Moxie629 said:
^Your most recent was referring to the final in AO which I was responding to, and no need to shout.
:snigger
Look - my argument is simple, and it is entirely fair. Kieran asserts that Nadal was very unfortunate to hurt his back against Wawrinka, considering the prior history between Nadal and Wawrinka. I agree with him there. I don't attribute the first set of the final to Nadal's injury, because Nadal would have beaten many players with that level, and truth be told, Wawrinka was playing at a better level than he had ever brought against Nadal before. This was the tournament of his life. That said, I agree with Kieran that Wawrinka would have dealt with a whole different animal in trying to close out the match if Nadal did not injure his back early in the second set. Nadal may very well have come back, and at the very least, he would have forced Wawrinka to dig deep much like Djokovic did in the quarterfinal.
Having conceded that, I don't know why it is so impossible for you or Kieran to candidly acknowledge that Nadal was VERY fortunate to get past the quarterfinals. Dimitrov outplayed him for the better part of the first 3 sets, and he should have taken the 3rd set tiebreaker. He missed two wide open straightforward forehands, one on set point, that were two of the easier shots presented to him over the course of the match. This is simply the reality.
The closest acknowledgement to this that I have seen from a Nadal fan on the board was from Broken (but it was only implied and he of course connected it to his comically absurd statement that "if Nadal plays like this against Federer, he LOSES!!!!!" - as if that would ever happen, or as if Nadal's tournament runs off of clay are about his level more than a) his opponents' level and b) the way that Nadal's game parasitically undermines his opposition). Broken at least pointed out that Nadal was not very impressive in the quarterfinal match. He felt that Nadal was just off and playing poorly, while I felt that Dimitrov was simply putting him on his back foot and making him deal with things he can't handle. Either way, at least there was some acknowledgement there that Nadal was not steamrolling the competition. For you and Kieran apparently, the Dimitrov win was some kind of characteristically impressive "domination" by Nadal en route to another Slam title, if only injury doesn't bother him. I find that to be absurd.
To make this simple - if you say that Nadal was unfortunate to hurt his back in the second set of the final, I agree. If you say that Wawrinka would have dealt with a whole different animal trying to win 3 sets had Nadal not gotten hurt, I agree. But if you can't acknowledge that Nadal himself was VERY FORTUNATE to be in the final considering how the quarterfinal match went, then I find your refusal to be ridiculous.
Moxie629 said:
Also, it's a typical gambit of yours to go back to a match that Rafa won which you believe he was "lucky to," so I don't feel inclined to respond to that.
Well, unfortunately, it is directly tied to how we perceive Nadal's run in Melbourne in 2014, and in fact it was the first thing that I brought up in my response to Kieran, which has initiated our exchange. Again - if Kieran is going to say Nadal was unfortunate to hurt his back in the final, then I am going to say - with equal justification - that Nadal was FORTUNATE to win the quarterfinal match against Dimitrov.
Moxie629 said:
Neither do I whine or moan over the fact that Nadal's back got lame in the AO final, it's simply a fact.
It is a fact. But what I am concerned with is the interpretation.
Kieran basically looks at Wawrinka's win in the Melbourne final as a fluke and something that never would have happened against a fully healthy Nadal. So he kind of sees it as a Nadal Slam title that just isn't official. Well, by looking at things that way, he is zoning in on just one match - the final. To block out the quarterfinal in such a consideration is astonishingly oblivious.
Moxie629 said:
But I don't say he would have won it otherwise.
Kieran does, and if he can say that, I can just as easily say that Dimitrov wins the quarterfinal if he makes the wide open, put-away forehand on set point in the third.
Moxie629 said:
Stan was always in fine form that day, and had a game plan for Nadal.
Yes, he did, but I agree with Kieran that Wawrinka would have had his hands much more full trying to close out Nadal if Nadal was healthy from set 2 onward. But I also agree with you that Wawrinka could have won that match anyway. It's hard to tell.
Moxie629 said:
Nadal beat Djokovic and Federer respectively in Canada and Cincinnati last year, fair and square.
:laydownlaughing I am not accusing him of cheating. LOL. I never said that he didn't win "fair and square".
What I said was that to win a significant hardcourt event, Nadal needs at least 1 or 2 of the top players to be seriously off their game or underperforming in that tournament. I stand by that assertion.
Federer's quarterfinal loss to Nadal in Cincinnati was on his racket for the most part, and it was a match he would have won quite easily if he had utilized the down-the-line forehand at all until falling behind a double break in the third (when he unleashed a string of winners by opening the match up). Djokovic was mightily off his game in the Montreal match, particularly early in the first set when he hit multiple double faults. In the US Open final, I would rather not comment on Djokovic's torpid first set, and it pains me to think of how he gave up his 3rd set edge as much as it pains Kieran to think of that back injury in set 2 against Wawrinka.
Moxie629 said:
Just because you say that we all would agree that Novak is generally the better HC player doesn't mean he will or "should" win on any given day.
Let's make a generous comparison to Nadal (much too generous actually) - let's go with the Murray-Federer hardcourt series. Murray has beaten Federer a number of times on hardcourts and they have had numerous battles over the years. But in the Slam finals, Federer has come to play and simply imposed his superiority. Likewise, Nadal has given Djokovic a decent bit of trouble on hardcourts over the years and beaten him a few times (even though Djokovic is very solidly ahead in the hardcourt H2H). Yet, out of three US Open finals, Nadal is 2-1. Are you kidding me? If that was the final of Toronto or something, I could mildly understand - but the US Open? The world is entirely flipped on its head for Rafael Nadal to have more titles than Novak Djokovic at the US Open. It is absurd. The fact that the US Open plays faster (which is to Nadal's advantage against Djokovic) is immaterial to me. Djokovic should still win convincingly every time against him at Flushing Meadows. There is just no good excuse.
Moxie629 said:
Nadal has long been a very good HC player, and has made himself a better one.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether he had any business beating Djokovic in two US Open finals.
Moxie629 said:
The matches have to be played to see who will win.
Yes, and if you saw the last three Djokovic-Nadal matches, you would have seen Djokovic win in straight sets each time.
Moxie629 said:
As to "asterisks," you seem to want to put one after every match that Nadal has won off of clay.
Not quite that extreme, but when it comes to his hardcourt Slams, absolutely. I believe he won the Australian Open in 2009 by parasitically feeding off of Federer's flaws and causing him to self-destruct. The 2013 US Open final was one of the worst losses of Djokovic's career and has to be one that stings the most in the sense of being a match he knows he should have won. The 2010 US Open final was Nadal's most impressive of the three - strictly in terms of level compared to his opponent on that day - but I still believe that Djokovic gave that one away as well to a large degree, while also acknowledging that Nadal did jump on him in many of the rallies and was playing very well that day.
All that said, I do stand by saying that Federer's 2009 RG win most certainly has an asterisk in the minds of knowledgeable tennis fans because Federer's record against Nadal, especially on clay, is the great failing of his career. Had he beaten Nadal on clay in any match other than two where Nadal was a jaded shell of himself (2007 Hamburg and 2009 Madrid), I might be able to give some credence to the idea that he would have won 2009 even with Nadal in the draw. But there is no such evidence except possibly the 2006 Rome final, which was soon followed by a rather straightforward 4-set victory for Nadal one month later in Paris. Federer's performance against Nadal on clay was often pitiful underachieving and I don't see how someone can avoid recognizing that when viewing his 2009 victory in a broader context. If you just want to say that Federer played great against who he had to play, fine. But if you want to make connections and discuss legacies, you can't avoid the Nadal specter. Federer really had no good matches against a healthy Nadal on clay except the 2006 Rome final. And they have played more than a handful of them. Federer had his chances.
