Nadal v Nishikori - Mutua Madrid Masters Final

[Federberg]

It's an interesting point you raise Broken. No one can know as you say. The only reference points we have are the following:

1, Stan was on fire
2, Stan's level had been extremely high against Novak and he had been able to sustain it over 5 sets
3, Stan's game has always been of the sort we would expect to give Rafa fits (if he could just get some belief). Huge hitter, massive backhand etc
4, Players in the past have zoned against the Big 3 only to falter
5, There have been players who have zoned against Rafa in Melbourne and blown him away

Question.. what was Stan's level in comparison to Tsonga's AO form in 2008? Personally I think it was AT LEAST as high. On this basis, I'm ok with thinking that Stan could easily have continued his performance against Rafa - particularly given his form against Novak previously. I'm not a fan of speculation, all I'm saying is that I'm comfortable believing that Stan could have maintained his form. Personally I would have liked to have seen Stan show us exactly what he can do! Rafa's injury robbed everyone of seeing something even more momentous

 

[Kieran]

You're not a fan of speculation, but since it's Rafa, eh?

 

[brokenshoelace]

3, Stan's game has always been of the sort we would expect to give Rafa fits (if he could just get some belief). Huge hitter, massive backhand etc

Absolutely 100% false. In fact, it's exactly the other way around and there's a reason Stan had never taken a set in a bazillion meetings, and for the sake of everyone's intelligence, let's not insult our readers by attributing that to "lack of belief" (Fed fans freak out, and rightly so, when Fed's dominance is justified with his rivals' lack of belief).

Nadal is in fact, a nightmare match up with Wawrinka. A guy who doesn't move too well, who stands miles behind the baseline and hits a one-handed backhand...You see where I'm going with this? That is not to say that Stan has no weapons to trouble Nadal, but then again, so does Berdych. These are professional top 10 tennis players, of course they have weapons (including the ones you mentioned). But as far as match-ups go, it's Nadal who's a bad match-up for Wawrinka both in theory and practice.

5, There have been players who have zoned against Rafa in Melbourne and blown him away

Yeah, the last of which happening 6 years ago, when Nadal had just reached his first ever hard court semi. Not exactly relevant to the current times. When was the last time Nadal was blown out in hard court major? I'll answer: Del Potro in 2009. Again, a long ass time ago.

Question.. what was Stan's level in comparison to Tsonga's AO form in 2008? Personally I think it was AT LEAST as high. On this basis, I'm ok with thinking that Stan could easily have continued his performance against Rafa - particularly given his form against Novak previously

Definitely not as high. People forget. The highlights all over youtube. Tsonga was playing inhuman tennis. Wawrinka was playing phenomenal tennis, but within himself (which in some ways is more impressive, don't get me wrong).

The logic above is faulty too. You're saying: Since someone was able to do it 6 years prior, then another would probably have been able to do it. Different matches, different players, different conditions, different scenarios.

To be clear, I quoted the above parts of your post because that's what I disagree with. I agree on the rest.

 

[Federberg]

^That's fair enough. It's opinions after all As impressive as Joe-Willy was I found Stan to be more so. I seem to recall Rafa being blasted at Wimbledon not so long ago. The point is... it can happen. It's happened before, there's precedent. Stan's form against Novak is the decisive issue for me. It gives his form credibility, this was on another level to what Joe-Willy was able to do. Listen.. at the end of the day I'm not saying Stan would have blown Rafa away if Rafa hadn't been hobbled - that would be too speculative. I'm just saying that his level of play, his demonstrated ability to sustain a high level of play, and his tactics in the first set showing that he'd found the formula to combat Rafa, makes me very comfortable with the idea that he wouldn't have fallen away. Just my opinion

 

[brokenshoelace]

^That's fair enough. It's opinions after all As impressive as Joe-Willy was I found Stan to be more so. I seem to recall Rafa being blasted at Wimbledon not so long ago. The point is... it can happen. It's happened before, there's precedent. Stan's form against Novak is the decisive issue for me. It gives his form credibility, this was on another level to what Joe-Willy was able to do. Listen.. at the end of the day I'm not saying Stan would have blown Rafa away if Rafa hadn't been hobbled - that would be too speculative. I'm just saying that his level of play, his demonstrated ability to sustain a high level of play, and his tactics in the first set showing that he'd found the formula to combat Rafa, makes me very comfortable with the idea that he wouldn't have fallen away. Just my opinion

Yes, Nadal did get "blasted" (by playing like crap, but whatever) at Wimbledon last year, but there's a reason I asked: When was the last time Nadal got blown out in a HARD COURT major. Wimbledon is still played on grass, thankfully (or green clay depending on who you ask).

Wawrinka's form didn't need credibility since being in a major final was credible enough. And unlike Tsonga in 2008, he hadn't just popped out of nowhere. He was a top 10 player.

I have no problem with anyone saying Wawrinka could have sustained that level. He absolutely could have. I have a problem with people having a problem with those of us saying Nadal could have made a come back (and people making up stuff such as "everyone said Nadal would have won if he hadn't gotten injured *coughGMScough*).

But again, implying that a match was done at 6-3 2-0, which was what many did, in a slam final, against Rafel Nadal, is absolute lunacy, and I would have liked to see people being so confident while the match was taking place before Nadal's injury.

 

[the AntiPusher]

^That's fair enough. It's opinions after all As impressive as Joe-Willy was I found Stan to be more so. I seem to recall Rafa being blasted at Wimbledon not so long ago. The point is... it can happen. It's happened before, there's precedent. Stan's form against Novak is the decisive issue for me. It gives his form credibility, this was on another level to what Joe-Willy was able to do. Listen.. at the end of the day I'm not saying Stan would have blown Rafa away if Rafa hadn't been hobbled - that would be too speculative. I'm just saying that his level of play, his demonstrated ability to sustain a high level of play, and his tactics in the first set showing that he'd found the formula to combat Rafa, makes me very comfortable with the idea that he wouldn't have fallen away. Just my opinion

Yes, Nadal did get "blasted" (by playing like crap, but whatever) at Wimbledon last year, but there's a reason I asked: When was the last time Nadal got blown out in a HARD COURT major. Wimbledon is still played on grass, thankfully (or green clay depending on who you ask).

Wawrinka's form didn't need credibility since being in a major final was credible enough. And unlike Tsonga in 2008, he hadn't just popped out of nowhere. He was a top 10 player.

I have no problem with anyone saying Wawrinka could have sustained that level. He absolutely could have. I have a problem with people having a problem with those of us saying Nadal could have made a come back (and people making up stuff such as "everyone said Nadal would have won if he hadn't gotten injured *coughGMScough*).

But again, implying that a match was done at 6-3 2-0, which was what many did, in a slam final, against Rafel Nadal, is absolute lunacy, and I would have liked to see people being so confident while the match was taking place before Nadal's injury.

BS, I dont have to read this entire chain of threads to understand the basis premise of all this new found Stan admiration.. Stan stop Rafa from obtaining number 14.. Stan was the Fed fans last hope, someone other than Djoker that could stop the Nadal express. Their prayers were answered and congrats to them. However, This Aint Over.:clap

 

[Federberg]

^That's fair enough. It's opinions after all As impressive as Joe-Willy was I found Stan to be more so. I seem to recall Rafa being blasted at Wimbledon not so long ago. The point is... it can happen. It's happened before, there's precedent. Stan's form against Novak is the decisive issue for me. It gives his form credibility, this was on another level to what Joe-Willy was able to do. Listen.. at the end of the day I'm not saying Stan would have blown Rafa away if Rafa hadn't been hobbled - that would be too speculative. I'm just saying that his level of play, his demonstrated ability to sustain a high level of play, and his tactics in the first set showing that he'd found the formula to combat Rafa, makes me very comfortable with the idea that he wouldn't have fallen away. Just my opinion

Yes, Nadal did get "blasted" (by playing like crap, but whatever) at Wimbledon last year, but there's a reason I asked: When was the last time Nadal got blown out in a HARD COURT major. Wimbledon is still played on grass, thankfully (or green clay depending on who you ask).

Wawrinka's form didn't need credibility since being in a major final was credible enough. And unlike Tsonga in 2008, he hadn't just popped out of nowhere. He was a top 10 player.

I have no problem with anyone saying Wawrinka could have sustained that level. He absolutely could have. I have a problem with people having a problem with those of us saying Nadal could have made a come back (and people making up stuff such as "everyone said Nadal would have won if he hadn't gotten injured *coughGMScough*).

But again, implying that a match was done at 6-3 2-0, which was what many did, in a slam final, against Rafel Nadal, is absolute lunacy, and I would have liked to see people being so confident while the match was taking place before Nadal's injury.

Ah! Then you have no disagreement from me at least. I don't understand why anyone would say that Rafa couldn't have made a comeback. Anyone of the Big 4 have been known to make stirring comebacks. I do take some issue with your little aside about Rafa playing like crap at Wimbledon though :blush: As to other folks taking issue with comments about Rafa's injury... there are Rafa fans on this forum who think they're clever and take any opportunity given to trivialize Stan's performance. Don't be surprised when people hit back. It's classless really.. but it's reaping what they sow. I'm by no means saying you've done that by the way. It's funny how things go though... given Rafa's performance since the AO, I for one would have much more confidence now in a similar upset. Suddenly it's like Roger in 2008. Maybe Bodo has a point with his champions fatigue article

 

[Kieran]

Broken - spot on! :clap

 

[brokenshoelace]

The thing about Nadal is, more than any other player, he's capable of winning while getting outplayed, or dictated from the baseline. Problem solving, finding a way, tactical adjustments, willing himself, etc... We've seen Nadal do that time and time again.

Moreover, tennis is a sport with pretty small margins. Nadal was not playing bad in that final before the injury (not to say he was playing great, but he seemed one gear away from playing pretty good), so it's not like it was a Nishikori situation where he was playing dreadful. It just happened that Stan was on fire in that first set.

However, as I said, margins are so small. In other words, a 5% drop in first serve percentage by Stan in the second set could make a huge difference (and it's not such a preposterous proposition). Keep in mind, with the exception of the game where he got broken in the first set (which was facilitated by awful shot selection on that drop shot), Nadal was holding serve fine, and had 3 break points on Stan's serve before messing up all 3 second serve returns. That's partially why I took issue with the Tsonga comparisons, since in that match, Nadal wasn't getting a sniff.

So, just a little bit less great serving from Stan, or a few unforced errors that plant a doubt in his head and all of a sudden you could have seen different rally dynamics, or Nadal getting a crucial break and hanging on, or any other hypothetical. That's tennis, and we've seen it countless of times.

Again, all of this isn't meant as speculation, since that's pointless. Nor is it an attempt at re-writing history. What happened happened, and Stan was absolutely a DESERVED WINNER. It's just that, getting back to the narratives that emerged back then, it was hardly blasphemous to talk about how unfortunate Nadal's injury was for his chances of winning the match (that's the part that bugs me the most: The endless speeches and criticism we received for even mentioning that).

I'll close out my thoughts with this:

Australian Open 2012. Rafael Nadal playing against the man who, back then, owned his soul. The number 1 player in the world, and winner of 3 out of the last 4 slams. Third set, Novak Djokovic absolutely massacres Nadal to take it 6-2 and lead two sets to one in what was, in that set, an outrageous display of tennis from Novak's end. Now, pause right there: How many of you thought "this match is over?" I know I did. There was no way Nadal was going to find a way back, being so thoroughly outplayed, against a multiple time grand slam winner, a world number 1, and a man with a 6-0 record against him in their last 6 meetings. And yet, had it not been for an uncharacteristic 5th set choke, Nadal almost won that match. And he certainly came back in that 4th set and won it against all odds.

My point? If Nadal can do that against Novak Djokovic given all the circumstances back then, he probably had a decent chance of doing it against a man playing his first major final, who happened to lose to Nadal then 10 previous times they played, without ever taking a set. But, to use my own logic: Different matches, different opponents, different circumstances

 

[britbox]

Nadal is definitely the favourite for Roland Garros in my eyes... in so much that I'd favour his chances above any other particular individual.

But... do I favour him above the combined chances of every other player in the field? Maybe less so than other years based on what we've seen to date. Somebody might take him out... but somebody right now is an unnamed individual who you can't name as a favourite.

Based on what we've seen so far this year Rafa appears more vulnerable than I've seen in a long time.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I do take some issue with your little aside about Rafa playing like crap at Wimbledon though :blush:

Why? Even non-Nadal fans seemed to think that way. I'm talking about the Darcis match to be clear, not Rosol.

 

[Federberg]

^I completely agree with you. By the way, I never feel that Rafa's lost a match until it's over. He absolutely terrifies me! I'm never comfortable until they're at the net

"so it's not like it was a Nishikori situation where he was playing dreadful" Hmmm... be careful! You're starting to sound as uncharitable as some of us Fed fans on the rare occasions that he lost. It's perfectly understandable for both Rafa and Fed fans, we've been thoroughly spoiled, but sometimes the opposition just doesn't let our guys play their game

 

[Kieran]

I'm currently watching Federer-Baghdatis Australian Open final of 2006, on YouTube.

Federer is down a set, and 0-2 in the second. He's staving off break points in the third game.

Obviously, there's no way he's going to win this one. :nono

Nadal is definitely the favourite for Roland Garros in my eyes... in so much that I'd favour his chances above any other particular individual.

But... do I favour him above the combined chances of every other player in the field? Maybe less so than other years based on what we've seen to date. Somebody might take him out... but somebody right now is an unnamed individual who you can't name as a favourite.

Based on what we've seen so far this year Rafa appears more vulnerable than I've seen in a long time.

This is true, buddy. He's looking lightly burned around the edges and players sense this, and are having a go. It's great for tennis, but not for us Rafa fans. In a different way, he looks as vulnerable as he did in 2011, except this time it isn't one man who's tormenting him, and he isn't playing as well as he did back then, either...

 

[Federberg]

I do take some issue with your little aside about Rafa playing like crap at Wimbledon though :blush:

Why? Even non-Nadal fans seemed to think that way. I'm talking about the Darcis match to be clear, not Rosol.

No argument with that. He was playing just fine against Rosol though...

 

[Riotbeard]

Nadal is definitely the favourite for Roland Garros in my eyes... in so much that I'd favour his chances above any other particular individual.

But... do I favour him above the combined chances of every other player in the field? Maybe less so than other years based on what we've seen to date. Somebody might take him out... but somebody right now is an unnamed individual who you can't name as a favourite.

Based on what we've seen so far this year Rafa appears more vulnerable than I've seen in a long time.

Well said. Rafa is pretty much the auto-favorite until he retires, but he definitely looks more vulnerable than in the past.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^I completely agree with you. By the way, I never feel that Rafa's lost a match until it's over. He absolutely terrifies me! I'm never comfortable until they're at the net

"so it's not like it was a Nishikori situation where he was playing dreadful" Hmmm... be careful! You're starting to sound as uncharitable as some of us Fed fans on the rare occasions that he lost. It's perfectly understandable for both Rafa and Fed fans, we've been thoroughly spoiled, but sometimes the opposition just doesn't let our guys play their game

I'd buy the argument that there was nothing Nadal could do against Kei, and that it was all about the Japanese' play, if Rafa hadn't been awful for a few months now. This was clearly a below par Nadal playing against a top form Nishikori (the two aren't mutually exclusive), who fully outplayed Nadal. Unless the greatest clay courter of all time was just displaying his usual level, in which case I'd wonder what the fuss surrounding his career is all about...and how on earth he managed to win those 8 FO trophies.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There continues to be this odd, hard-to-wrap-my-head-around logic that it's just disrespectful to the opponent to mention that a player was playing poorly. I mean I now apparently sound like an apologist if I state that Nadal didn't play well against Nishikori, which, if you go back a few pages in this very thread while the match was unfolding, was pretty much all everyone was talking about.

Sometimes a player does not play well. It happens. There's nothing wrong with pointing it out. And sometimes, his opponent plays well and forces him to play even poorer.

 

[Federberg]

^I completely agree with you. By the way, I never feel that Rafa's lost a match until it's over. He absolutely terrifies me! I'm never comfortable until they're at the net

"so it's not like it was a Nishikori situation where he was playing dreadful" Hmmm... be careful! You're starting to sound as uncharitable as some of us Fed fans on the rare occasions that he lost. It's perfectly understandable for both Rafa and Fed fans, we've been thoroughly spoiled, but sometimes the opposition just doesn't let our guys play their game

I'd buy the argument that there was nothing Nadal could do against Kei, and that it was all about the Japanese' play, if Rafa hadn't been awful for a few months now. This was clearly a below par Nadal playing against a top form Nishikori (the two aren't mutually exclusive), who fully outplayed Nadal. Unless the greatest clay courter of all time was just displaying his usual level, in which case I'd wonder what the fuss surrounding his career is all about...and how on earth he managed to win those 8 FO trophies.

Yup. That's my point really... at some point Roger was not able to consistently able to access his best level anymore. It's up to all of us as fans to adjust to a new reality (if that's the situation in this case, and I'm not saying it is, we only ever know in 20-20 hindsight)

 

[Federberg]

There continues to be this odd, hard-to-wrap-my-head-around logic that it's just disrespectful to the opponent to mention that a player was playing poorly. I mean I now apparently sound like an apologist if I state that Nadal didn't play well against Nishikori, which, if you go back a few pages in this very thread while the match was unfolding, was pretty much all everyone was talking about.

Sometimes a player does not play well. It happens. There's nothing wrong with pointing it out. And sometimes, his opponent plays well and forces him to play even poorer.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just cautiously warning you that you may now be in the same situation us Fedfans have been in. Just trying to give you the benefit of our experience :snigger

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Nadal is definitely the favourite for Roland Garros in my eyes... in so much that I'd favour his chances above any other particular individual.

But... do I favour him above the combined chances of every other player in the field? Maybe less so than other years based on what we've seen to date. Somebody might take him out... but somebody right now is an unnamed individual who you can't name as a favourite.

Based on what we've seen so far this year Rafa appears more vulnerable than I've seen in a long time.

I too think Rafa will be taken out (assuming he is taken out) by some unexpected surprise
player rather than a player that conventional wisdom suggest.