nadaLIVc - Rome Final Poll

[The_Grand_Slam]

If you think that Nadal featuring in a Major is an "anomaly," and that his reaching the SFs last year doesn't make him a force to be reckoned with, I think you are guilty of underestimating him. Some poor results at Wimbledon notwithstanding, it's not like we're talking about any mid-grade player on the tour who's had the odd decent result on grass.

I just don't think he's amongst the top favorites on grass (is that really underestimating him?)
IMO many top guys can beat him there and the decent grass-courters will also fancy their chances especially in week 1.

The seeds in his section(first week draw) last year were schwartzman,fognini,cecchinato.
The hot weather conditions at last years Wimbledon were well-reported(other beneficiary of this was Isner).

 

[Moxie]

I just don't think he's amongst the top favorites on grass (is that really underestimating him?)
IMO many top guys can beat him there and the decent grass-courters will also fancy their chances especially in week 1.

The seeds in his section(first week draw) last year were schwartzman,fognini,cecchinato.
The hot weather conditions at last years Wimbledon were well-reported(other beneficiary of this was Isner).

I'd be interested if you could name more than 2-3 that you think have a better chance at Wimbledon and defend it. I know he's not the favorite, or amongst the top 2, but he's a great champion and has won twice. Now there's not even a Murray. Yes, I think you underestimate him.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

I'd be interested if you could name more than 2-3 that you think have a better chance at Wimbledon and defend it. I know he's not the favorite, or amongst the top, but he's a great champion and has won twice. Yes, I think you underestimate him.

You mean as a contender to win or guys who can beat him?
Djokovic
Federer
Cilic
Raonic
Anderson
Medvedev
Tsitsipas
Kyrgios
JMDP
Berdych
(Forgetting many names here and not sure about fitness issues)
are all guys who can beat him
Of course winning is different since the seeding favors the higher ranked players get easy draws a luxury which the lower seeds don't have.

Since his 2011 final run his only good win on grass was JMDP last year(who was running on fumes hence got burned by multiple dropshots in the final set) which was in five sets. Sure, he can came close to defeating Djokovic(but he was far from his best -struggled against Nishikori for like 2 and half sets).

Anyway lets agree to disagree and stop derailing this thread with this off-topic stuff.

 

[lob]

I love it. You've been saying it for years...I can't think of a reason he shouldn't win Wimbledon this year especially with Djoker looking more 2017 than 2015. And he knows the legacy is on the line if one of his two closest wins RG. That will get the motivation back where it needs to be.

I can think of 10 reasons but I'll give three.

1. He's 38. It's a best of 5 tournament. A small physical issue is all it takes. Or a couple of 5 setters.
2. His vulnerability to big hitters on fire. Berdych, Tsonga, Raonic, Anderson.
3. Record against Djokovic and to a lesser extent Nadal. On grass.

Note that these are somewhat independent. He has to get really lucky. I'd love to be proven wrong by you but I don't just see what it is that makes you so optimistic.

 

[Moxie]

You mean as a contender to win or guys who can beat him?
Djokovic
Federer
Cilic
Raonic
Anderson
Medvedev
Tsitsipas
Kyrgios
JMDP
Berdych
(Forgetting many names here and not sure about fitness issues)
are all guys who can beat him
Of course winning is different since the seeding favors the higher ranked players get easy draws a luxury which the lower seeds don't have.

Since his 2011 final run his only good win on grass was JMDP last year(who was running on fumes hence got burned by multiple dropshots in the final set) which was in five sets. Sure, he can came close to defeating Djokovic(but he was far from his best -struggled against Nishikori for like 2 and half sets).

Anyway lets agree to disagree and stop derailing this thread with this off-topic stuff.

I think I've conceded Djokovic and Federer as favorites. You seem to forget that Berdych lost to Nadal in the 2010 final. Sure, some of the others are options for upsets, but not that great, some, you have to agree. Raonic? Don't make me laugh.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree and leave this thread to what is left of it, but note that we weren't the ones that derailed it.

 

[DarthFed]

I can think of 10 reasons but I'll give three.

1. He's 38. It's a best of 5 tournament. A small physical issue is all it takes. Or a couple of 5 setters.
2. His vulnerability to big hitters on fire. Berdych, Tsonga, Raonic, Anderson.
3. Record against Djokovic and to a lesser extent Nadal. On grass.

Note that these are somewhat independent. He has to get really lucky. I'd love to be proven wrong by you but I don't just see what it is that makes you so optimistic.

Age is the only one as that is why he is no longer the overwhelming favorite to win year after year. Roger was the favorite going in last time with a seemingly awful Novak not on the radar and Fed choked against a 3rd tier guy. Novak isn't currently awful but he's also not looking great. I guess lets see where they are at in a month. But 9 would at least be decent, make up for one of the disaster losses in finals.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There's an argument that it doesn't. These roofs are fairly new, and a standard for decisions about how and when to employ them has not been established. At least a few sports writers on tennis/espn thought that not opening the roof on day 2 of that match was controversial, and leaving the choice essentially to Djokovic didn't really make sense. It is an outdoor tournament, after all. Another choice they could have made was not starting it at all, knowing that it wouldn't finish by curfew. However, on the Saturday, basically a lovely summer English day, they forced the crowd to sit in what was essentially a terrarium because they felt that the same conditions should apply unless both players agreed, and Djokovic, no dummy, didn't agree. I get called out for partisanship on this opinion, but I don't think I'm just arguing Rafa's case in this one match: in an outdoor tournament, the roof should be employed when necessary, and be opened when conditions allow. I don't think that opinion is either controversial or biased.

Whether the rule that existed was not a sound one or not is not the issue here. You simply cannot change the rules in the middle of the tourney. That was the rule that existed at that time. It may get changed in the future. There was no conspiracy here.

 

[the AntiPusher]

The entire match has to be played in the same conditions at which it started (unless both players agree otherwise).

That's a bunch of BS..The USO, RG or AO don't have such a dumbass decision..as for both players being in agreement ..how can one player determine the conditions..the indoor championship is in November not late June or July.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Yep he played his butt off on a "grass" surface that allows him to kick the ball up shoulder height with a much slower bounce than any other grass court on tour. And he still couldn't beat a crap version of Novak. Rafa would have zero Wimbledons if the grass played like it's supposed to play and we all know that.

What do you mean grass is played like it supposed to be.. Wimbledon changed the freaking grass texture not the players.. everyone who liked your post is are neanderthals and are totally spineless to co sign such hipocrisy.

 

[Moxie]

Whether the rule that existed was not a sound one or not is not the issue here. You simply cannot change the rules in the middle of the tourney. That was the rule that existed at that time. It may get changed in the future. There was no conspiracy here.

No one says their was a conspiracy. Just a question of if the rule is good, as it exists. I've argued it's not. Doesn't change the outcome of that match, though. It is what it is.

 

[Moxie]

That's a bunch of BS..The USO, RG or AO don't have such a dumbass decision..as for both players being in agreement ..how can one player determine the conditions..the indoor championship is in November not late June or July.

This isn't exactly correct. Firstly, RG has no rooves, so that's a moot point. The USO and AO don't have curfews so even if they close a roof, they don't have to stop a match due to lateness, so they can go on as long as they want. I have no idea if they have a rule for reopening the roof, or not, once it has been closed. Anecdotally, I think they don't reopen them. The Wimbledon situation is unique, in that they have to stop at 11pm (is it?) The Djokovic/Nadal match started late enough, IIRC, that it was unlikely to finish that night. Rain wasn't falling, but was forecast, so they shut the roof, preemptively. Also a point to be argued. I don't think they've had to face this situation since they got a roof, although they have a rule for it. Certainly not in a SF. They may have realized that it doesn't work so well in practice. The rule is that they have the same circumstances the next day, unless both players agree to reopen the roof. But, given that they have a curfew, in open-air play, there is nothing that guarantees the same circumstances the next day, when you're not dealing with a roof. The previous evening could be cool and heavy, the next day warm and fast. So why does the rule for the roof have to make for similar circumstances? Making it odder, the women's final was played with the roof open, since it was a lovely day, and then the roof was closed, because Djokovic wouldn't agree to have it open. One can see how they might have made the rule, but does that seem, in practice, like a reasonable way to proceed? I think not.

 

[don_fabio]

This isn't exactly correct. Firstly, RG has no rooves, so that's a moot point. The USO and AO don't have curfews so even if they close a roof, they don't have to stop a match due to lateness, so they can go on as long as they want. I have no idea if they have a rule for reopening the roof, or not, once it has been closed. Anecdotally, I think they don't reopen them. The Wimbledon situation is unique, in that they have to stop at 11pm (is it?) The Djokovic/Nadal match started late enough, IIRC, that it was unlikely to finish that night. Rain wasn't falling, but was forecast, so they shut the roof, preemptively. Also a point to be argued. I don't think they've had to face this situation since they got a roof, although they have a rule for it. Certainly not in a SF. They may have realized that it doesn't work so well in practice. The rule is that they have the same circumstances the next day, unless both players agree to reopen the roof. But, given that they have a curfew, in open-air play, there is nothing that guarantees the same circumstances the next day, when you're not dealing with a roof. The previous evening could be cool and heavy, the next day warm and fast. So why does the rule for the roof have to make for similar circumstances? Making it odder, the women's final was played with the roof open, since it was a lovely day, and then the roof was closed, because Djokovic wouldn't agree to have it open. One can see how they might have made the rule, but does that seem, in practice, like a reasonable way to proceed? I think not.

After the match finished I was under impression that it was decided by one point only. Nadal went to the net and Novak made a passing shot (BPs, Nadal to serve for the match). Match could go either way easily.

Agree that a decision to keep the roof is controversial at some degree. Why even leave such a decision to the players. What they have to do with that? Even if it starts raining, it's not a big deal to close it. We have a small break so what?

I remember in 12 AO final they just closed it when it started raining. Nowadays if there is like 20% chance for some rain they close the damn thing before the match. Was AO 18 Fed-Cilic played under the roof the whole match? Let the players deal with the outside conditions, that was always a part of the sport. Now organizers treat them like some primadonnas switching on the air conditioning. I want players to deal with weather and piss blood for those millions of $ they get.

 

[atttomole]

Why are Nadal fans so bothered about the roof being closed when that match restarted? Honestly, it makes them look desperate for a Nadal win at Wimbledon.

 

[Moxie]

Why are Nadal fans so bothered about the roof being closed when that match restarted? Honestly, it makes them look desperate for a Nadal win at Wimbledon.

I don't see how one thing follows another. That match is over. My only point is a general one (and I don't think it's so much "Nadal fans" as me that has made the point,) is that it's an outdoor tournament. If they come back the next day, they should decide about the roof based on the weather.

 

[Carol]

Why are Nadal fans so bothered about the roof being closed when that match restarted? Honestly, it makes them look desperate for a Nadal win at Wimbledon.

Because that was very irreverent and out of context, the roof is only for the rain unless it’s a INDOOR tournament
And yes, we’d love that Rafa would win his third title in Wimbledon like you do with Federer, something wrong with it?

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

that rule has been dumped now..if next day is dry the roof is open. players do not have a say anymore.

 

[tented]

that rule has been dumped now..if next day is dry the roof is open. players do not have a say anymore.

It took them a while, but they finally got there.

 

[Fiero425]

It took them a while, but they finally got there.

I'll give it to the Rafa fans! They got hosed since Isner/Anderson went on forever and into the night! Rafa's match didn't start until late under the roof so it was to Nole's advantage to vote keeping it shut the next day! I've seen one player screwed over the rules with the roof before! I have faint memory of Hingis in an AO final against Capriati in 2002 and the players were given the option to close the roof due to the heat! Jennifer knowing her stamina was better nixed idea to shut it down to air condition the place and give away that advantage to a kid! Everyone's working the system! :whistle: :cuckoo:

 

[Moxie]

that rule has been dumped now..if next day is dry the roof is open. players do not have a say anymore.

Thank you for posting this. I have been accused of just being biased around here when I have argued that it was a ridiculous rule. IIRC, they played the women's final with the roof open, on a perfectly fine summer's day, and then they closed it to finish the men's semi. I'm sure it must have looked like a good idea when they wrote it down on paper, but when they saw it play out in practice, they could see how ludicrous it was.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Thank you for posting this. I have been accused of just being biased around here when I have argued that it was a ridiculous rule. IIRC, they played the women's final with the roof open, on a perfectly fine summer's day, and then they closed it to finish the men's semi. I'm sure it must have looked like a good idea when they wrote it down on paper, but when they saw it play out in practice, they could see how ludicrous it was.

ye..total mess. for some reason they got fixated on playing the whole of whatever match in conditions they started in unless a change is ok with both players..on sat djoko said roof closed please.

its the same with the 11pm finish under roof..the way they carry on its as if thermonuclear war will break out with the local council if any match sneaks past 11pm.

still,,we got the f,o chatrier court roof to enjoy first anyway.