Gerry Weber Open, Halle, Germany, ATP 500

[Front242]

Thiem beat Rafa in Rome and lost badly to Djokovic the next day. He beat Djokovic, then lost summarily to Rafa in the next round. That's a mental hurdle he's going to have to overcome, for sure, i.e., having the belief to beat 2 top guys in a row. I do think that's what happened to him. Stan needs the ability to hit freely and with confidence. When Nadal got ahead of him, was crowding him and taking his options, his game didn't hold up. If you think that that happened only because of Stan's side of the net, I doubt I'll ever convince you otherwise, but it's a bit blinkered.

As to Zverev, Roger exposed a lot of the holes in Sasha's grass game, in particular. He was way too far back, often, and Roger exploited that choice. And he has no good judgement as to when to come into net, nor what to do when he gets there. The world is clamoring for his brother to take him under his wing in terms of net play. He made lots of rookie mistakes, that's true. But Fed totally knew what to do with those gifts.

For sure much of the reason Stan lost so badly was Nadal took his time away by playing way more aggressive than usual but, at the same time, you're in control of your own serve and Stan did not serve well. This didn't help his cause one bit and mucked up a lot of his point construction.

 

[Front242]

I don't know why you felt the need to defend him, Front was clearly hedging his bet. However, you are spot on in your analysis of Thiem play at Rome and RG. There's no scenario where Rafa victories will ever be legitimize by some of the rabid Fed fans. I am resigned to the fact that when Rafa blew the 3-1 lead at AO , he breathed new life into Federer and his fan base which is good for them. Now their beloved one is be on the tour til maybe his 40s.

That AO final should have been done in 3 sets. Also, in case you didn't read the news properly (that would never happen) Federer said he wanted to play a few more years BEFORE winning the AO and that the reason he took 6 months off was to prolong his career.

 

[the AntiPusher]

For sure much of the reason Stan lost so badly was Nadal took his time away by playing way more aggressive than usual but, at the same time, you're in control of your own serve and Stan did not serve well. This didn't help his cause one bit and mucked up a lot of his point construction.

That's doesn't give you to right to continuously question the legitimacy of Stan as a finalist. Name one player on this Earth who would have been a better finalist vs Rafa at RG then Stan. Nuff Said

 

[Front242]

Murray, Federer, Djokovic for a start would all have won more games than Wawrinka.

 

[Moxie]

That AO final should have been done in 3 sets.

And given that Nadal had one fewer days of rest after a brutal semi, it nearly proves that he might well have won it. No need to be so mean...your man won it, in the end.

 

[Moxie]

Murray, Federer, Djokovic for a start would all have won more games than Wawrinka.

In a different year and universe, but not this one. The toughest finalist for Nadal this year at RG, by anyone's accounting, was Stan.

 

[Front242]

And given that Nadal had one fewer days of rest after a brutal semi, it nearly proves that he might well have won it. No need to be so mean...he won it, in the end.

Oh please. Nadal has never had fitness issues and you know it. That semi made no difference at all and he was fresh as a daisy in the final as expected.

 

[Front242]

In a different year and universe, but not this one. The toughest finalist for Nadal this year at RG, by anyone's accounting, was Stan.

I don't think anyone will disagree that Murray, Federer or Djokovic would have won more games than Wawrinka did I'm afraid.

 

[Moxie]

Oh please. Nadal has never had fitness issues and you know it. That semi made no difference at all and he was fresh as a daisy in the final as expected.

Now I don't think you were watching. 2017 Nadal is not 2009 Nadal. (You can do the math: 8 years.) Rafa was lethargic in much of that final. It was will to win and muscle-memory of beating Roger that got that one to 5. Fresh as a daisy was Roger, rather surprisingly.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Murray, Federer, Djokovic for a start would all have won more games than Wawrinka.

Federer was too afraid to play on clay and he admitted he can't beat Rafa at RG especially Now. I am not going to make any comments in regards to Novak and Andy because they are clearly not at the top of their games. Again, there's no shame to loose to Rafa, just admit you were wrong and move on..

 

[Moxie]

I don't think anyone will disagree that Murray, Federer or Djokovic would have won more games than Wawrinka did I'm afraid.

That's a completely speculative comment. Djokovic can't get out of his own way, mentally. Murray is still finding his way as current #1 (and you've called him complete crap this year.) As to Roger, maybe so, but he chose not to play the clay season, so the best option was Stan. You can live in reality, or make up all sorts of nonsense about parallel universes. Given the draw and the options, I feel confident you would have hoped that Stan would meet Rafa in the final. Am I wrong?

 

[Carol]

I don't know why you felt the need to defend him, Front was clearly hedging his bet. However, you are spot on in your analysis of Thiem play at Rome and RG. There's no scenario where Rafa victories will ever be legitimize by some of the rabid Fed fans. I am resigned to the fact that when Rafa blew the 3-1 lead at AO , he breathed new life into Federer and his fan base which is good for them. Now their beloved one is be on the tour til maybe his 40s.

He won´t

 

[the AntiPusher]

That AO final should have been done in 3 sets. Also, in case you didn't read the news properly (that would never happen) Federer said he wanted to play a few more years BEFORE winning the AO and that the reason he took 6 months off was to prolong his career.

"That AO final should have been done in 3 sets"

Explain this madness ,

I recall that RAFA won set 2 & set 4 plus had a 3-1 lead in the 5th

Okay Front enlighten us all with you hypothesis or hypothetical theories

 

[the AntiPusher]

He won´t

I know..this should have been his last one

 

[Moxie]

"That AO final should have been done in 3 sets"

Explain this madness ,

I recall that RAFA won set 2 & set 4 plus had a 3-1 lead in the 5th

Okay Front enlighten us all with you hypothesis or hypothetical theories

Alright, I've been as guilty as anyone of stringing this out, but doesn't it get tedious? Are we really going to rehash the AO on this thread? Do we need a Fedal Wars thread? I'm all for letting the conversation go where it will, but if it keeps going to the same place we must discuss a better option.

 

[Ricardo]

Now I don't think you were watching. 2017 Nadal is not 2009 Nadal. (You can do the math: 8 years.) Rafa was lethargic in much of that final. It was will to win and muscle-memory of beating Roger that got that one to 5. Fresh as a daisy was Roger, rather surprisingly.

if 30yo was lethargic after the semi why should a 35 yo be fresh as daisy? if you say 2017 Nadal isn't 2009 Nadal, you failed to mention that 2017 Fed isn't 2004 Fed either.....(they shot to top of the world at 2009 and 2004 respectively), so that was 13 years ago for Fed.

 

[Moxie]

if 30yo was lethargic after the semi why should a 35 yo be fresh as daisy? if you say 2017 Nadal isn't 2009 Nadal, you failed to mention that 2017 Fed isn't 2004 Fed either.....(they shot to top of the world at 2009 and 2004 respectively), so that was 13 years ago for Fed.

Amazing, isn't it? And after such a long lay-off.

 

[Ricardo]

Oh please. Nadal has never had fitness issues and you know it. That semi made no difference at all and he was fresh as a daisy in the final as expected.

he can't be 100% entering the final, though he certainly wasn't in as bad a shape as Moxie and co have made it out to be, to excuse the loss.....actually 3 straight losses already, can't be all lethargic no? maybe she still thinks so, but that's the way she thinks.

 

[Carol]

"That AO final should have been done in 3 sets"

Explain this madness ,

I recall that RAFA won set 2 & set 4 plus had a 3-1 lead in the 5th

Okay Front enlighten us all with you hypothesis or hypothetical theories

I can't still understand why Rafa lost that last set

 

[the AntiPusher]

Alright, I've been as guilty as anyone of stringing this out, but doesn't it get tedious? Are we really going to rehash the AO on this thread? Do we need a Fedal Wars thread? I'm all for letting the conversation go where it will, but if it keeps going to the same place we must discuss a better option.

It's not really rehashing but Front stubbornly trying to discredit a Nadal accomplishments. I have stated numerous of times Fed and Luby outfoxed and executed their strategies over Rafa, Toni and Carlos at AO17. If you think Front will do the same, then one hasn't been paying attention.