OK, Rafapologists, what's the excuse this time?

[Kieran]

Maybe he lost to avoid to face Stan the Man again ? After al,l Stan is the new court's terror, he beat a lot of top 10 players this season and nobody wants to face him when he's in

Are you sure you don't want to delete this one? Rafa, on clay - or anywhere - avoid someone? :nono

Not between 2005 and 2013 but today ?? He's no more unbeatable on clay, maybe Madrid, Roma and RG'll bring us another surprises....wait and see but I guess his domination on clay could be over

We'll see, indeed. But what has this to do with avoiding somebody? Why would he do that?

 

[calitennis127]

Hey Cali,

You don't read short posts, but I must admit, I don't read long posts: mea maxima culpa. But I did read this:

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.

Now, why don't you help me out here, please, by showing where I said any of this? Thanks!

And don't take the Ricardo route, where he lies through his teeth for about seven posts while he wriggles for an answer, and then finally admits that "you didn't say it, but that's what you meant," or words to that effect. If I mean it, I'll say it, so you should have no difficulty with this, especially since you seemed to be quoting me.

Cheers!

Kieran - I do not have a direct quote, but I have a huge backdrop of awareness for how you think, having read thousands of your posts. I also can say definitively that I have not once seen you mention the Dimitrov match as any kind of caveat to Nadal's misfortune in the final. I find that to be rather biased of you.

 

[calitennis127]

As for Nadal's level in the first set against Stan, you're daydreaming if you think it would beat most players. Look at the final game of that set: Stan served at 0-40, didn't manage a single first serve and Rafa bunched the returns on all three second serves. Didn't even get one back in play!

Kieran - shortly after Nadal's 2010 US Open run, he lost a match to Guillermo Garcia-Lopez in Thailand in which he went something like 2 for 27 on break points. He has always struggled on the return on break points.

 

[Kieran]

As for Nadal's level in the first set against Stan, you're daydreaming if you think it would beat most players. Look at the final game of that set: Stan served at 0-40, didn't manage a single first serve and Rafa bunched the returns on all three second serves. Didn't even get one back in play!

Kieran - shortly after Nadal's 2010 US Open run, he lost a match to Guillermo Garcia-Lopez in Thailand in which he went something like 2 for 27 on break points. He has always struggled on the return on break points.

Not in big matches. He's usually combative and gets stuck in. Look at the first set again: Stan was serving at 39% up to that point and Rafa didn't so much as get a single break. Remember, his level in major finals is a lot different than that match against - who did you say? - and where?

 

[Kieran]

Kieran - I do not have a direct quote, but I have a huge backdrop of awareness for how you think, having read thousands of your posts. I also can say definitively that I have not once seen you mention the Dimitrov match as any kind of caveat to Nadal's misfortune in the final. I find that to be rather biased of you.

Ah, so you took the Ricardo route. "You didn't say it, Kieran, but rather than apologise for misrepresenting you, I'll accuse you again, anyway."

Nadal winning a match where Dimi was unable to press home his chances is a caveat to Nadal being barely able to complete the final?

How? Had Dimi won the third, and he had a shot to put away and take it, who says he'd have won the fourth? You see, you want it both ways, and let me explain how: you admit that had Rafa's back not gone in the final, he'd have forced Stan to dig deep - and maybe too deep for Stan - to win the final.

But he wouldn't have forced Dimi? :s

 

[Kieran]

Why are you being such a sexist pig, implying that women should receive some kind of delicate treatment different from men?

Where did I imply that? Nobody should be abused in personal attacks, and Ricardo virtually only posts personal attacks. But he saves his particular ignorance for women posters. How is it "sexist" to find this offensive?

Shark. Jump. Cali.

 

[calitennis127]

As for Nadal's level in the first set against Stan, you're daydreaming if you think it would beat most players. Look at the final game of that set: Stan served at 0-40, didn't manage a single first serve and Rafa bunched the returns on all three second serves. Didn't even get one back in play!

Kieran - shortly after Nadal's 2010 US Open run, he lost a match to Guillermo Garcia-Lopez in Thailand in which he went something like 2 for 27 on break points. He has always struggled on the return on break points.

Not in big matches. He's usually combative and gets stuck in. Look at the first set again: Stan was serving at 39% up to that point and Rafa didn't so much as get a single break. Remember, his level in major finals is a lot different than that match against - who did you say? - and where?

Nadal has always had a penchant for missing returns on break points. This has been so widely acknowledged that I am somewhat surprised you are playing the befuddled card here.

 

[Kieran]

Nadal has always had a penchant for missing returns on break points. This has been so widely acknowledged that I am somewhat surprised you are playing the befuddled card here.

He actually doesn't, not in big matches. I'm surprised you're pushing this, it's easily checked. He has an okay record in major finals, it's nothing noteworthy, in a negative sense...

 

[tented]

Moxie, tented, Broken - I must say that I'm a bit turned off by the public shaming going on. I made a joke, you didn't like it - now give it a rest rather than hammering on me like I crucified a bunny rabbit on Easter. I'm willing to apologize if I feel like I've said or done something inappropriate or hurtful, but this was playful ribbing about sports.

Now that things have calmed down a bit, I'll address this.

Speaking for myself (although I suspect the same can be said of Broken and Moxie), my comment wasn't something that only you would have prompted. It wasn't personal, if you know what I mean. I imagine, and hope, you know that I think you're a great guy, and we all benefit from your presence. I would have responded the same to anyone who had started this poll, not just you.

Whenever anyone posts something on a public forum, he/she has to expect public responses. Some of them you'll like, and some of them you won't. We've all experienced both ends of this spectrum. However, I don't think "public shaming" is the right way to interpret it. If you did feel like that's what I was doing, then I apologize. That was absolutely not my intention.

Once again, speaking only for myself as a Rafa fan, it has become tiresome to be lumped together, and perceived as a united group of Rafapologistsâ„¢. Yes, sometimes Nadal does, indeed, lose because he's injured, such as this year's Australian Open final. But, yes, there have been many, many times when he's lost because he was outplayed: every match against Djokovic in 2011, their post-USO matches last year, the recent Miami final, the Miami final a few years ago against Davydenko, the 2007 Nalbandian matches, etc., etc. Those are just a few which quickly come to mind; by no means is it meant to be a comprehensive list. Not. Even. Close.

I realize there's the perception of Rafa and some of his fans being Rafapologistsâ„¢, but part of this is to be blamed on the media. He was clearly injured in the AO final. When he then lost to Dolgopolov in IW, the media asked him about his back. They brought it up, not him, and he responded by saying no, it wasn't his back. That's not excuse making; it's answering a question. Yet certain people somehow twist that around and call it excuse making. (But somehow some of those same individuals don't call it excuse making when Roger is asked about his back, but that's another thread. )

I also think Rafa's injuries stand out in high relief because his contemporary, his most famous rival, Roger Federer, has been virtually injury free. When you have two of the best guys ever to pick up a racquet juxtaposed, with one of them bordering on the ideal picture of health, and the other with bad knees, the differences are amplified hugely.

Anyway, I'll stop before I go way off track. I hope this is an acceptable response to you, which settles things.

 

[El Dude]

Nice response, tented - I appreciate the time and care you took in writing it. We're all good! Again, all I can say is that it wasn't my intention to offend or piss people off, just a bit of playful ribbing. I have enormous respect for Rafael Nadal who very may well be the greatest player that ever lived or, at the least, on the verge of equalling Mr. Federer himself. I feel grateful for being a tennis fan during the time Nadal was at his peak and have no beef with him or his fans, no matter how many times he slaughters my favorite player!

Also, just to be clear, I do realize that the media likes to inflate things. Whether or not Nadal is a whiner, or his fans are apologists for him is beside the point; the media has created and image whereby he "seems" to make more excuses for losses than other top players. If anything, I was making fun of that stereotype.

My general view is that we're all better off if we have a bit of lightness about all this, including having a sense of humor about our biases. Speaking as a bonafide Fedophile, that is! Every fan base has their own version of this bias, which is of course a stereotype but might have some basis in truth.

Again, I appreciate the response tented - we're all good!

Cheers,
Jonathan aka El Dude

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal has always had a penchant for missing returns on break points. This has been so widely acknowledged that I am somewhat surprised you are playing the befuddled card here.

He actually doesn't, not in big matches. I'm surprised you're pushing this, it's easily checked. He has an okay record in major finals, it's nothing noteworthy, in a negative sense...

Sorry for the late reply, Kieran, but I finally have a chance now to respond.

I find your point here to be rather disingenuous, especially in light of the Federer series.:snigger:snigger

How many matches over the years has Federer lost to Nadal because he had a zillion breakpoints and failed to convert? Think of the Wimbledon 2008 final or especially the 2007 French Open final.

For a Nadal fan - of all fans - to make a big deal of him missing a couple returns when so many of his signficant victories have come as a result of opponents missing often straightforward returns is just a tad hypocritical.

 

[calitennis127]

Kieran - I do not have a direct quote, but I have a huge backdrop of awareness for how you think, having read thousands of your posts. I also can say definitively that I have not once seen you mention the Dimitrov match as any kind of caveat to Nadal's misfortune in the final. I find that to be rather biased of you.

Ah, so you took the Ricardo route. "You didn't say it, Kieran, but rather than apologise for misrepresenting you, I'll accuse you again, anyway."

Let me make this clear - I find the fact that I have not ONCE seen you mention Nadal's good fortune in the quarterfinal as a caveat to his bad luck against Wawrinka in the final as very biased.

Nadal winning a match where Dimi was unable to press home his chances is a caveat to Nadal being barely able to complete the final?

Absolutely.

Luck is luck, in whatever form. Federer was lucky that Nadal lost to Soderling at the 2009 French Open. Nadal was lucky Dimitrov missed those straightforward put-away forehands. Federer and Nadal were each very lucky that they never dealt with a Nalbandian who maximized his potential.

Luck is luck.

How? Had Dimi won the third, and he had a shot to put away and take it, who says he'd have won the fourth?

Anyone who had a sense of how that match was going. I have watched Nadal in hundreds of matches and it is clear when he is flustered. He doesn't get flustered in any close match, but in some close matches you can tell that he feels matters are getting out of his hands. That match was one of them. He was on his back foot a good amount of the time and when he was being offensive his shots were missing quite badly.

You see, you want it both ways, and let me explain how: you admit that had Rafa's back not gone in the final, he'd have forced Stan to dig deep - and maybe too deep for Stan - to win the final.

But he wouldn't have forced Dimi? :s

He would have forced Dimitrov to earn it, no question. But I also think you are being ridiculous with that comparison in one significant respect: Dimitrov is not Nadal's peer like Wawrinka is, so the psychological dimension is entirely different. It's entirely different being 0-3 or 0-4 as a 22-year-old against someone who is 5 years older than you than it is to be 1 year older than someone and 0-12 against them, having essentially grown up losing to them from the moment you started your professional career.

Wawrinka's mountain to climb in closing out a healthy Nadal, in a final, would have been completely different and indeed much steeper than Dimitrov's in a quarterfinal match being up 2 sets to 1.

 

[calitennis127]

Why are you being such a sexist pig, implying that women should receive some kind of delicate treatment different from men?

Where did I imply that? Nobody should be abused in personal attacks, and Ricardo virtually only posts personal attacks. But he saves his particular ignorance for women posters. How is it "sexist" to find this offensive?

Shark. Jump. Cali.

Ricardo does not post "only personal attacks". Are you kidding me?:lolz:

Yes, he gets testy and snarky with people, but I have seen him in numerous dialogues about tennis issues in which he stayed on point and discussed the matters at hand.

As for sexism, I am strictly making a philosophical point. If women are equal to men, then we shouldn't treat rudeness toward women as any different than rudeness toward men. This is simply a logical corollary to the basic tenet of feminism.

 

[Kieran]

Nadal has always had a penchant for missing returns on break points. This has been so widely acknowledged that I am somewhat surprised you are playing the befuddled card here.

He actually doesn't, not in big matches. I'm surprised you're pushing this, it's easily checked. He has an okay record in major finals, it's nothing noteworthy, in a negative sense...

Sorry for the late reply, Kieran, but I finally have a chance now to respond.

I find your point here to be rather disingenuous, especially in light of the Federer series.:snigger:snigger

How many matches over the years has Federer lost to Nadal because he had a zillion breakpoints and failed to convert? Think of the Wimbledon 2008 final or especially the 2007 French Open final.

For a Nadal fan - of all fans - to make a big deal of him missing a couple returns when so many of his signficant victories have come as a result of opponents missing often straightforward returns is just a tad hypocritical.

Oh brother. :cover

Do you see what you did here? You argued that "Nadal has always had a penchant for missing returns on break points," and when I told you it was "nothing noteworthy", you changed your tune completely and asked "How many matches over the years has Federer lost to Nadal because he had a zillion breakpoints and failed to convert?"

And then called me a hypocrite. :cover

Read it again, buddy, it's truly remarkable how you forgot the content of your own arguments - then argued something absolutely unrelated to the topic - and then insulted me at the end of it... :nono :cover

 

[Kieran]

Kieran - I do not have a direct quote, but I have a huge backdrop of awareness for how you think, having read thousands of your posts. I also can say definitively that I have not once seen you mention the Dimitrov match as any kind of caveat to Nadal's misfortune in the final. I find that to be rather biased of you.

Ah, so you took the Ricardo route. "You didn't say it, Kieran, but rather than apologise for misrepresenting you, I'll accuse you again, anyway."

Let me make this clear - I find the fact that I have not ONCE seen you mention Nadal's good fortune in the quarterfinal as a caveat to his bad luck against Wawrinka in the final as very biased.

So...when I don't mention something, I'm biased? :lolz:

That's actually so twisted, it's hilarious. What do you want me to do? Email Grigor and apologise, and at the same time thank him for missing shots? I'll do it! Gimme his email address, I'll do it! :laydownlaughing

Fact! Both matches are unrelated. Rafa won against Grigor, and although he was lucky on a set point in the third, he ran away with the fourth. I think it's inconclusive that he would have lost that match. I think that if you believe he would have lost, you have insights which would be precious to gamblers and magicians.

You see, you want it both ways, and let me explain how: you admit that had Rafa's back not gone in the final, he'd have forced Stan to dig deep - and maybe too deep for Stan - to win the final.

But he wouldn't have forced Dimi? :s

He would have forced Dimitrov to earn it, no question. But I also think you are being ridiculous with that comparison in one significant respect: Dimitrov is not Nadal's peer like Wawrinka is, so the psychological dimension is entirely different. It's entirely different being 0-3 or 0-4 as a 22-year-old against someone who is 5 years older than you than it is to be 1 year older than someone and 0-12 against them, having essentially grown up losing to them from the moment you started your professional career.

Wawrinka's mountain to climb in closing out a healthy Nadal, in a final, would have been completely different and indeed much steeper than Dimitrov's in a quarterfinal match being up 2 sets to 1.

See? You and I agree. :clap

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal has always had a penchant for missing returns on break points. This has been so widely acknowledged that I am somewhat surprised you are playing the befuddled card here.

He actually doesn't, not in big matches. I'm surprised you're pushing this, it's easily checked. He has an okay record in major finals, it's nothing noteworthy, in a negative sense...

Sorry for the late reply, Kieran, but I finally have a chance now to respond.

I find your point here to be rather disingenuous, especially in light of the Federer series.:snigger:snigger

How many matches over the years has Federer lost to Nadal because he had a zillion breakpoints and failed to convert? Think of the Wimbledon 2008 final or especially the 2007 French Open final.

For a Nadal fan - of all fans - to make a big deal of him missing a couple returns when so many of his signficant victories have come as a result of opponents missing often straightforward returns is just a tad hypocritical.

Oh brother. :cover

Do you see what you did here? You argued that "Nadal has always had a penchant for missing returns on break points," and when I told you it was "nothing noteworthy", you changed your tune completely and asked "How many matches over the years has Federer lost to Nadal because he had a zillion breakpoints and failed to convert?"

And then called me a hypocrite. :cover

Read it again, buddy, it's truly remarkable how you forgot the content of your own arguments - then argued something absolutely unrelated to the topic - and then insulted me at the end of it... :nono :cover

Excuse me, but I stayed entirely on point.

You raised the issue of the breakpoints as a way of saying that Nadal was just so off his game because of this unfortunate back injury. I have retorted by saying that there most certainly have been instances of him missing breakpoints throughout his career, and by the same token, he has been the beneficiary of many straightforward missed opportunities on breakpoints from his opponents, most notably Federer. These are entirely relevant points if we are placing Nadal's misses in context.

 

[Kieran]

Nadal has always had a penchant for missing returns on break points. This has been so widely acknowledged that I am somewhat surprised you are playing the befuddled card here.

He actually doesn't, not in big matches. I'm surprised you're pushing this, it's easily checked. He has an okay record in major finals, it's nothing noteworthy, in a negative sense...

Sorry for the late reply, Kieran, but I finally have a chance now to respond.

I find your point here to be rather disingenuous, especially in light of the Federer series.:snigger:snigger

How many matches over the years has Federer lost to Nadal because he had a zillion breakpoints and failed to convert? Think of the Wimbledon 2008 final or especially the 2007 French Open final.

For a Nadal fan - of all fans - to make a big deal of him missing a couple returns when so many of his signficant victories have come as a result of opponents missing often straightforward returns is just a tad hypocritical.

Oh brother. :cover

Do you see what you did here? You argued that "Nadal has always had a penchant for missing returns on break points," and when I told you it was "nothing noteworthy", you changed your tune completely and asked "How many matches over the years has Federer lost to Nadal because he had a zillion breakpoints and failed to convert?"

And then called me a hypocrite. :cover

Read it again, buddy, it's truly remarkable how you forgot the content of your own arguments - then argued something absolutely unrelated to the topic - and then insulted me at the end of it... :nono :cover

Excuse me, but I stayed entirely on point.

You raised the issue of the breakpoints as a way of saying that Nadal was just so off his game because of this unfortunate back injury. I have retorted by saying that there most certainly have been instances of him missing breakpoints throughout his career, and by the same token, he has been the beneficiary of many straightforward missed opportunities on breakpoints from his opponents, most notably Federer. These are entirely relevant points if we are placing Nadal's misses in context.

Wrong, buddy.

I said, "As for Nadal's level in the first set against Stan, you're daydreaming if you think it would beat most players. Look at the final game of that set: Stan served at 0-40, didn't manage a single first serve and Rafa bunched the returns on all three second serves. Didn't even get one back in play!"

You should pay more attention, my friend: I didn't say he missed those three returns due to his back. That became unplayable early in the second set.

Rafa's return stats are nothing noteworthy in a negative sense, but since you think they are, you can pull up the stats comparing them to others - and prove me wrong...

 

[calitennis127]

He actually doesn't, not in big matches. I'm surprised you're pushing this, it's easily checked. He has an okay record in major finals, it's nothing noteworthy, in a negative sense...

Sorry for the late reply, Kieran, but I finally have a chance now to respond.

I find your point here to be rather disingenuous, especially in light of the Federer series.:snigger:snigger

How many matches over the years has Federer lost to Nadal because he had a zillion breakpoints and failed to convert? Think of the Wimbledon 2008 final or especially the 2007 French Open final.

For a Nadal fan - of all fans - to make a big deal of him missing a couple returns when so many of his signficant victories have come as a result of opponents missing often straightforward returns is just a tad hypocritical.

Oh brother. :cover

Do you see what you did here? You argued that "Nadal has always had a penchant for missing returns on break points," and when I told you it was "nothing noteworthy", you changed your tune completely and asked "How many matches over the years has Federer lost to Nadal because he had a zillion breakpoints and failed to convert?"

And then called me a hypocrite. :cover

Read it again, buddy, it's truly remarkable how you forgot the content of your own arguments - then argued something absolutely unrelated to the topic - and then insulted me at the end of it... :nono :cover

Excuse me, but I stayed entirely on point.

You raised the issue of the breakpoints as a way of saying that Nadal was just so off his game because of this unfortunate back injury. I have retorted by saying that there most certainly have been instances of him missing breakpoints throughout his career, and by the same token, he has been the beneficiary of many straightforward missed opportunities on breakpoints from his opponents, most notably Federer. These are entirely relevant points if we are placing Nadal's misses in context.

Wrong, buddy.

I said, "As for Nadal's level in the first set against Stan, you're daydreaming if you think it would beat most players. Look at the final game of that set: Stan served at 0-40, didn't manage a single first serve and Rafa bunched the returns on all three second serves. Didn't even get one back in play!"

You should pay more attention, my friend: I didn't say he missed those three returns due to his back. That became unplayable early in the second set.

LOL.....so now Nadal was fine physically in the first set, but he was just playing so bad that miserable Wawrinka had a chance against him?

Is that your narrative now?

Wawrinka's shotmaking was terrific in that first set. It was better than what most players can produce. If you think Nadal was off his game so much that he would have lost to Nishikori or something, then I really don't know what you were watching.

 

[Kieran]

What I wrote - read closely now - is that Stan was serving at 39% in the first set, and Rafa wasn't playing well enough to take advantage. Stan was playing well, but not mythologically great, as some people would have it. Rafa was too passive and slow to start in that set.

I never mentioned Nishikori.

And you never presented any evidence that "Nadal has always had a penchant for missing returns on break points..." :nono

 

[Garro]

Kieran brings up the manner in which Nadal lost to Wawrinka in the Australian Open final, basically saying that it was highly unfortunate for Nadal to hurt his back against a player he had previously dominated. Somewhat conceding this point, my retort was that Nadal was just fortunate to be in the final at all, considering that Dimitrov gifted away the quarterfinal match. This reply to Kieran had nothing to do with prior matches between Djokovic and Nadal.

The bottom line is that if you are going to whine and moan about how unlucky Nadal was to hurt his back in the Australian Open final, then you had better also bring up how lucky he was to win the quarterfinal match and even make the final. I doubt Kieran or you will ever do that.

I don't see how the two can even be compared to be honest. It's simply not an apples to apples comparison. As you said, Wawrinka was very fortunate that Rafa's back went out in that final, because his record against him is terrible: he had lost all 26 sets they had played against each other. Not only that, but it is extremely uncommon to have something like this happen in the final of one of the four majors.

Rafa's match against Dimitrov was a tight four setter, and had a point or two gone differently, Nadal could have been down two sets to one, and he could potentially have lost the match. But so what? Just off the top of my head I could name several matches involving Fed, Novak, Murray, where they had almost gone down two sets to one, but a single point or handful of points made the difference in the end. Were they lucky to win those matches? Maybe, but it's obviously not the same kind of "luck" as having your opponent, who you've never even taken a set off, of go lame in during your first grand slam final.