As the match went on, it got so bad that I just couldn’t get into decent positions on the return. So it made it very difficult to get any sort of rhythm after that.

“I’m very disappointed by that. That’s what cost me the match, in my opinion. But credit to him for serving well and keep doing what he was doing. He’s got a wonderful serve, good potential, so I hope he keeps working hard and that he can compete for the best spots in tennis.” <--- Stated the obvious, he returned like crap but gave his opponent a lot of credit. Gracious in defeat. You're blind as a bat, sorry. Blinded by hatred.

You need to cut the rubbish about discomfort out. Roger has a great record at Cinci and would likely have won if he was healthy and played. He didn't play 'cos he was injured. You don't need to be out 1 month to be injured, that's a load of bollocks.

 

[Carol]

A back injury is bad, really bad and they have to take a lot of care and of course it takes time to heal. A discomfort is a very different story

 

[TFBlogGuest]

scoopmalinowski writes:

Not saying RF is bad loser but why would it be a big deal if he did lose sorely once in a blue moon or eclipse? Hes human and allowed to be upset by a bad loss. All in all Fed is a classy winner and loser.

 

[TFBlogGuest]

Hartt writes:

As someone who has suffered with back problems for many years, I imagine Roger has the same experience that many of us do. Sometimes the symptoms can drag on for so long you wonder if you will ever be OK again, and other times you are pretty well back to normal in a few days. I get annoyed when people are skeptical when Roger is able to play quite soon after having to skip a match or tourney because of his back. With treatment, sometimes you are fine quite quickly. But, as I said, there are other times when you are not so fortunate, and it is hard to know what to expect with each incident.