Well, after yet another blown lead by Medvedev at the Australian Open, I think we all know now what I pointed out about Medvedev after the US Open final: he clearly has a psychological problem with maintaining leads and finishing out matches where the momentum clearly favors him.
This was most obvious with the US Open final, when the match was put on a platter right in front of him and all he had to do was pick it up and eat it. Instead, he dropped the food on the floor and slipped right on his ass. That was one of the worst choke jobs I have ever witnessed. Nadal was flailing and asking to be beaten. Yet Medvedev became entirely average at key moments and allowed Nadal to overachieve, yet again.
Then - in case anyone needed confirmation of what I pointed out after the US Open - the debacle in London occurred, where Medvedev was up 5-1 with match point and choked again against Nadal. Then, in the latest edition of the Medvedev choking series, he went up 2 sets to 1 on Wawrinka and blew it again.
Unfortunately, we now have to take into account that Medvedev has a hard time finishing off opponents when he's up.
I don't know why I engage you on this, but your notion that Medvedev had that USO final on a "platter" is risible
and delusional. He was lucky to get to a 5th, and I think the only lead he had in the match was 1-0 in the fifth. Yes, he failed to convert BPs, but it was early in the set. And Nadal beat him on them. If you need any confirmation that Nadal was going to close him out in the 5th of the USO, look no farther than the collapse at the YEC. No way Nadal was losing that USO final, and let's face it, Medvedev led for one game, and it was nothing like a "collapse" on the part of Meddie. If anything, it was Nadal that blinked, rather than closing it out in 3, up a break, as he was. Is that impossible for you to see?
I am not at all a believer in the theory that it's good to lose defining epic matches. Medvedev missed a huge chance in the US Open final and should have won the match. He would be in a totally different place right now had he won it. Those chances are not guaranteed to come around again so they should be maximized when the opportunity presents itself. Unfortunately Medvedev did not do that at the US Open and with subsequent matches we have confirmation of why: he has a hard time finishing off matches when he has the lead. He choked against Nadal at the US Open and we can clearly see now that this trait is a fundamental problem.
I'm wondering who IS a believer in (is there even a theory?) that losing defining epic matches is a good thing. You say he'd be a completely different player if he'd won those matches, esp. v. Rafa. Maybe, maybe not. But doesn't that tell us the player that he IS, the fact that he didn't? You spend so much effort trying to rewrite history. It would be interesting if you could see the reality in front of you. But, hey, I know I'm barking up the wrong tree on that.
