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

[Fiero425]

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.

After Wawrinka's valiant battle against Nole, I would have expected a "let down," but in this instance I just wasn't seeing it! I think Rafa was in trouble long before his injury! He's been struggling in early rounds more and more; not going to get any better esp. if he's having health issues! It's been proved, Rafa needs all his ducks in a row to have sustained success more than any top player I've seen over my 40 years of watching it! He needs to play a lot of matches, warm-up events, to be without the most minor of ache or pain, and still have his opponent make donations in the form of UFE's or bone-head play!

 

[Moxie]

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.

After Wawrinka's valiant battle against Nole, I would have expected a "let down," but in this instance I just wasn't seeing it! I think Rafa was in trouble long before his injury! He's been struggling in early rounds more and more; not going to get any better esp. if he's having health issues! It's been proved, Rafa needs all his ducks in a row to have sustained success more than any top player I've seen over my 40 years of watching it! He needs to play a lot of matches, warm-up events, to be without the most minor of ache or pain, and still have his opponent make donations in the form of UFE's or bone-head play!

I don't see how you say that Rafa was in trouble "long before his injury," v. Wawrinka, as he was injured at the beginning of the 2nd set. Not very long, in a best of 5. Yes, Stan played a very good first set, but, there's no telling how that match would have played out without an injury to one of the players.

As to your last, which I bolded, that is an outrageous thing to say about a 13-time Major winner. All your ducks don't come in a row that often, if you're relying on only that, which means "luck." If you think Nadal has accomplished what he has by "luck," then surely he is the 'luckiest' player in the history of tennis. I'm certain you don't believe that.

 

[Fiero425]

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.

After Wawrinka's valiant battle against Nole, I would have expected a "let down," but in this instance I just wasn't seeing it! I think Rafa was in trouble long before his injury! He's been struggling in early rounds more and more; not going to get any better esp. if he's having health issues! It's been proved, Rafa needs all his ducks in a row to have sustained success more than any top player I've seen over my 40 years of watching it! He needs to play a lot of matches, warm-up events, to be without the most minor of ache or pain, and still have his opponent make donations in the form of UFE's or bone-head play!

I don't see how you say that Rafa was in trouble "long before his injury," v. Wawrinka, as he was injured at the beginning of the 2nd set. Not very long, in a best of 5. Yes, Stan played a very good first set, but, there's no telling how that match would have played out without an injury to one of the players.

As to your last, which I bolded, that is an outrageous thing to say about a 13-time Major winner. All your ducks don't come in a row that often, if you're relying on only that, which means "luck." If you think Nadal has accomplished what he has by "luck," then surely he is the 'luckiest' player in the history of tennis. I'm certain you don't believe that.

13 with 9 at one venue; FO clay! How can you overlook the facts that he's had many troubles at the AO, a couple of early exits at Wimbledon, and normally exhausted by the USO that he's only won 2 of those titles? All his titles are MAJOR, but there isn't the balance you had with other greats like Borg, Sampras, Federer, and Laver! There's no comparison if you look at it that way; "and I do!" :snigger

 

[Moxie]

13 with 9 at one venue; clay! How can you overlook the facts that he's had many troubles at the AO, a couple of early exits at Wimbledon, and normal exhausted by the USO that he's only won 2 of those titles! All his titles are MAJOR, but there isn't the balance you had with other greats like Borg, Sampras, Federer, and Laver! There's no comparison if you look at that way; "and I do!" :snigger

Talk about balance, then. Borg never won the AO or the USOpen. Sampras never won at RG. Federer is the most balanced, as he's distributed them well across surfaces. You have to remember that Laver, I think, only won on 2 surfaces, if I'm not wrong. How does Rafa stack up against that? Yes, many wins on clay…but you say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Fiero425]

13 with 9 at one venue; clay! How can you overlook the facts that he's had many troubles at the AO, a couple of early exits at Wimbledon, and normal exhausted by the USO that he's only won 2 of those titles! All his titles are MAJOR, but there isn't the balance you had with other greats like Borg, Sampras, Federer, and Laver! There's no comparison if you look at that way; "and I do!" :snigger

Talk about balance, then. Borg never won the AO or the USOpen. Sampras never won at RG. Federer is the most balanced, as he's distributed them well across surfaces. You have to remember that Laver, I think, only won on 2 surfaces, if I'm not wrong. How does Rafa stack up against that? Yes, many wins on clay…but you say that like it's a bad thing.

Well Borg obviously didn't make the trek "down under" like players of today, but that missing USO doesn't define him as much as he may think or us for that matter! He did something no other player has done in the Open era; winning FO and Wimbledon back to back for 3 years! As I said, Rafa's majors are all MAJOR, but you know what I mean by most of them being at the FO while other players had many wins at another event of note! Borg was the most unlucky at the USO over the years; a couple surface changes, injury, and vulnerability playing at night! Rafa still has time to remedy that imbalance and be set up there with the GAWDS! :laydownlaughing :snigger

 

[Moxie]

13 with 9 at one venue; clay! How can you overlook the facts that he's had many troubles at the AO, a couple of early exits at Wimbledon, and normal exhausted by the USO that he's only won 2 of those titles! All his titles are MAJOR, but there isn't the balance you had with other greats like Borg, Sampras, Federer, and Laver! There's no comparison if you look at that way; "and I do!" :snigger

Talk about balance, then. Borg never won the AO or the USOpen. Sampras never won at RG. Federer is the most balanced, as he's distributed them well across surfaces. You have to remember that Laver, I think, only won on 2 surfaces, if I'm not wrong. How does Rafa stack up against that? Yes, many wins on clay…but you say that like it's a bad thing.

Well Borg obviously didn't make the trek "down under" like players of today, but that missing USO doesn't define him as much as he may think or us for that matter! He did something no other player has done in the Open era; winning FO and Wimbledon back to back for 3 years! As I said, Rafa's majors are all MAJOR, but you know what I mean by most of them being at the FO while other players had many wins at another event of note! Borg was the most unlucky at the USO over the years; a couple surface changes, injury, and vulnerability playing at night! Rafa still has time to remedy that imbalance and be set up there with the GAWDS! :laydownlaughing :snigger

I think you split hairs in an effort to make Nadal's accomplishments so lesser. Yes, Borg won the Channel Slam 3 years running, but Nadal was the first one to do it again, after 30 years, and has done it twice. And you're generous to Borg to say he was unlucky not to win at the USO, yet you criticize Nadal for not having done better there, when he's won it twice.

TBH, I think I DO know what you mean about Rafa having won so many Majors at RG…it means that you ghettoize it. You put hards and grass over clay. So many do, so I'm not surprised you do, too. Nadal has 5 Major titles on grass and HCs. That's more than most players have all together. (Only 25 have more than 5 total, including Open and non-Open era. In the Open Era, only 13, including Nadal.)

 

[Federberg]

I have to agree with Moxie. The guy has almost as many non RG slams as my fav great Edberg. Hard to criticise the guy on that count! Yes.. aesthetically I would favour a player who has a more balanced resume, but until they say RG isn't a slam he's doing what he has to do. We can't have our cake and eat it..

 

[Ricardo]

13 with 9 at one venue; clay! How can you overlook the facts that he's had many troubles at the AO, a couple of early exits at Wimbledon, and normal exhausted by the USO that he's only won 2 of those titles! All his titles are MAJOR, but there isn't the balance you had with other greats like Borg, Sampras, Federer, and Laver! There's no comparison if you look at that way; "and I do!" :snigger

Talk about balance, then. Borg never won the AO or the USOpen. Sampras never won at RG. Federer is the most balanced, as he's distributed them well across surfaces. You have to remember that Laver, I think, only won on 2 surfaces, if I'm not wrong. How does Rafa stack up against that? Yes, many wins on clay…but you say that like it's a bad thing.

Well Borg obviously didn't make the trek "down under" like players of today, but that missing USO doesn't define him as much as he may think or us for that matter! He did something no other player has done in the Open era; winning FO and Wimbledon back to back for 3 years! As I said, Rafa's majors are all MAJOR, but you know what I mean by most of them being at the FO while other players had many wins at another event of note! Borg was the most unlucky at the USO over the years; a couple surface changes, injury, and vulnerability playing at night! Rafa still has time to remedy that imbalance and be set up there with the GAWDS! :laydownlaughing :snigger

Believe or not, Rafa is already a 'gawd'.... deservingly. Sure Roger probably has the best balance, with 4 AO, 1 RG +4 finals, 7 W and 5 USO but that 'better' balance should not be used to denigrate Rafa's achievement. What Rafa needs, is to win more of ANY major..... put simply.

 

[Ricardo]

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!

hahaha i must be in your head :snigger even when i've been taking a comfortable seat back on a soft chesterfield armchair, watching a surprising week of events in Barcelona you had to talk to me several times......

but what do you mean i ONLY insult? apparently that hasn't even been remotely the case for a while so you are making it up again.....uzzled it's like me saying, Kieran ONLY posts pure rubbish when in fact he can write something of meaning once in a while......

:laydownlaughing

 

[Ricardo]

Wow, pretty sensitive around here.

You ain't kidding

Rafa lost a match guys... loosen up.

It's not about Rafa losing a match….you've missed the point by a country mile.

actually it is, otherwise this thread wouldn't even have started.

oh moxie... :laydownlaughing

 

[Ricardo]

Cali on cue with the fantasy tennis. "What should never have been." And yet it was. Cali, are you formulating your post on Ferrer's "inexcusable" win over Nadal? I'm sure you're busy, but I'm looking forward to it.

Why? What could you possibly learn from it? What value could it possibly have?

There is always value in humor. Cali may be like nailing jello to the wall with his reasoning, but he is a good laugh.

Following Moxie's reasoning may be like following a drunk driver on a boring country road to the supermarket, but it's still fun to dismantle it and educate her.

Where is Ricardo, who defeated her in argument after argument?

mate i just educate her as she is far too flawed with her 'thinking', don't make me look bad :snigger

 

[Ricardo]

Cali on cue with the fantasy tennis. "What should never have been." And yet it was. Cali, are you formulating your post on Ferrer's "inexcusable" win over Nadal? I'm sure you're busy, but I'm looking forward to it.

Why? What could you possibly learn from it? What value could it possibly have?

There is always value in humor. Cali may be like nailing jello to the wall with his reasoning, but he is a good laugh.

Following Moxie's reasoning may be like following a drunk driver on a boring country road to the supermarket, but it's still fun to dismantle it and educate her.

Where is Ricardo, who defeated her in argument after argument?

You've distracted yourself with Ricardo. Where is my dismantlement and education?

here i am madam, sure you want me to point those out? should be a good list

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, buddy? You're calling Ricardo? :Lolz:

You have repeatedly insulted ricardo without really saying anything substantive about how or why his arguments are wrong. I have had multiple conversations with him. We agreed sometimes and disagreed on others. I actually found him to be quite an open mind. For instance, he would agree with me on many of my controversial statements about Nalbandian while also challenging some of my criticism of Nadal. You apparently missed out on that even-handedness of his, simply because he said a few irreverent things about Nadal at some point.

Apart from his hollow fabrications, and his cowardly abuse of women posters, he's a splendid fellow!

now we know who the real sexist is... my so called 'abuse' is directed indiscriminately (you should know better than that ), and has always been the case.

 

[Kieran]

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.

After Wawrinka's valiant battle against Nole, I would have expected a "let down," but in this instance I just wasn't seeing it! I think Rafa was in trouble long before his injury! He's been struggling in early rounds more and more; not going to get any better esp. if he's having health issues! It's been proved, Rafa needs all his ducks in a row to have sustained success more than any top player I've seen over my 40 years of watching it! He needs to play a lot of matches, warm-up events, to be without the most minor of ache or pain, and still have his opponent make donations in the form of UFE's or bone-head play!

Eh, he manhandled Federer in straights in the semis. :huh:

I know you didn't watch the final, but you watched Rafa dismantle Federer easy enough in the semis, right? And with a blistered hand.

And also, with Federer playing so well people were thinking it was 2006 again... :nono

 

[Kieran]

Well Borg obviously didn't make the trek "down under" like players of today, but that missing USO doesn't define him as much as he may think or us for that matter! He did something no other player has done in the Open era; winning FO and Wimbledon back to back for 3 years! As I said, Rafa's majors are all MAJOR, but you know what I mean by most of them being at the FO while other players had many wins at another event of note! Borg was the most unlucky at the USO over the years; a couple surface changes, injury, and vulnerability playing at night! Rafa still has time to remedy that imbalance and be set up there with the GAWDS! :laydownlaughing :snigger

I think it's odd how prejudice against players works. You see it here, set out very plainly. And very simply.

Borg won 3 channel slams, and Rafa has two.

Borg has zero US Opens, and Rafa has two.

Borg was unlucky at the USO - "a couple of surface changes injuries" - but Rafa has obviously never been affected by having injuries, has he?

And yet, Borg is higher up the foodchain than Rafa? Now, I loved Borg, and he was incredible and in his time, he was the greatest.

But Rafa stacks up well against anyone, Fiero. He's 27, and his record is incredible. Let's hope it gets better, too, but you'd be stretching things if you name Borg (or anybody else who's played the game) as a tennis "Gawd", ahead of Rafa...

 

[huntingyou]

talking sense to people with personal strong dislike against a particular player is a WASTE of TIME

 

[shawnbm]

Rafa is a player I very much admire. He is going through a rough patch, but he has before and he came out smelling like roses afterwards. He is getting older and he, like Roger and every other great, mostly finds the grind wearing through the years--the travel, the practicing, the gym, the constant watching what you eat, and playing the same players over and over. (Quick Edit: On second thought, maybe Roger is the ONLY one who does not qualify on this point). Sooner or later these superior athletes lose a little drive, a little motivation, and they might even lose a half-step to boot. It happens, even to seemingly impenetrable players like Borg and Nadal.

Why did he lose to these two Spaniard friends he has dominated for so long? Why do any of them start to lose to their peers or the younger guns? It is bound to happen, because those other guys are pretty damned good and they get tired of losing to Nadal or Fed or Novak and they just start playing like they don't care and get ahead. They can hit shots, many of them winners from the baseline. How many times have we seen Nadal down in a match--seemingly being outplayed and ripe for the upset--and the commentators start talking about what everyone knows the other player is thinking (and this has held true for Roger over the years as well)--"Well, now let's see if X can hold on and overcome his excitement and nerves at ..."? I would have to say I have heard that dozens of times in both their great careers. In most occasions, these inferior players implode and the superior player--like a shark with blood in the water--strikes and another win is notched. Sooner or later, quality players like Nico (although I view him as Exhibit X over the years) and David will step up and hit the shot they often miss, while Rafa tapes a routine "winner" FH. It happened to Roger too.

There is no shame in finally losing a few matches, even on clay. He has become the standard by which he is judged, and that is high praise indeed. The only other guy who can possible understand what he may be feeling is Roger, and that is more high praise. I have every confidence the Spanish Bull is just having a bit of a forced rest; he will return and win many more titles and few more majors. I would bet the house on it.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

he only lost 2 matches on clay..not exactly vince spadea territory in terms of defeats..

it was a big surprise but I'm sure rafa will be revving up the vamosmobile again pretty soon.

 

[Fiero425]

...
Why did he lose to these two Spaniard friends he has dominated for so long? Why do any of them start to lose to their peers or the younger guns? It is bound to happen, because those other guys are pretty damned good and they get tired of losing to Nadal or Fed or Novak and they just start playing like they don't care and get ahead. They can hit shots, many of them winners from the baseline. How many times have we seen Nadal down in a match--seemingly being outplayed and ripe for the upset--and the commentators start talking about what everyone knows the other player is thinking (and this has held true for Roger over the years as well)--"Well, now let's see if X can hold on and overcome his excitement and nerves at ..."? I would have to say I have heard that dozens of times in both their great careers. In most occasions, these inferior players implode and the superior player--like a shark with blood in the water--strikes and another win is notched. Sooner or later, quality players like Nico (although I view him as Exhibit X over the years) and David will step up and hit the shot they often miss, while Rafa tapes a routine "winner" FH. It happened to Roger too.

:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap - I'm terribly irrational when it comes to some players! There are a handful of them I've never cared for; from their arrogance to the fawning that people perform for the world to drink in everytime a certain player takes the court! Maybe I should come up with a poll or thread asking what player makes them boil over; mines being: Nadal, Agassi, McEnroe, Evert, & Shriver OTTOMH!

 

[Kieran]

Fiero, did you like Pete?