How to win against Rafa --- The tale of two Swiss Blokes

[GameSetAndMath]

\
Finally, "Because I feel I played three times against him, and
not one I played my tennis, no? So that's the true, no?" is certainly remark in
bad taste.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's in bad taste to say I didn't play my best tennis?

He is not talking about "my best tennis". He is saying "my tennis", meaning he
could not control the game, he could not dictate the points etc. He is saying that
this happened in all three matches.

In any tennis match, both players want to impose their game on other player.
Saying, I could not play my tennis is ridiculous. What is Roger says "I lost to
so many matches to Nadal, because I could not play my tennis". Roger's statement
would be true, but meaningless and pointless. Why he could not play his tennis,
the other player is not letting you play your tennis.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I know a lot of Rafa fans who claim that "Rafa would have won if was not
injured at AO final". Hence, I made the remark. If you do not have such an
opinion just say so. I would appreciate that. After the AO was over, for
about a week I was busy and did not participate in the discussions on several
threads here. It is possible (but not probable) such a claim was not made Rafa
fans in this forum. If so, say so and leave it that, unless I make the same remark
again. But, you must realize that neither you nor Rafa fans in this forum
do not represent all of Rafa fans.

Just because you or Broken say something, does not mean I will have to
spend couple of days going over all old threads. I have better things to do.

Crikey, you took your time to come up with that one. :s

1. That is not true. I am just repeating it. I already said so in post #13
in this thread.

2. Even assuming somebody makes a statement little late, that does not
mean their statement is wrong or pointless. A statement's validity would
be based on the intrinsic content of the statement.

3. The problem is you do not seem to think of the forum as a venue
for reasonable and mature people to debate ideas and evolve their
own thinking also in this process. You seem to think of this as some
sort of a high school debate where you want to score a quick victory
and move on, without attempting to gain a deeper understanding
of the issues involved and evolving.

 

[Kieran]

Not at all, I debated your article from the start and you took this as an opportunity to make personal attacks. You haven't once answered the assertion that basing a whole argument on one set is a valid way to instruct the great Federer - who has had more success against Rafa than Stan can ever dream of.

Not once.

You acted as if any argument against the article was a partisan attack.

As for Rafa fans saying he would have won if his back hadn't gone lame, you said it - and now you say that you didn't mean us, particularly, but the whole world, generally.

Still, you give no proof for this. But we should believe you, right? Even though non-Rafa fans have said the same, you single us out, and try perpetuate this nonsense. :s

What can I say, except to think that if you had owned up to the articles obvious deficiencies from the start, this might have been a more constructive thread? And bear in mind, I'm the one who read the article and engaged with its content. Most people gave up after reading the word "grind..."

 

[brokenshoelace]

Jesus, I'm done arguing this nonsense. You people want tennis players to be robots. Absolute robots. "I could not play my tennis" is in bad taste. Though "I could not play my best tennis" is fine, according to GSM's official rule book of proper/ethical tennis conduct.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Jesus, I'm done arguing this nonsense. You people want tennis players to be robots. Absolute robots. "I could not play my tennis" is in bad taste. Though "I could not play my best tennis" is fine, according to GSM's official rule book of proper/ethical tennis conduct.

I just want to warn the other readers to look at my post above for context. Broken is not
providing the full story here.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am through with this thread for now. I will rejuvenate this thread, after
Stan's next win over Rafa.

 

[Moxie]

And this is important to dig up why? What is it exactly that was so wrong with what he said?

Because Moxie was not convinced that Rafa actually talked about lack of focus.
She thought I was making it up (as the previous link that I gave had only paraphrased
it and did not quite give a quote). Did not you see the previous post of Moxie where
she wanted exacted words?

Now, her next post would be, see I told you so, he never said he has "lapse in
concentration". He only said "lack of focus".

There is nothing wrong in talking about lack of concentration. He is not the first
one to do so either. But, as said in the previous article, he insisted that JMDP did not
play best in that match. Finally, "Because I feel I played three times against him, and
not one I played my tennis, no? So that's the true, no?" is certainly remark in
bad taste.

I never said I didn't believe you. I asked for citation, which is fair. (And your subsequent quote did not include citation, btw, and I do think you should be more vigilant, though I'll take it on faith.)

I am through with this thread for now. I will rejuvenate this thread, after
Stan's next win over Rafa.

Clearly, everyone has given up on this conversation, including you. It might have been more successful if you'd posted the blog, and then given more of your own thoughts on it in your OP. That way, you could have directed the argument. You posted it without analyzing it fully. People punched holes in various parts of the argument, and it put you on your back foot, and moved the argument in ways that you weren't prepared for. You ended up defending points that weren't necessarily yours. If you're going to chose a blog to post, I would suggest taking your own tack in the OP. It's worthwhile to spend a little time to structure your own POV, and not just rely on a blogger's. And I'd offer this advice to everyone.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Jesus, I'm done arguing this nonsense. You people want tennis players to be robots. Absolute robots. "I could not play my tennis" is in bad taste. Though "I could not play my best tennis" is fine, according to GSM's official rule book of proper/ethical tennis conduct.

I just want to warn the other readers to look at my post above for context. Broken is not
providing the full story here.

The "full story" is in the post right above mine. Did I need to copy/paste it in its entirety?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I am through with this thread for now. I will rejuvenate this thread, after
Stan's next win over Rafa.

Well then, we'll resume this in 2016.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I am through with this thread for now. I will rejuvenate this thread, after
Stan's next win over Rafa.

Well then, we'll resume this in 2016.

Rafa vs The top Swiss players(Roger F\Stan) ever is 35-11, It begs the question, is there a need for this thread ?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Man, looks like I missed a lot of fun...but I had other priorities, like margaritas in a pool bar and reading on a beautiful beach.

Here is my take on the tactic issue; I believe every single player on earth knows how to beat another player , tactically speaking. Implementing that tactic, on the other hand, is a different story all together. If you were playing Darts, the dart board has no tactical response to what you are doing to it. It is %100 up to you to implement your strategy. In tennis , every tactic you are trying to implement meets an opposing force that is trying to stop you from implementing that tactic. Therein lies the match-up issues.

Roger has beaten Nadal on every surface, multiple times, but every time, he had to play near perfect , except some matches on fast hards. Because the tactical advantage Nadal has in this match up is that it is easier for Nadal to hit a high, top spin cross court forehand than Roger countering it with a meaningful, hard hit DTL backhand . Extremely simple. Nadal NEVER changes his plan against Roger. Uncle Toni said as much, multiple times...something to the effect of " Even if we believe we can play Roger straight up, we stick to the formula that works". And it works.

Nadal does not play with the same tactic against Nole, or Murray. When he beats them, he beats them in a different way.

Who gives Rafa problems? People that manage to take time away from him. Like prime Fed on fast hards, like prime Davydenko who took every ball so early he drove Rafa nuts. Also the odd power player here and there that took time away from Rafa. The only exception to that rule is how Nole beats Rafa. He actually can out-Rafa Rafa here and there.

Stan the man played a fabulous first set in the AO final. he implemented his tactic well. I have seen him play great bunch of games tactically against Rafa before though, and sooner or later his tactic was broken apart by Rafa imposing his own plan and coming out on top. I don't know what was going to happen at the AO had Rafa stayed healthy, and I don't think anybody does. You can go by history and say rafa was going to figure it out again and start implementing his own game, or you can cite recent history saying Stan just went over the hump by beating Nole and he was mentally ready for what Rafa was about to throw at him. Both arguments have merit, in my opinion. We just don't know.

At the end of the day, tactics are only as good as how much your opponent let's you implement it. And whose tactic is the easier to implement. Again , in Rafa-Roger match-up, the tactical issue comes down to a shot that rafa can make with great accuracy with his eyes closed, versus one of the most difficult shots to make in the history of tennis, a DTL backhand that bounces over shoulder height that has to be hit with a single hand that has to be powerful enough since chipping is not an option.