Nadal v Nishikori - Mutua Madrid Masters Final

[brokenshoelace]

It's funny how other people across the tennis community are blaming Nadal for this and throwing a hissy fit about it.

People are doing that? What's their logic? :huh:

 

[tented]

It's funny how other people across the tennis community are blaming Nadal for this and throwing a hissy fit about it.

People are doing that? What's their logic? :huh:

Where's your logic in thinking there's logic?

 

[Moxie]

It's funny how other people across the tennis community are blaming Nadal for this and throwing a hissy fit about it.

People are doing that? What's their logic? :huh:

Where's your logic in thinking there's logic?

Broken doesn't broker no fools nor tolerate any throw-away comments.

 

[pavlik89]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpA51U7jM54[/video]

 

[pavlik89]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTm8Dta7bB8[/video]

 

[Riotbeard]

really different from Stan's AO win. I honestly don't see how this could be used to say that people were unfairly giving stan credit for winning that title. Hast tag just plain silly.

 

[TsarMatt]

It's funny how other people across the tennis community are blaming Nadal for this and throwing a hissy fit about it.

People are doing that? What's their logic? :huh:

When it comes to excessive Nadal hatred, very seldom is there any logic. People just like to defame Nadal for no apparent reason. It's actually quite amusing seeing people get all worked up over it.

 

[Federberg]

^I think Denisovich's comment shows his own bias. Everyone is sorry that Nishikori got hurt when he was playing so well, and no Nadal fans that I can see celebrated this win. However, loads of detractors danced on Nadal's grave that he got hurt and couldn't play out the AO final. I know Broken predicted we'd come back to that match, but…Stan played a great first set, but even a lame Nadal took the third. There's no telling how it would have gone had Rafa been able. That was a best of 5 set match. In Madrid, Kei was 2 games from the title. In OZ, Stan was 2 sets away when Rafa's back went. There's really no comparison, in terms of projecting the win.

What might beg comparison is how one injured player in a final is treated, versus another. This would question the notion of "dishonesty," (to use Denisovich's elaborate word,) though I'd think "unfairness" would suffice.

To be fair the set Stan lost was more to do with him being unable to cope mentally with the seeming inevitability of his victory. Who knows what would have happened if Rafa had not been hobbled? I don't think Stan would have had a chance to dwell on victory. But this is all speculative. He was able to overcome. I'm no Nadal fan as you know :snigger but in that match his impairment was clear for all to see. I take issue with other matches for which excuses are made, but not that one. I'm curious to know which "detractors danced on Nadal's grave"? Sounds a bit paranoid uzzled

 

[Front242]

The funny thing is at the AO he was being soundly beaten and then got injured and no one knows for sure how the scenario would've entailed if he didn't hurt his back so Stan was the winner eventhough in fairness Nadal finished the match. This time around he was being beaten by an even bigger margin and just 2 games from defeat Nishikori gets injured so Nadal wins this time around. Strange!

But this time because his opponent retired.

 

[Front242]

Fair is fair I guess

 

[Kieran]

Bear in mind, this semi-topic about Stan only started when GSM congratulated uncle T for not spinning the victory. Which I picked up on because GSM himself was spinning Stan's "victory" as an example the great Roger, of all people, should follow. I like GSM's posts and he knows a bit of give and take when he sees it.


The similarities between these two matches are obvious, the main ones being that they were both ruined by injury...

 

[pavlik89]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bErFPm_8ro[/video]

 

[Riotbeard]

Bear in mind, this semi-topic about Stan only started when GSM congratulated uncle T for not spinning the victory. Which I picked up on because GSM himself was spinning Stan's "victory" as an example the great Roger, of all people, should follow. I like GSM's posts and he knows a bit of give and take when he sees it.


The similarities between these two matches are obvious, the main ones being that they were both ruined by injury...

Yes, but there are also huge differences. While in both cases we cannot know what the outcome would have been without injury, the fact that the player winning got injured versus the player losing got injured should color the narrative. Rafa was a class act for finishing AO, but he wasn't two games away from the title and then gets injured. It is a whole different feel and context for the injury. Also there was not a marquee victory en route to the final for rafa, like stan over Novak, that lessons the blow of winning via wounded opponent. Rafa didn't need to prove anything (overall in terms of his career) by winning this, so saying he won by attrition (a legitimate path to victory and sometimes the way it goes) shouldn't be cause for a universal rafa fan freakout and wagon circling. The guy had 26 masters before this, let it go. I don't see anybody saying anything that Toni didn't already cover.

 

[Kieran]

Absolutely, and another huge difference is that one match was best of five, and they're a beast of a different colour again.

But you'll find nobody here who hasn't already sympathised with Kei, and praised him. It's a pity all round, as it always is when a player can't compete through injury...

EDIT: don't tell the Fedfans that a straight set win over Roger isn't a marquee victory! :snigger

 

[Riotbeard]

Absolutely, and another huge difference is that one match was best of five, and they're a beast of a different colour again.

But you'll find nobody here who hasn't already sympathised with Kei, and praised him. It's a pity all round, as it always is when a player can't compete through injury...

EDIT: don't tell the Fedfans that a straight set win over Roger isn't a marquee victory! :snigger

I know. Nobody is taking anything away for kei. Sometimes these 40 post long overreactions can get exhausting, but then again, the internet exists for the assault on dead horses

 

[Kieran]

If only the horse would have the decency to stay dead, that's the thing...

 

[brokenshoelace]

The funny thing is at the AO he was being soundly beaten and then got injured and no one knows for sure how the scenario would've entailed if he didn't hurt his back so Stan was the winner eventhough in fairness Nadal finished the match. This time around he was being beaten by an even bigger margin and just 2 games from defeat Nishikori gets injured so Nadal wins this time around. Strange!

But this time because his opponent retired.

I'd gladly switch the outcomes of both matches.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Bear in mind, this semi-topic about Stan only started when GSM congratulated uncle T for not spinning the victory. Which I picked up on because GSM himself was spinning Stan's "victory" as an example the great Roger, of all people, should follow. I like GSM's posts and he knows a bit of give and take when he sees it.


The similarities between these two matches are obvious, the main ones being that they were both ruined by injury...

Yes, but there are also huge differences. While in both cases we cannot know what the outcome would have been without injury, the fact that the player winning got injured versus the player losing got injured should color the narrative. Rafa was a class act for finishing AO, but he wasn't two games away from the title and then gets injured. It is a whole different feel and context for the injury. Also there was not a marquee victory en route to the final for rafa, like stan over Novak, that lessons the blow of winning via wounded opponent. Rafa didn't need to prove anything (overall in terms of his career) by winning this, so saying he won by attrition (a legitimate path to victory and sometimes the way it goes) shouldn't be cause for a universal rafa fan freakout and wagon circling. The guy had 26 masters before this, let it go. I don't see anybody saying anything that Toni didn't already cover.

Nadal would have lost to Nishikori had it not been for the injury.

Against Stan, nobody in their right mind is going to debate that he was getting soundly outplayed, but I'll ask this: Did anyone look at the match at 6-3 2-0 (before the back injury) and thought: Yeah, this is over, Nadal ain't coming back. It was a best of five set match and we had only played a set and two games. Think about that for a second. We weren't even midway through a straight set victory, let alone a potential five setter.

I never ever claimed Nadal would have won had it not been for the injury, but are we seriously going to believe that because Stan was so on fire, there's no way Nadal would have gotten back in the match? Because we've NEVER seen a player play well against Nadal only for his level to drop, Nadal's level to rise, and you know the rest...

I'd like to hear how everyone who claimed Nadal wasn't going to win this match say this while the match was taking place before the injury. Nobody would have actually said it, because they know better. That's kinda what ticks me off the most about the post-match reactions.

Regardless, this post is certainly not directed at you Riotbeard (I just happened to quote you), and it's useless to speculate about what would have happened against Stan. I'm merely explaining the holes in the logic of those thinking that match was over before the injury.

Back to Nishikori, obviously, it's a different scenario, as he was two games away from victory, playing very well against a dreadful Nadal, so there's a huge chance he was going to win the match and the championship. Unfortunate.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Absolutely, and another huge difference is that one match was best of five, and they're a beast of a different colour again.

But you'll find nobody here who hasn't already sympathised with Kei, and praised him. It's a pity all round, as it always is when a player can't compete through injury...

EDIT: don't tell the Fedfans that a straight set win over Roger isn't a marquee victory! :snigger

RB was referring to the fact that Nadal did not have a marquee victory on his path to
finals of Madrid.

 

[Kieran]

Didn't need one...