Indian Wells 2015

[the AntiPusher]

I can imagine how relieved the Roger fans are now....lol :snicker

A tad relieved out of old habit, but more disappointed because I think Roger would have beaten Rafa.

I feel that way reading the Federer's fans comments zzzzzzz :cover

You're bordering on auto-pilot level of rabid Rafa fanboyism (or fangirlism).

What I find irritating is the automatic assumption by "some" Rafa fans that Rafa "should have" won, that something must be wrong with the universe in some way. I mean, no way Rafa could have simply been outplayed because that's never happened. :nonoh

Speaking of which, where is Kieran?

AP update on the poster named KIeran, he aight!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Sock and Popsicle win the doubles. Way to go. Good come back tourney for sock winning doubles and going deep in singles.

 

[Kirijax]

Congratulations to Pospisil and Sock! Way to go! No. 1 doubles team in the world?

 

[the AntiPusher]

Yeah I can see that you gave him credit but saying someone should have won 'cos they had match points is basically demeaning the winner in more matches than we could humanly type on this forum and therefore is pointless. The person who should have won did 'cos they won match point. The person who could have won didn't.

Rafa played passively and his return on Milos's 2nd serve was horrendous during big points. Milos played to win and thus he advanced.

 

[Carol]

I didn't watch any tennis yesterday but looking the results and what I was told I can imagine how bad Muzz played or maybe someone is going to tell me that he played well? :snicker come on, incredible that result unless he played horrible like he did, what a shame!

 

[Fiero425]

I didn't watch any tennis yesterday but looking the results and what I was told I can imagine how bad Muzz played or maybe someone is going to tell me that he played well? :snicker come on, incredible that result unless he played horrible like he did, what a shame!

Whoever says Muzz played horribly is insulting Nole! Andy was just taken to the woodshed and there just wasn't much he could do about it! He had many long rallies where shots would have been winners or forced an error, but Nole proved he was #1! He not only got back the best Muzz could offer, he put him back on the defensive and won the point anyway! If Nole had pulled up just a little, Murray very well could have represented better, maybe taken a set, but not likely to win! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Carol]

Speaking of which, where is Kieran?

I'm actually kind of worried about the guy - he hasn't posted in months, I think. Does anyone have his personal email and can contact him?

Using the search tool on the forum you can see his last post is from Feb 11th. Before we get really worried let´s make a simples test:

If Federer had changed racquests before he would have won at least three RG finals.

Another simple test:

Federer changed racquets more than two years ego and he still has not won any RG and either any other GS

 

[Carol]

I didn't watch any tennis yesterday but looking the results and what I was told I can imagine how bad Muzz played or maybe someone is going to tell me that he played well? :snicker come on, incredible that result unless he played horrible like he did, what a shame!

Whoever says Muzz played horribly is insulting Nole! Andy was just taken to the woodshed and there just wasn't much he could do about it! He had many long rallies where shots would have been winners or forced an error, but Nole proved he was #1! He not only got back the best Muzz could offer, he put him back on the defensive and won the point anyway! If Nole had pulled up just a little, Murray very well could have represented better, maybe taken a set, but not likely to win! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

The people who told me about the match are watching tennis for many years and they are not fanatics of any particular player, they just like to watch good tennis and they say that match was far to be the best. And reading good articles from good sources I can read that Novak didn't have to make too much effort due to the "soft" game of Muzz which gave Novak all the facilities to win more easily

 

[El Dude]

I'm actually kind of worried about the guy - he hasn't posted in months, I think. Does anyone have his personal email and can contact him?

Using the search tool on the forum you can see his last post is from Feb 11th. Before we get really worried let´s make a simples test:

If Federer had changed racquests before he would have won at least three RG finals.

Another simple test:

Federer changed racquets more than two years ego and he still has not won any RG and either any other GS

Umm, I don't think you understand what mrzz's "simple test" was for - it was to see if he could provoke Kieran, a staunch Nadal fan, out of hiding by making a ridiculous assertion to rile him up.

 

[Carol]

Using the search tool on the forum you can see his last post is from Feb 11th. Before we get really worried let´s make a simples test:

If Federer had changed racquests before he would have won at least three RG finals.

Another simple test:

Federer changed racquets more than two years ego and he still has not won any RG and either any other GS

Umm, I don't think you understand what mrzz's "simple test" was for - it was to see if he could provoke
Kieran, a staunch Nadal fan, out of hiding by making a ridiculous assertion to rile him up.

I understood the provocation and then I answered like Kieran probably would have answered :snicker
But it was ok the test, I wish if he come back to post, I don't see here too many Rafa's fans and we need some help :angel: :huh: : :ras:

 

[tented]

^ Kieran will be back. He's taking a break from the Internet during Lent, but will be back in a couple of weeks. Then look out!

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ Could not should. We could apply the "should" logic to any match in history.

We also should practice what we preach, because you've applied the "should" logic to many Federer losses. Off the top of my head, the US Open 2009 loss to Del Potro.

Regardless, I only watched the first two sets, and I actually agree Nadal didn't play that badly (I missed the third so I can't comment). It's not easy to play with no rhythm. The terrible aspect was the return and that's what cost him in the tie break.

Despite the win, I'm actually left completely underwhelmed by how garbage the rest of Raonic's game is (excluding the serve).

The fact that you don't find the rest of Raonic's game impressive is what should concern you and all of us non Raonic fans. Rafa played well enough to win, couldn't take his chance. Roanic out gutted him and stepped up at key moments. I was very impressed actually. I'm not a fan, but this guy has weapons in his forehand, serve and his volleying is getting better. He was able to stay with Rafa in long rallies as the match progressed. He really believes. Someone like Dimi tries, but he believes. I think Roger will beat him today, but if Raonic were to win that match it would tell me he's ready to win slams

Raonic's net game is horrible. His movement around the net and his touch are quite sub-par. Maybe it is improved as you suggest, but that isn't saying much.

Raonic can win a slam by catching fire at the right time if the circumstances are right just like Cilic did (ie no Nadal, Murray loses early, Roger and Djokovic have shocking performances in the semis, and you face Kei Nishikori in the final). The likelihood of that happening is increasing as the usual suspects' consistency declines. But if you think his game is there as off now I'd strongly disagree.

Raonic's backhand is average at best, and the little things, such as the decision-making as to when to run around it is highly questionable.

Sorry, but the main reason this was anything other than a routine straight set win for Nadal was that awful second serve return on match point.

If people are legitimately impressed with Raonic's game then it's a testament to the state of the tour at the moment.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ Could not should. We could apply the "should" logic to any match in history.

We also should practice what we preach, because you've applied the "should" logic to many Federer losses. Off the top of my head, the US Open 2009 loss to Del Potro.

Regardless, I only watched the first two sets, and I actually agree Nadal didn't play that badly (I missed the third so I can't comment). It's not easy to play with no rhythm. The terrible aspect was the return and that's what cost him in the tie break.

Despite the win, I'm actually left completely underwhelmed by how garbage the rest of Raonic's game is (excluding the serve).

The difference here is Roger never got to match point in that match as far as I recall.

...and yet you still thought he should have won. Nadal actually HAD match points. What does that tell you?

 

[Carol]

We also should practice what we preach, because you've applied the "should" logic to many Federer losses. Off the top of my head, the US Open 2009 loss to Del Potro.

Regardless, I only watched the first two sets, and I actually agree Nadal didn't play that badly (I missed the third so I can't comment). It's not easy to play with no rhythm. The terrible aspect was the return and that's what cost him in the tie break.

Despite the win, I'm actually left completely underwhelmed by how garbage the rest of Raonic's game is (excluding the serve).

The fact that you don't find the rest of Raonic's game impressive is what should concern you and all of us non Raonic fans. Rafa played well enough to win, couldn't take his chance. Roanic out gutted him and
stepped up at key moments. I was very impressed actually. I'm not a fan, but this guy has weapons in his forehand, serve and his volleying is getting better. He was able to stay with Rafa in long rallies as the match progressed. He really believes. Someone like Dimi tries, but he believes. I think Roger will beat him today, but if Raonic were to win that match it would tell me he's ready to win slams

Raonic's net game is horrible. His movement around the net and his touch are quite sub-par. Maybe it is improved as you suggest, but that isn't saying much.

Raonic can win a slam by catching fire at the right time if the circumstances are right just like Cilic did (ie no Nadal, Murray loses early, Roger and Djokovic have shocking performances in the semis, and you face Kei Nishikori in the final). The likelihood of that happening is increasing as the usual suspects' consistency declines. But if you think his game is there as off now I'd strongly disagree.

Raonic's backhand is average at best, and the little things, such as the decision-making as to when to run around it is questionable at best.

Sorry, but the main reason this was anything other than a routine straight set win for Nadal was that awful second serve return on match point.

If people are legitimately impressed with Raonic's game then it's a testament to the state of the tour at the moment.

Very good and reasonable comment, you can tell you know about tennis :clap

 

[brokenshoelace]

What I find irritating is the automatic assumption by "some" Rafa fans that Rafa "should have" won, that something must be wrong with the universe in some way. I mean, no way Rafa could have simply been outplayed because that's never happened. :nono

Not nearly as irritating as cliched PC posting for the sake of not being labelled sore losers.

Nadal was outplaying him for two full sets, had a crap load of break points in the second, three match points, completely messed up on a routine forehand second serve return (that ended up in the bottom of the net)...

But you know what? Fine. I'll retract my statement re: Nadal "should have won" and say this: Nadal should have at least put that forehand back in play. Is that fair? Or is Raonic's nervous, tame second serve the reason Nadal missed that shot? Or maybe it's too much to expect a 14 time Grand Slam winner to be able to put a routine forehand in play, lest I get called a sore loser and "irritate" people here. Yes, people sometimes miss the easiest shots. Even elite tennis players. I'm not an idiot. I understand that. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be kicking themselves, or feeling they should have made it.

I swear people here prefer we all act willfully dumb for the sake of not upsetting anyone (exhibit A: Nadal's infamous 2014 AO Open back injury).

 

[Kirijax]

Another simple test:

Federer changed racquets more than two years ego and he still has not won any RG and either any other GS

Umm, I don't think you understand what mrzz's "simple test" was for - it was to see if he could provoke
Kieran, a staunch Nadal fan, out of hiding by making a ridiculous assertion to rile him up.

I understood the provocation and then I answered like Kieran probably would have answered :snicker
But it was ok the test, I wish if he come back to post, I don't see here too many Rafa's fans and we need some help :angel: :huh: : :ras:

:laydownlaughing :lolz:

 

[mrzz]

WOW! Carol is Kieran and Tented is trying to deceive us. Evil never ceases in Nadal camp.

How is that all connected to the strange fall Nadal had at Miami? And why am I loosing my hair over this?

 

[Garro]

Thought it was a pretty good match overall. But Roger rarely comes back from a break down in a final set these days, and the outcome looked inevitable at that point. Still it was a good effort, the match could easily have been a straight set loss.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

nadal should have won ?. lol.

if nadal had not made loads of mistakes he wouldn't have made loads of mistakes.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

roger lost it big style at the end. djokovic is now gonna be world no1 forever.