Conflicting information about Nadal's retirement

[Moxie]

Are you saying that after Olympics, the Rio 500 will be played on hardcourts? I never saw
such an announcement so far.

As I replied to Moxie, yes. I believe I posted this information, which I got from brazilian media, a long time ago, maybe even on the tennis.com forums. For about a month, it was widely (as widely a tennis subject can be discussed here) discussed in the media, with some interviews, etc.

Why would it replace Miami? It's huge and smack dab in the middle of the tennis community! I'm still shocked they got the Olympics! With all that chaos going on, it's just inconceivable that they'll be ready! Russia's supposed to be more civilized and it was a disaster with water, toilets, malfunctioning equipment, doors, etc.! Seemed to be a nightmare! Why would Rio fare better? Puzzled Eyepop Ras

It won't. It will be a nightmare.

It wasn't clear to me from your response that Rio would be switching to HC after the olympics. That's a bit of a surprise. To me, at least.

 

[Great Hands]

Also, I'm fairly sure there is no conversation about changing the format to best of 5, so you can relax about that, too.

Is the final still going to be best of 5, though?

 

[Great Hands]

I wonder how fast the Olympic hard courts will be. Because that could be the difference between Roger or Novak winning it. Roger is still currently the favourite against Novak in best of 3 on fast hards.

Funnily enough, if they're keeping the best of 5 sets final, it may actually be better for Roger to be seeded 3 or 4 for the Olympics, rather than 2, so that he has a chance to play Novak before the final and thus in a best of 3. Best of 5 and you'd give much more of a chance to Novak. Interesting state of affairs - a lower seeding potentially helping rather than hindering Roger. Only tournament where this 'best of 3 until final' thing happens.

With Olympic Gold in singles being the one big title Roger lacks, and one of only 2 that Novak lacks, there should be a lot of interest in the speed of those courts!

Sorry, it's a long way off, and going way off topic here...

 

[Obsi]

"...at least one member of his camp did tell Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim recently that Nadal targets a 2016 Rio Olympic Games finale to his tennis career."
http://www.tennis.com/your-game/2012/09/post-us-open-nadal-takes-it-easy-azarenka-takes-shots/39539/#.VTqcFs4iqlI

"Francis Roig: “I think Nadal at 33 will fight for all the titles as Federer is doing [now]”"
http://www.puntodebreak.com/2015/04/21/francis-roig-creo-nadal-podra-luchar-titulos-33-anos-federer

Obsi, I don't think anyone looked at your links, and perhaps you failed to notice the dates, but the comment about the Rio Olympics is in an article from Aug. 2012, and Roig's comment was from an interview in Barcelona this week, so it hardly qualifies as "conflicting information." Also, as you may remember around back then, both Rafa and Roger were asked about how long they project their careers to last, and both noted that they wanted to play at the Games in Rio. It's not a statement of when they'd quit, only a bland and (at the time) far-off target to assure people they intended to be around for another 4 years, at least. And note the date: Aug. 24, 2012...right after the London Olympics. That's why they were talking about Rio. I would take Roig's comments of the past week with more weight.

It is conflicting information because the statements are contradictory. Regarding Rio, you can see clearly in the first article Nadal targets that as "finale to his tennis career".

Also, just few months ago, Nadal said he's got "two more years left"
http://www.marca.com/2014/11/25/tenis/1416913869.html?cid=SMBOSO34503&s_kw=Facebook

 

[herios]

I am having a hard time imagining a 33y old Nadal being still ranked in the top 10

 

[El Dude]

Obsi, I don't think anyone looked at your links, and perhaps you failed to notice the dates, but the comment about the Rio Olympics is in an article from Aug. 2012...

LOL - and so this "conflicting info" is debunked.

I am having a hard time imagining a 33y old Nadal being still ranked in the top 10

Given his body and injuries it is highly unlikely. He clearly has the talent, but being in the top 10 is also about consistency and maintaining the grind. We're already see him slip on account of this and he's not yet quite 29.

At some point Rafa is going to get injured and just not have the passion to fight back.

 

[Tennis Miller]

In the spirit of Janowicz, "How many times must we go over this?"

Seriously, isn't it obvious Novak will end up with a winning head-to-head against Fedal, given their far-from-peak levels? He wasn't able to do it before now, which would have been extremely impressive, but from this point forward it's virtually guaranteed.

I wouldn't say that.

But you know, I don't know how players decide to retire, it's usually forced on them by age and a terrible drop in ranking. Pete's the only one I know who got out on the day he won biggest. We often hear players say things like, "as long as I feel I can still compete for the big titles, I'll play, but when that day comes when I know I no longer can, then I'll quit."

Who ever quit under these conditions? Really, they play on cos they always think they can win big. I bet John McEnroe still thinks that if he got a good sunny day, he could beat anyone at Wimbledon...

I thought Sampras was "done" and was only embarrassing himself, losing to "nobodies & never-weres;" even at Wimbledon! He went over 2 years without a title IIRC! He took Wimbledon in 2000 and didn't get a sniff of another major until his last in 2002 at the USO after allowing his ranking to hit the 20's! Lucky for him, his pigeon was on the other side of the net in the final! Agassi won just a handful of meaningful matches against Sampras with Pete pretty much owning him from their first encounter, slaughtering him in straight sets at 1990 USO! So it began and ended at Flushing Meadows! I had only heard of Pete by way of a 2nd round upset of Wilander the previous year at '89 USO! It didn't mean much to me since Matts had plummeted in the rankings after becoming #1 with a fabulous '88 over Lendl at every turn! :cover :nono :eyepop

Small point, but it's not really accurate to say that Pete didn't get a sniff at another major after Wimbledon 2000 until the 2002 US Open. He was a finalist at the USO in both 2000 and 2001, and it took the matches of a lifetime by Hewitt and Safin to keep Pete from adding to his Grand Slam total. The guy was a monster at the USO until the end.
And he only lost to one nobody/never were at Wimbledon ... George Bastl... his other loss was to a rising star named Roger something or other.
Cheers
TM

 

[Fiero425]

I wouldn't say that.

But you know, I don't know how players decide to retire, it's usually forced on them by age and a terrible drop in ranking. Pete's the only one I know who got out on the day he won biggest. We often hear players say things like, "as long as I feel I can still compete for the big titles, I'll play, but when that day comes when I know I no longer can, then I'll quit."

Who ever quit under these conditions? Really, they play on cos they always think they can win big. I bet John McEnroe still thinks that if he got a good sunny day, he could beat anyone at Wimbledon...

I thought Sampras was "done" and was only embarrassing himself, losing to "nobodies & never-weres;" even at Wimbledon! He went over 2 years without a title IIRC! He took Wimbledon in 2000 and didn't get a sniff of another major until his last in 2002 at the USO after allowing his ranking to hit the 20's! Lucky for him, his pigeon was on the other side of the net in the final! Agassi won just a handful of meaningful matches against Sampras with Pete pretty much owning him from their first encounter, slaughtering him in straight sets at 1990 USO! So it began and ended at Flushing Meadows! I had only heard of Pete by way of a 2nd round upset of Wilander the previous year at '89 USO! It didn't mean much to me since Matts had plummeted in the rankings after becoming #1 with a fabulous '88 over Lendl at every turn! :cover :nono :eyepop

Small point, but it's not really accurate to say that Pete didn't get a sniff at another major after Wimbledon 2000 until the 2002 US Open. He was a finalist at the USO in both 2000 and 2001, and it took the matches of a lifetime by Hewitt and Safin to keep Pete from adding to his Grand Slam total. The guy was a monster at the USO until the end.
And he only lost to one nobody/never were at Wimbledon ... George Bastl... his other loss was to a rising star named Roger something or other.
Cheers
TM

Those were annihilations by Hewitt and Safin! Pete wasn't even in those matches; probably why I don't even consider them "sniffs!" He just looked helpless; esp. against Safin who I think of as the "Ilie Nastase" of his time! The man had every shot, touch and feel, with his only detriment in his head!

 

[DarthFed]

Misleading title of this thread got me alllll excited

 

[Riotbeard]

Misleading title of this thread got me alllll excited

:laydownlaughing

 

[tented]

Love 'em or hate 'em, tennis needs its superstars like Rafa, Roger, Novak, Serena, and Maria. They each have strong fan bases, who get all over each other, but the truth is tennis needs them. All of them.

 

[Fiero425]

Love 'em or hate 'em, tennis needs its superstars like Rafa, Roger, Novak, Serena, and Maria. They each have strong fan bases, who get all over each other, but the truth is tennis needs them. All of them.

True enough! I'm not one to care if I think the best player wins fairly easily, season after season, but the sport does need rivalries that are competitive! It didn't bother me that Federer seemed to smoke all comers for a while, actually making Rafa more a rival than he had earned winning FO while he took the other 3 majors! Before you knew it, Nadal had turned it around, but people actually thought it was still a rivalry! Reality wasn't evident with Rafa taking over this so called rivalry and the media made it seem more equal than it really was! :angel: :dodgy: