Is this the beginning of The Incline?

[Riotbeard]

True, he might have won another set In fairness, the 3rd set that he won was only down to Stan being unable to cope with what was happening out there. His game went to pieces.

Stan has famously self-destructed at times, even when looking like he's well on his way to winning. It's this very quality which made me think Djokovic would mount a comeback, and win RG this year. Kudos to him for closing that out, especially against such a dangerous opponent.

Yeah, Stan won there after losing the first set!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I was glad for Stan that he won the FO this year. Like Mauresmo back in 2006, some people said he only won because of his injured/sick opponent. So he was a sort of half-Slam champion so to speak. But then that FO win seemed to validate his AO win as well and he was suddenly and surprisingly a two-time Slam winner.

OK, getting off track, back to Nadal's ascent to the top again.

Also, people should remember that Stan beat Novak (who was the multiple defending champion there) at AO'14. Hence, I would not call it half-Slam even if Stan did not win another GS.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

True, he might have won another set In fairness, the 3rd set that he won was only down to Stan being unable to cope with what was happening out there. His game went to pieces.

This happens often. Once I remember in a WTA match Daniela Hantuchova was playing against a limping Serena. Daniela just could not deal with the thing. Finally, Serena won the match. Next day all papers read Serena won with just one leg against Daniela. Actually, it is very difficult to play against an injured opponent.

 

[Kirijax]

I was glad for Stan that he won the FO this year. Like Mauresmo back in 2006, some people said he only won because of his injured/sick opponent. So he was a sort of half-Slam champion so to speak. But then that FO win seemed to validate his AO win as well and he was suddenly and surprisingly a two-time Slam winner.

OK, getting off track, back to Nadal's ascent to the top again.

Also, people should remember that Stan beat Novak (who was the multiple defending champion there) at AO'14. Hence, I would not call it half-Slam even if Stan did not win another GS.

Yeah, people tend to forget that. Stan's first slam was totally legit. With or without the Nadal final dramatics.

 

[Carol]

So this thread is about the "incline" of who? the only "incline" that I know is the 'Tower of Pisa' :snicker :lolz:

 

[Kieran]

If, if, if......if Nadal wouldn't have got that back injury in the AO 2014 (worst time ever to get that injury) he would have won the final and being the player with more than one win of each GS. If he wouldn't have played so bad for almost two years who knows who would be the #1or #2. If some players like he, Tsonga, Muzz and others wouldn't have got injuries who knows who would have won more or less GS or who would be playing better and with more confidence. We can count many if....

This seems a bit unproven, given that Stan was up a set, once Rafa got hurt.

And yet..."if" it went to a fifth in the FO final... :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

If, if, if......if Nadal wouldn't have got that back injury in the AO 2014 (worst time ever to get that injury) he would have won the final and being the player with more than one win of each GS. If he wouldn't have played so bad for almost two years who knows who would be the #1or #2. If some players like he, Tsonga, Muzz and others wouldn't have got injuries who knows who would have won more or less GS or who would be playing better and with more confidence. We can count many if....

This seems a bit unproven, given that Stan was up a set, once Rafa got hurt.

And we all know once you're down a set, the match is over.

Novak:
2008 Australian Open: 4–6, 6–4, 6–3, 7–6(7–2)
2012 Australian Open: 5–7, 6–4, 6–2, 6–7(5–7), 7–5
2013 Australian Open: 6–7(2–7), 7–6(7–3), 6–3, 6–2
2014 Wimbledon: 6–7(7–9), 6–4, 7–6(7–4), 5–7, 6–4

Rafa:
2005 French Open: 6–7(6–8), 6–3, 6–1, 7–5
2006 French Open: 1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(7–4)
2014 French Open: 3–6, 7–5, 6–2, 6–4

Federer:
2004 Wimbledon: 4–6, 7–5, 7–6(7–3), 6–4
2006 Australian Open: 5–7, 7–5, 6–0, 6–2
2009 Wimbledon: 5–7, 7–6(8–6), 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 16–14
2012 Wimbledon: 4–6, 7–5, 6–3, 6–4

Exactly. It's dumb to say that Stan would have won that final if Rafa had stayed fit. Baghdatis was up a set and a break on Federer in 2006, and what happened? The natural order asserted itself, which is usually does in these circumstances, especially when a player like Stan had a) never been in a slam final before, and b) never won a single set off his opponent before that.

It's only Fedfans who think Stan would have won anyway, for obvious reasons. Most of the world knows he got lucky...

 

[Kieran]

True, he might have won another set In fairness, the 3rd set that he won was only down to Stan being unable to cope with what was happening out there. His game went to pieces.

This happens often. Once I remember in a WTA match Daniela Hantuchova was playing against a limping Serena. Daniela just could not deal with the thing. Finally, Serena won the match. Next day all papers read Serena won with just one leg against Daniela. Actually, it is very difficult to play against an injured opponent.

:lolz: :laydownlaughing

The WTA comes to Stan's defence. I knew that there was something i was missing. :snicker

Let's get back to the Incline. The Oz Open has been mentioned a few times, but to be clear, although it was me who brought it up, it was only to show that Oz would be a perfect station to take Rafa's pulse. Can he win it? Oz is another quarter of a year away. Anyone can win it (if the WTA is anything to go by :snicker )...

 

[Riotbeard]

This seems a bit unproven, given that Stan was up a set, once Rafa got hurt.

And we all know once you're down a set, the match is over.

Novak:
2008 Australian Open: 4–6, 6–4, 6–3, 7–6(7–2)
2012 Australian Open: 5–7, 6–4, 6–2, 6–7(5–7), 7–5
2013 Australian Open: 6–7(2–7), 7–6(7–3), 6–3, 6–2
2014 Wimbledon: 6–7(7–9), 6–4, 7–6(7–4), 5–7, 6–4

Rafa:
2005 French Open: 6–7(6–8), 6–3, 6–1, 7–5
2006 French Open: 1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(7–4)
2014 French Open: 3–6, 7–5, 6–2, 6–4

Federer:
2004 Wimbledon: 4–6, 7–5, 7–6(7–3), 6–4
2006 Australian Open: 5–7, 7–5, 6–0, 6–2
2009 Wimbledon: 5–7, 7–6(8–6), 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 16–14
2012 Wimbledon: 4–6, 7–5, 6–3, 6–4

Exactly. It's dumb to say that Stan would have won that final if Rafa had stayed fit. Baghdatis was up a set and a break on Federer in 2006, and what happened? The natural order asserted itself, which is usually does in these circumstances, especially when a player like Stan had a) never been in a slam final before, and b) never won a single set off his opponent before that.

It's only Fedfans who think Stan would have won anyway, for obvious reasons. Most of the world knows he got lucky...

I usually don't pull the rafa fans are insane card, but wow! The only person who presented counter-factual history of the AO '14 final was Carol. All Front and I pointed out is there is no evidence to say "Rafa would have won, if he hadn't been injured." Which I said was unproven. If she had said the 13 time Grand slam winner would have had a good shot at coming back had he not gotten injured. I would have said, that's a more than fair opinion, and he was by no means out of it. The only point about Stan taking the first set was let's give credit where credit is due, and that it's not like Rafa won the first set 6-2 and then got injured, like say Nishikori in the 2014 Madrid final...

 

[Kieran]

I usually don't pull the rafa fans are insane card, but wow! The only person who presented counter-factual history of the AO '14 final was Carol. All Front and I pointed out is there is no evidence to say "Rafa would have won, if he hadn't been injured." Which I said was unproven. If she had said the 13 time Grand slam winner would have had a good shot at coming back had he not gotten injured. I would have said, that's a more than fair opinion, and he was by no means out of it. The only point about Stan taking the first set was let's give credit where credit is due, and that it's not like Rafa won the first set 6-2 and then got injured, like say Nishikori in the 2014 Madrid final...

I don't usually defend myself from accusations that I'm insane because so many of them seem reasonable :snicker but come on, brother, we Rafa fans have heard this song so often since that dreadful day when Rafa became incapacitated in the second set. Even me old mucker Front saying "There's absolutely zero, nada, to base that on. He was getting his ass handed to him before he hurt his back" is not based upon the premise that "we don't know what would have happened if Rafa had remained fit."

I can suggest tons of matches where the Great Player is losing early against the Good Player, but then finds his range and reels them in. Loads of them. Tented listed some above, including one where Federer was a set and a break down in a slam final and came back to win. The logical thing to say is, "uh, we don't know what would have happened", but to act as if a man renowned for choking would have held up to scrutiny against a fella he'd never won a set off in 12 matches before this, is so baseless as to be prejudicial.

And no, I'm not saying you said that, I'm referring to the Fedfan party line since it happened...

 

[Riotbeard]

I usually don't pull the rafa fans are insane card, but wow! The only person who presented counter-factual history of the AO '14 final was Carol. All Front and I pointed out is there is no evidence to say "Rafa would have won, if he hadn't been injured." Which I said was unproven. If she had said the 13 time Grand slam winner would have had a good shot at coming back had he not gotten injured. I would have said, that's a more than fair opinion, and he was by no means out of it. The only point about Stan taking the first set was let's give credit where credit is due, and that it's not like Rafa won the first set 6-2 and then got injured, like say Nishikori in the 2014 Madrid final...

I don't usually defend myself from accusations that I'm insane because so many of them seem reasonable :snicker but come on, brother, we Rafa fans have heard this song so often since that dreadful day when Rafa became incapacitated in the second set. Even me old mucker Front saying "There's absolutely zero, nada, to base that on. He was getting his ass handed to him before he hurt his back" is not based upon the premise that "we don't know what would have happened if Rafa had remained fit."

I can suggest tons of matches where the Great Player is losing early against the Good Player, but then finds his range and reels them in. Loads of them. Tented listed some above, including one where Federer was a set and a break down in a slam final and came back to win. The logical thing to say is, "uh, we don't know what would have happened", but to act as if a man renowned for choking would have held up to scrutiny against a fella he'd never won a set off in 12 matches before this, is so baseless as to be prejudicial.

And no, I'm not saying you said that, I'm referring to the Fedfan party line since it happened...

But Front didn't say that it's impossible. And of course, Stan has done it himself this year at the FO. But to keep bringing it up as if it was this lynch pin moment in Rafa history, and that he had slam... He didn't have it. He had a shot at it. It wasn't looking good, when he got injured, but of course, he is a great player and was still in the match. You can't use the context of posts six months ago.

Carol brought it up and made a statement that is unprovable. 2nd: It seems to be not giving credit to the level of play Stan was bringing at that tournament and in the first set (It bothers me when people do this for this years FO as well. On his best days (which are rare, but seem to be on big matches), Stan is as good as anybody. I watched sets 2-4 of the FO this year with my jaw on the floor in horror, but it was what it was. While different in that there was an injury, you gotta give credit to Stan, and I think that is what is missing is the assumption that something would have clicked and Rafa would have jumped ahead of Stan...

 

[Riotbeard]

So he says. Tell me there was even the slightest bit of a difference in his movement till he was down 0-2 in set 2 'cos most people couldn't see a damn thing wrong till then. Clearly he was showing obvious back trouble after that but before it, no. He was moving same as ever.

Are you doing or you did some sports? do you know what is to play at that level with some discomfort and even worse an injury? you get hurt, you feel some pain, maybe not too much but if you continues playing after a while you are dying, the pain become worse and worse and worse

Yes I lift a lot of heavy weights and I'm well aware of all you said but I'm simply saying he was moving fine till he was down 2-0 in set 2. There's nothing to really indicate he was in any way impeded before that given how he was moving fine. It seemed he just tweaked something in his back after 2-0 down in the 2nd set. You're basically saying he was only losing because his back was already sore and even said he would've won otherwise. Both are totally unproven, especially when we all saw how Stan played against Novak at RG this year. There isn't any reason why he couldn't have won with a fresh as a daisy, brand new out of the box, Rafa energizer bunny hot off the shelf for Xmas. Stan also destroyed Roger at RG this year. Stan is actually quite good methinks. Better to just leave it at he might have won if he hadn't hurt his back 'cos he would have won is a bit rich and presumptuous and also completely unproven and unknown, not to mention belittling Stan and grossly underestimating him.

I bolded the important part of Front's post...

 

[Kieran]

Nobody denigrated Stan in Paris this year, but he was serving at 39% in the first set against rafa in Oz, was 0-40 down at 5-3 up, served 3 second serves and Rafa didn't get even one back into court. It wasn't so cut and dried as saying Stan was electrifying the place with levels of Sampras-like excellence.

It wasn't looking good, when he got injured, but of course, he is a great player and was still in the match.

This, we can do business with. Don't mind about Front's posts, we all know what he really thinks...

 

[Riotbeard]

Nobody denigrated Stan in Paris this year, but he was serving at 39% in the first set against rafa in Oz, was 0-40 down at 5-3 up, served 3 second serves and Rafa didn't get even one back into court. It wasn't so cut and dried as saying Stan was electrifying the place with levels of Sampras-like excellence.

It wasn't looking good, when he got injured, but of course, he is a great player and was still in the match.

This, we can do business with. Don't mind about Front's posts, we all know what he really thinks...

His serve wasn't great, and I am not saying Rafa played the best I have ever seen him, but Stan's groundies were off the chain still, and Rafa is not a great returner (he is great in return games, but not a consistently aggressive returner...). I think some of my fellow Novak fans have made an excuse or two for the FO...

You gotta argue what people are saying today friend

At least you seem to be agreeing with Front and I that Rafa would have had a chance to get back in but it's a bit rich to say he would have won

 

[Kieran]

His serve wasn't great, and I am not saying Rafa played the best I have ever seen him, but Stan's groundies were off the chain still, and Rafa is not a great returner (he is great in return games, but not a consistently aggressive returner...). I think some of my fellow Novak fans have made an excuse or two for the FO...

You gotta argue what people are saying today friend

At least you seem to be agreeing with Front and I that Rafa would have had a chance to get back in but it's a bit rich to say he would have won

Or, "he would have lost", which is essentially what we heard from so many heavily invested Fedfans. There was even a Trojan horse thread that made me giggle, by a Fedfan who detests Rafa (is there any other sort :cover ) running an article telling us how Stan showed how to beat Rafa.

Not a single mention in the article about waiting for his back to break...

 

[Riotbeard]

His serve wasn't great, and I am not saying Rafa played the best I have ever seen him, but Stan's groundies were off the chain still, and Rafa is not a great returner (he is great in return games, but not a consistently aggressive returner...). I think some of my fellow Novak fans have made an excuse or two for the FO...

You gotta argue what people are saying today friend

At least you seem to be agreeing with Front and I that Rafa would have had a chance to get back in but it's a bit rich to say he would have won

Or, "he would have lost", which is essentially what we heard from so many heavily invested Fedfans. There was even a Trojan horse thread that made me giggle, by a Fedfan who detests Rafa (is there any other sort :cover ) running an article telling us how Stan showed how to beat Rafa.

Not a single mention in the article about waiting for his back to break...

I agree, but right now, you are arguing against a point no one is currently making. You more agree with Front and I (in the current discussion) than Carol :-/

 

[Kieran]

His serve wasn't great, and I am not saying Rafa played the best I have ever seen him, but Stan's groundies were off the chain still, and Rafa is not a great returner (he is great in return games, but not a consistently aggressive returner...). I think some of my fellow Novak fans have made an excuse or two for the FO...

You gotta argue what people are saying today friend

At least you seem to be agreeing with Front and I that Rafa would have had a chance to get back in but it's a bit rich to say he would have won

Or, "he would have lost", which is essentially what we heard from so many heavily invested Fedfans. There was even a Trojan horse thread that made me giggle, by a Fedfan who detests Rafa (is there any other sort :cover ) running an article telling us how Stan showed how to beat Rafa.

Not a single mention in the article about waiting for his back to break...

I agree, but right now, you are arguing against a point no one is currently making. You more agree with Front and I (in the current discussion) than Carol :-/

Me? And Front? In agreement? :eyepop

 

[Carol]

Lol, I've heard before so many times why some players lost a match because 'back issues' 'allergies' 'gluten issues' 'mono' 'stomach bug' etc etc, it seems that it works well for them.
But sooner or later I wiil have the oportunity to remind some of you about it, and then.......

 

[Carol]

True, he might have won another set In fairness, the 3rd set that he won was only down to Stan being unable to cope with what was happening out there. His game went to pieces.

This happens often. Once I remember in a WTA match Daniela Hantuchova was playing against a limping Serena. Daniela just could not deal with the thing. Finally, Serena won the match. Next day all papers read Serena won with just one leg against Daniela. Actually, it is very difficult to play against an injured opponent.

Yep, and Rafa has won many tournaments with a bad knee but sometimes they can't, everything and everyone has a limit :s

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, the incline is now official. No longer a debate over it.