Shanghai Masters ATP 1000

[Kieran]

You failed to spot obvious sarcasm, that's on you buddy.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, brother, that's prolly why I failed to spot it.

OK, so this also reads into "had Nadal not been in the final, Roger would have probably beaten Djokovic," which also translates into "Most likely (synonym of probably), because Nadal was in the final, Roger didn't beat Djokovic." It's not QUITE what he said, despite your insistence that you and Roger said the same thing.

Now, you're mixing two arguments into one here. I said "but also, the issue wasn't...etc...this is the old argument from tennis.com, and it's a view that Federer himself supported afterwards."

Nowhere did I say that Roger "would have beaten" Novak, but my own view is that he most likely would have. Even conserving energy he got to match points. But I did also say that nobody can make definitive claims about this, none of us are fortune tellers, etc.

None of this has to do with his ability to play five set matches. It only means he was being cautious on that occasion, because he believed he'd have to play The Beast the next day. And of course, I doubt even you believe he'd have been conserving energy if he knew he'd have the Sunday off.

Except "Roger's history with Nadal that cost him the first and third" reared its ugly head in key moments, on certain points. It didn't force Roger to forget how to hold a tennis racket, which is what happened in the fifth. That's the one huge difference. You can't equate the first and third set to the fifth. No, the history with Nadal didn't go away in the fifth, and I never said as much. Perhaps YOUR reading needs to be less arbitrary brother, so I'll quote myself:

"Fatigue alone didn't cost him the match. It was a mixture of so many things, including his opponent's play, Roger's own shaky serving throughout, his history with Nadal which led to Roger directly blowing opportunities in the first and third set, and fatigue in the fifth which clearly hindered his footwork, movement, etc..."

You see, I clearly acknowledged the history with Nadal, but believe that fatigue was an obvious factor in the tail end of the match.

Yes, you acknowledge this when you say it "led to Roger directly blowing opportunities in the first and third set." The fifth set you attribute to fatigue. Now you want us to read it differently, which is an acceptance of sorts, on your part.

Come on, buddy, this is gone on 24 hours now. Let's put it to bed now.

We've shown you examples of how Roger shouldn't have been more fatigued there than on other occasions. You're essentially saying that after 2 days rest, and straight-forward matches in the QF and SF, Roger wasn't conditioned to face a long match against his historical rival. And after winning the fourth, he suddenly became fatigued.

But not only this, the "history with Nadal" that affected him in the first and third sets had little effect in the fifth? uzzled

Is it not possible that he was affected by nerves, that winning the fourth was one thing, but faced with the prospect of immediate victory or defeat in the fifth, his "history with Nadal" manifested itself and he buckled? Do you not believe that this is possible?

Watch it again, and tell me that you don't see two tired players out there - but only one emotionally strong one...

 

[Kieran]

I can certainly subscribe to the view that once he got broken in those sets, he didn't maximise his effort to get back in. If that was the case it was a terrible strategy. He just made Novak believe that much more. But it had nothing to with being afraid to play Rafa. It's one thing to want to conserve energy to face Rafa, and quite another to say he choked because he was scared to face Rafa. That's just vapid thinking in my opinion:blush:

It kinda takes nothing outta you to post these fantasies, does it? :laydownlaughing

Same person [N.O.Body] said that who said that Rafa definitely WOULD have won against Stan if his back hadn't gone, eh?

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ I don't at all agree with the idea that Roger would've beaten Nole if it wasn't Rafa in the final, what I do think is that he wouldn't have tanked the sets with the idea to avoid a 5 hour marathon which would give him no chance the following day. But Roger didn't fall behind early breaks by design in the 2nd and 4th sets and even if he battled hard to try to get the break back it might not have worked.

Agreed. I said as much in an earlier post. I think he would have battled in the sets he went down a break in, but who's to say he would have actually broken back and won them?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Come on, buddy, this is gone on 24 hours now. Let's put it to bed now.

24 hours? Some of the stuff we discussed has been going on for 4 years!

 

[Kieran]

Careful, Broken, that's two posts in a row I agree with! :huh: :laydownlaughing