Shanghai Rolex Masters 2015

[calitennis127]

If you like to think that’s how it’s done, go ahead. In any case, you are speculating about stresses on an elite tennis player as much as I would be.

No, not at all. I have actually been involved with serious athletic competition throughout my life, particularly in sports outside of tennis. Your comments over the years indicate that while you like tennis, you have absolutely no understanding of or relation to the psychology of an elite athlete in the heat of battle. You just don't understand the frame of mind. Your comments repeatedly demonstrate that.

I agree that Nadal snagging that 3rd set was a crusher for Novak, but that doesn’t wholly explain him losing the 4th at 1. Or it shouldn’t.

This demonstrates exactly what I just said. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to these questions. You think you do but your ignorance of high-intensity athletic situations, whether it is just training or actual competition, is plain as day.

Let me, once again, explain this to you. Both players understood full well that the third set was going to be decisive. You did not know that, but they did. This was because of the length of the rallies in sets 1 through 3 and the degree to which each player was pushing the other to his physical limits. The US Open court is one of the fastest on tour, so players pummel the ball there with extra ferocity. Both Djokovic and Nadal are great movers and can negate many of the powerful offensive shots their opponents make even on that court. For that reason, they were both hitting heavy offensive shots at each other while also covering the court corner to corner. The rallies were going on and on, games were lasting for minutes on end, and sets were taking over an hour. Both players knew that because of the length of sets 1 through 3, the third set would be decisive, since the loser of set 3 would not have the energy to overcome a 2 set to 1 deficit. This was plain as day to most people when watching the match.

What is also laughable is that you talk about the 4th set as though it was a serious set. This demonstrates the ignorance I am talking about. It would be as ridiculous as me bringing up the 4th set of the 2011 US Open final when Djokovic won 6-1 and arguing that it was somehow reflective of the match as a whole. It wasn't. Nadal just hit a wall after the third set and knew he had no chance of coming back from 2 sets to 1 down given how much energy he had expended in the first three sets. Likewise, it would be absurd when talking about this year's French Open quarterfinal to say that the third set was reflective of the match as a whole. The first two sets, particularly the second, were very closely contested. Nadal just knew that he had no chance of coming back from 2 sets to 0 down on Djokovic, and that is actually why he upped his game so much in 2014 as well to win the second set of the Roland Garros final.

 At the AO in 2012, Rafa lost the 2nd and 3rd sets, but fought for the 4th and made a big fight of the 5th.

Different venue, different type of match entirely. The rallies at the Australian Open are not as physically taxing as those at the US Open because you don't have to work as hard as a defender. That is why 5-setters are much more common at the Australian Open. At the US Open, you have to go all out to play effective defense; in Melbourne, tracking down offensive shots is not nearly as challenging.

 In order to even begin to argue that Novak “shouldn’t” have lost the USO 2013, he would have needed to fight it to a 5th, at the very least, imo.

Like I said, you simply do not understand the mentality or the psychological dynamic of elite-level athletes. That I have to explain to you what the 3rd set dynamic of the 2013 US Open final was is evidence of this. I have never seen Nadal fight so hard to save break points as he did in that third set, and he did so because he knew the match came down to that set based on physical breaking point and the mental thresholds that come with it.

 

 

 

[calitennis127]

I don’t conveniently omit Novak being up a break early in the third, I just think it makes sense he couldn’t hold on. That’s what happens when you’re not playing your best tennis and haven’t been for a while, and that’s what happens when winning stops becoming a habit for you, and you’re playing against a guy who was winning everything in sight.

I really think you are overstating Djokovic's struggles at that time. Yes, he wasn't in 2011/2015 form, but that doesn't mean he was in the dumps either. At Roland Garros, he only lost one set to Kohlschreiber before the semifinal classic with Nadal. At Wimbledon, he made the final and won a classic 5-setter against Delpo. At Montreal, he lost to Nadal in a third-set tiebreak in the semis. At Cincinnati, yes, he lost to Isner in the quarters, but Djokovic always stinks it up in Cincinnati; even when he makes the final there, he does it with patchy wins and looks out of sorts and uncomfortable. At the US Open, he only lost one set before the semis (to Youzhny in the quarters), and then he had a tough match against Wawrinka who we have seen give trouble to everyone since.

We are not talking about a player who had lost in the second round of four-straight tournaments and had no confidence coming in to a final.

Please, Nalbandian was not going to win a best of 5 set match against Nadal at Roland Garros at a time when literally nobody did. I’m sure he would have made it interesting but you don’t even believe “it could have been ugly.” You just have the luxury to make this grandiose claim because it can’t be disproven…well other from the fact that Nalbandian never came close to doing such a thing.

I highly doubt that you would have thought their first two matches would have been as lopsided as they were, regardless of the surface. Nalbandian was a nightmare match-up for Nadal on all surfaces from a tactical standpoint. He not only had a two-hander like Djokovic but he also was never shy about controlling the rallies (unlike Djokovic). In 2006, Nadal still only had one Slam and did not yet have the mystique of invincibility on clay. Nalbandian more than anyone else wouldn't have given a damn about any suggestion of that anyway. I also know his mindset quite well from watching so many of his matches over the years and I know that a match against Nadal would have been a very care-free go-for-it type of moment without any baggage from previous losses or encounters. I could easily have seen him going up 2 sets to 0 before Nadal could even say "Vamos". At that point I would have hoped that Nalbandian wouldn't have pulled another Baghdatis meltdown.

 

 

[Moxie]

Moxie wrote:
If you like to think that’s how it’s done, go ahead. In any case, you are speculating about stresses on an elite tennis player as much as I would be.

No, not at all. I have actually been involved with serious athletic competition throughout my life, particularly in sports outside of tennis. Your comments over the years indicate that while you like tennis, you have absolutely no understanding of or relation to the psychology of an elite athlete in the heat of battle. You just don’t understand the frame of mind. Your comments repeatedly demonstrate that.

Moxie wrote:
I agree that Nadal snagging that 3rd set was a crusher for Novak, but that doesn’t wholly explain him losing the 4th at 1. Or it shouldn’t.

This demonstrates exactly what I just said. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to these questions. You think you do but your ignorance of high-intensity athletic situations, whether it is just training or actual competition, is plain as day. Let me, once again, explain this to you. Both players understood full well that the third set was going to be decisive. You did not know that, but they did. This was because of the length of the rallies in sets 1 through 3 and the degree to which each player was pushing the other to his physical limits. The US Open court is one of the fastest on tour, so players pummel the ball there with extra ferocity. Both Djokovic and Nadal are great movers and can negate many of the powerful offensive shots their opponents make even on that court. For that reason, they were both hitting heavy offensive shots at each other while also covering the court corner to corner. The rallies were going on and on, games were lasting for minutes on end, and sets were taking over an hour. Both players knew that because of the length of sets 1 through 3, the third set would be decisive, since the loser of set 3 would not have the energy to overcome a 2 set to 1 deficit. This was plain as day to most people when watching the match. What is also laughable is that you talk about the 4th set as though it was a serious set. This demonstrates the ignorance I am talking about. It would be as ridiculous as me bringing up the 4th set of the 2011 US Open final when Djokovic won 6-1 and arguing that it was somehow reflective of the match as a whole. It wasn’t. Nadal just hit a wall after the third set and knew he had no chance of coming back from 2 sets to 1 down given how much energy he had expended in the first three sets. Likewise, it would be absurd when talking about this year’s French Open quarterfinal to say that the third set was reflective of the match as a whole. The first two sets, particularly the second, were very closely contested. Nadal just knew that he had no chance of coming back from 2 sets to 0 down on Djokovic, and that is actually why he upped his game so much in 2014 as well to win the second set of the Roland Garros final.

Moxie wrote:
At the AO in 2012, Rafa lost the 2nd and 3rd sets, but fought for the 4th and made a big fight of the 5th.

Different venue, different type of match entirely. The rallies at the Australian Open are not as physically taxing as those at the US Open because you don’t have to work as hard as a defender. That is why 5-setters are much more common at the Australian Open. At the US Open, you have to go all out to play effective defense; in Melbourne, tracking down offensive shots is not nearly as challenging.

Moxie wrote:
In order to even begin to argue that Novak “shouldn’t” have lost the USO 2013, he would have needed to fight it to a 5th, at the very least, imo.

Like I said, you simply do not understand the mentality or the psychological dynamic of elite-level athletes. That I have to explain to you what the 3rd set dynamic of the 2013 US Open final was is evidence of this. I have never seen Nadal fight so hard to save break points as he did in that third set, and he did so because he knew the match came down to that set based on physical breaking point and the mental thresholds that come with it.

You are making a subjective point, that the 2013 USO final was Novak's worst loss in a Major final.  Yet, you're trying to cover this opinion as if it were fact by being both insulting, and making claims you can't back up.  (Your sports bona fides, for one.)  So many of your points are opinion, not fact:  "I have never seen Nadal fight so hard to save break points as he did in that third set, and he did so because he knew the match came down to that set based on physical breaking point and the mental thresholds that come with it."  I'm pretty sure, as a keen observer of Nadal, that he has fought equally as hard in other matches to hold serve.  RG v. Isner 2011 comes to mind.  It's not like he's not a fighter.  And yes, I think we all knew that that 3rd set was potentially the decider.  It was hard fought, and very intricate.  Who came out on top?  Plenty of the reasons that Nadal did were on his racquet, a point you assiduously ignore.  And he was mentally sturdier in that set, which was required, and to your point of an athlete's mentality in those situations.

Your point about the AO final in 2012:  "Different venue, different type of match entirely. The rallies at the Australian Open are not as physically taxing as those at the US Open because you don’t have to work as hard as a defender. That is why 5-setters are much more common at the Australian Open. At the US Open, you have to go all out to play effective defense; in Melbourne, tracking down offensive shots is not nearly as challenging."  The point it the longer view vs the shorter view, if I take your meaning, but both players are superb endurance players, esp. at that time.  I still don't buy your argument that the loss in the 3rd effectively ended Djokovic's chances.  And don't tell me again how I don't understand an elite player's mentality.  What you're excusing is Novak's mentality for fighting back, and you're also stubbornly ignoring Nadal's level at that point in time on HCs.

The tournament is over, and I'm sure no one is interested in our digression.  If you want to keep talking about that old 2013 USO final, why don't you make it a thread.  See if anyone else buys the prezel logic you use to make this Novak's worst major loss.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Broken_shoelace wrote:
I don’t conveniently omit Novak being up a break early in the third, I just think it makes sense he couldn’t hold on. That’s what happens when you’re not playing your best tennis and haven’t been for a while, and that’s what happens when winning stops becoming a habit for you, and you’re playing against a guy who was winning everything in sight.

I really think you are overstating Djokovic’s struggles at that time. Yes, he wasn’t in 2011/2015 form, but that doesn’t mean he was in the dumps either. At Roland Garros, he only lost one set to Kohlschreiber before the semifinal classic with Nadal. At Wimbledon, he made the final and won a classic 5-setter against Delpo. At Montreal, he lost to Nadal in a third-set tiebreak in the semis. At Cincinnati, yes, he lost to Isner in the quarters, but Djokovic always stinks it up in Cincinnati; even when he makes the final there, he does it with patchy wins and looks out of sorts and uncomfortable. At the US Open, he only lost one set before the semis (to Youzhny in the quarters), and then he had a tough match against Wawrinka who we have seen give trouble to everyone since. We are not talking about a player who had lost in the second round of four-straight tournaments and had no confidence coming in to a final.

Broken_shoelace wrote:
Please, Nalbandian was not going to win a best of 5 set match against Nadal at Roland Garros at a time when literally nobody did. I’m sure he would have made it interesting but you don’t even believe “it could have been ugly.” You just have the luxury to make this grandiose claim because it can’t be disproven…well other from the fact that Nalbandian never came close to doing such a thing.

I highly doubt that you would have thought their first two matches would have been as lopsided as they were, regardless of the surface. Nalbandian was a nightmare match-up for Nadal on all surfaces from a tactical standpoint. He not only had a two-hander like Djokovic but he also was never shy about controlling the rallies (unlike Djokovic). In 2006, Nadal still only had one Slam and did not yet have the mystique of invincibility on clay. Nalbandian more than anyone else wouldn’t have given a damn about any suggestion of that anyway. I also know his mindset quite well from watching so many of his matches over the years and I know that a match against Nadal would have been a very care-free go-for-it type of moment without any baggage from previous losses or encounters. I could easily have seen him going up 2 sets to 0 before Nadal could even say “Vamos”. At that point I would have hoped that Nalbandian wouldn’t have pulled another Baghdatis meltdown.

I don't overstate Novak's struggles. I don't think he was struggling that badly. I just think Nadal was much more in form and the results backed it up, and held a "recent" edge over him, which the match demonstrated. Novak was only struggling relative to Nadal's results at that point. Which is the only thing that matters in this context since we're discussing a match that took place between the two.

As far as your second point goes, there is no "regardless of the surface" when it comes to Nadal and clay. That's laughable. Nadal on other surfaces is one thing, and on clay, he's another, especially back in 2006. There's no dancing around it.

 

[calitennis127]

I don’t overstate Novak’s struggles. I don’t think he was struggling that badly. I just think Nadal was much more in form and the results backed it up, and held a “recent” edge over him, which the match demonstrated. Novak was only struggling relative to Nadal’s results at that point. Which is the only thing that matters in this context since we’re discussing a match that took place between the two.  

All that separated them was the result two matches: the Roland Garros semifinal and the Montreal semifinal, both of which Nadal won by the slimmest of margins. We are not talking about an immense gap in outcome of the matches like, say, Djokovic beating Nadal in all 7 sets they play in a season.

You see, when Djokovic is in great form and Nadal is struggling, Djokovic wins their matches in straight sets. When Nadal has a "recent edge", it is by squeaking out final sets with Djokovic missing his chances.

As far as your second point goes, there is no “regardless of the surface” when it comes to Nadal and clay. That’s laughable. Nadal on other surfaces is one thing, and on clay, he’s another, especially back in 2006. There’s no dancing around it.

There is also no dancing around what Nalbandian was capable of and the game he brought to the table. Just one day before the classic Rome final in 2006, Nalbandian was up a break in the third set before losing it in a very tight tiebreak. Also, Nalbandian has always had a superior backhand to Federer and has always been a more consistently dominant point constructor.

In addition to all of this, the 2006 Nadal was much more prone to playing points well behind the baseline on all surfaces, which would have left him very vulnerable to Nalbandian taking the ball early.

 

[calitennis127]

You are making a subjective point, that the 2013 USO final was Novak’s worst loss in a Major final. Yet, you’re trying to cover this opinion as if it were fact by being both insulting, and making claims you can’t back up. (Your sports bona fides, for one.)

Moxie, I am only stating what a number of people clearly see in your comments when I say that you do not relate at all to the mindset of high-level masculine athletes. I am perhaps the only one who would put it so bluntly, but it is clearly the case. Also, I am not boasting about anything by saying that you clearly don't understand it. It is just plain as day that you have never been around these settings or personally aspired to perform like a high-level athlete at any time. That is fine too. There is nothing wrong with it until you start insisting on pure nonsense.

Have you ever been part of an athletic competition with a ball in which the teams and/or players exhausted themselves to the maximum and pushed themselves beyond their normal physical limits? Do you understand the emotions and the mental challenges that go into these situations?

 So many of your points are opinion, not fact: “I have never seen Nadal fight so hard to save break points as he did in that third set, and he did so because he knew the match came down to that set based on physical breaking point and the mental thresholds that come with it.” I’m pretty sure, as a keen observer of Nadal, that he has fought equally as hard in other matches to hold serve. RG v. Isner 2011 comes to mind. It’s not like he’s not a fighter.

The point is not whether Nadal literally fought harder than he has ever fought to win that third set. The point is that he knew how vital that third set was and he pushed himself to his physical limits and beyond to win it. I have watched hundreds of Nadal's matches, and if you were to ask me "what sets did he work hardest to win with a sense of urgency?", that third set of the 2013 USO final would be near the top the list. Whether or not it would qualify as the absolute hardest he has ever exerted himself is besides the point. He knew the set was urgent, especially with Djokovic having a growing momentum, and he pushed himself to the max to win it.

Also, you once again ignored one of my central arguments about the third set being the de facto decider, probably because it went over your head. I brought up two cases of Nadal losing a final set to Djokovic in lopsided fashion, the 2011 US Open final and the 2015 French Open quarterfinal. In the case of the former, Djokovic and Nadal had played three brutally intensive sets with long, taxing rallies, and Nadal edged out the third but knew there was no way he had enough energy to win two more. The result was a serious drop in his level and Djokovic took the 4th set 6-1. Did that fourth set in any way reflect the rallying wars of the first three? No. In the case of this year's French Open quarterfinal, the first two sets were fairly close, especially the second set. But after the second was lost, Nadal knew his chances were next to zero and his energy level dropped. The result was Djokovic winning the final set 6-1, which did not at all reflect on how the first two sets were played.

Since you keep dodging this point yet insisting you still have one of your own, let me just ask you directly:

Do you believe that the 4th sets of the 2011 US Open final and the 2015 French quarterfinal between Djokovic and Nadal, in which Nadal lost 6-1 on both occasions, were reflective of how prior sets in those matches were played?

 

Your point about the AO final in 2012: “Different venue, different type of match entirely. The rallies at the Australian Open are not as physically taxing as those at the US Open because you don’t have to work as hard as a defender. That is why 5-setters are much more common at the Australian Open. At the US Open, you have to go all out to play effective defense; in Melbourne, tracking down offensive shots is not nearly as challenging.” The point it the longer view vs the shorter view, if I take your meaning, but both players are superb endurance players, esp. at that time.

That is not my meaning. Whether or not they are both superb endurance players also is not my point. What I am saying is that it is clearly more difficult on the US Open court  to consistently defend the way Djokovic and Nadal do. If someone is hitting big and being offensive, you have to go to an extra gear as a defender at the US Open versus the Australian Open.

I still don’t buy your argument that the loss in the 3rd effectively ended Djokovic’s chances. And don’t tell me again how I don’t understand an elite player’s mentality.

Well unfortunately that remains a problem. Look, these are basic factors of momentum. When a player wins a set or loses a set, it is not as simple as the scoreboard changing. There is also a powerful emotional reaction, even in the most seemingly stoic players. You win a set and you feel confident, energized, positive, upbeat; you get a little bit extra spring in your step to close the deal. You lose a set and you start to experience some doubts, you start to worry about your long-term fortunes for winning the match, you start making calculations about how you are going to navigate your way back into contention and wondering if it is even possible.

Thus, when Nadal took the third set, he not only went up 2-1 on the scoreboard but he also got a jolt of uplifting joy and optimism that made him feel like he was close to finishing it out. Djokovic, on the other hand, felt as though he had just wasted a golden opportunity to take the crucial third set, which he led almost the entire way. He was deflated and dejected, and for him he knew that he was going to have to not just battle through more long rallies to win two sets, but also that he would be dealing with a Nadal that just got a jolt of confidence and energy from winning the third set. Given his physical state as well as his emotional state, his mind knew what the climb would be and it resulted in somewhat of a tank - just as it did for Nadal in the 4th set of the 2011 final.

 

 

[Moxie]

Moxie wrote:
If you like to think that’s how it’s done, go ahead. In any case, you are speculating about stresses on an elite tennis player as much as I would be.

No, not at all. I have actually been involved with serious athletic competition throughout my life, particularly in sports outside of tennis. Your comments over the years indicate that while you like tennis, you have absolutely no understanding of or relation to the psychology of an elite athlete in the heat of battle. You just don’t understand the frame of mind. Your comments repeatedly demonstrate that.

Moxie wrote:
I agree that Nadal snagging that 3rd set was a crusher for Novak, but that doesn’t wholly explain him losing the 4th at 1. Or it shouldn’t.

This demonstrates exactly what I just said. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to these questions. You think you do but your ignorance of high-intensity athletic situations, whether it is just training or actual competition, is plain as day. Let me, once again, explain this to you. Both players understood full well that the third set was going to be decisive. You did not know that, but they did. This was because of the length of the rallies in sets 1 through 3 and the degree to which each player was pushing the other to his physical limits. The US Open court is one of the fastest on tour, so players pummel the ball there with extra ferocity. Both Djokovic and Nadal are great movers and can negate many of the powerful offensive shots their opponents make even on that court. For that reason, they were both hitting heavy offensive shots at each other while also covering the court corner to corner. The rallies were going on and on, games were lasting for minutes on end, and sets were taking over an hour. Both players knew that because of the length of sets 1 through 3, the third set would be decisive, since the loser of set 3 would not have the energy to overcome a 2 set to 1 deficit. This was plain as day to most people when watching the match. What is also laughable is that you talk about the 4th set as though it was a serious set. This demonstrates the ignorance I am talking about. It would be as ridiculous as me bringing up the 4th set of the 2011 US Open final when Djokovic won 6-1 and arguing that it was somehow reflective of the match as a whole. It wasn’t. Nadal just hit a wall after the third set and knew he had no chance of coming back from 2 sets to 1 down given how much energy he had expended in the first three sets. Likewise, it would be absurd when talking about this year’s French Open quarterfinal to say that the third set was reflective of the match as a whole. The first two sets, particularly the second, were very closely contested. Nadal just knew that he had no chance of coming back from 2 sets to 0 down on Djokovic, and that is actually why he upped his game so much in 2014 as well to win the second set of the Roland Garros final.

Moxie wrote:
At the AO in 2012, Rafa lost the 2nd and 3rd sets, but fought for the 4th and made a big fight of the 5th.

Different venue, different type of match entirely. The rallies at the Australian Open are not as physically taxing as those at the US Open because you don’t have to work as hard as a defender. That is why 5-setters are much more common at the Australian Open. At the US Open, you have to go all out to play effective defense; in Melbourne, tracking down offensive shots is not nearly as challenging.

Moxie wrote:
In order to even begin to argue that Novak “shouldn’t” have lost the USO 2013, he would have needed to fight it to a 5th, at the very least, imo.

Like I said, you simply do not understand the mentality or the psychological dynamic of elite-level athletes. That I have to explain to you what the 3rd set dynamic of the 2013 US Open final was is evidence of this. I have never seen Nadal fight so hard to save break points as he did in that third set, and he did so because he knew the match came down to that set based on physical breaking point and the mental thresholds that come with it.

I don't think you can be said to be the ultimate authority on the mentality of elite level athletes, especially because you're constantly trying to convince us of all the theoretical matches that Nalbandian would have won...if only. I have addressed your points, (which you ignore.)  It's not a very game arguing position to just diss me.  You could do better than that, if your position were stronger.  Your own positions are generally emotion-based, not fact-based.  You're so convinced that a match should have gone differently, especially where it involves Nadal, whom you hate with a passion.  You say you understand the mentality of these athletes, but you really do impose a lot of yourself on their thinking, which is a stretch, imo.  You'd do better to look at the players at the time and at what actually happened.  It's what gets you into trouble.  You expend so much effort trying to argue that Nalbandian would have won matches he didn't, or never played, or saying that Novak's loss to Nadal at the USO in 2013 is worse than his loss to Murray at Wimbledon in 2013.  You give a total pass to Murray, yet acknowledge nothing of how Nadal was playing in that part of the 2013 season.  Much less all of it.  That is blinkered and agenda-driven.  And you look down your nose at me.   B-)

 

[brokenshoelace]

Broken_shoelace wrote:
I don’t overstate Novak’s struggles. I don’t think he was struggling that badly. I just think Nadal was much more in form and the results backed it up, and held a “recent” edge over him, which the match demonstrated. Novak was only struggling relative to Nadal’s results at that point. Which is the only thing that matters in this context since we’re discussing a match that took place between the two.

All that separated them was the result two matches: the Roland Garros semifinal and the Montreal semifinal, both of which Nadal won by the slimmest of margins. We are not talking about an immense gap in outcome of the matches like, say, Djokovic beating Nadal in all 7 sets they play in a season. You see, when Djokovic is in great form and Nadal is struggling, Djokovic wins their matches in straight sets. When Nadal has a “recent edge”, it is by squeaking out final sets with Djokovic missing his chances.

Broken_shoelace wrote:
As far as your second point goes, there is no “regardless of the surface” when it comes to Nadal and clay. That’s laughable. Nadal on other surfaces is one thing, and on clay, he’s another, especially back in 2006. There’s no dancing around it.

There is also no dancing around what Nalbandian was capable of and the game he brought to the table. Just one day before the classic Rome final in 2006, Nalbandian was up a break in the third set before losing it in a very tight tiebreak. Also, Nalbandian has always had a superior backhand to Federer and has always been a more consistently dominant point constructor. In addition to all of this, the 2006 Nadal was much more prone to playing points well behind the baseline on all surfaces, which would have left him very vulnerable to Nalbandian taking the ball early.

"When Nadal has a “recent edge”, it is by squeaking out final sets with Djokovic missing his chances."

Ummm, Nadal didn't have an edge when he beat him in the final set at the FO in 2013, as Novak had won their recent meeting in Monte Carlo. Likewise, the fact that they had split their meetings that year before playing in Montreal isn't enough for Nadal to have an edge, so he beat him in the third. So you bringing up that Nadal having an edge was only enough to give him final set victories is inane, since Nadal didn't have an edge when he won those matches. He established it by actually winning those matches. Once he did, he beat Novak in 4 at the US Open final, which included a 6-2 set and a 6-1 set. So...yeah.

And yes, indeed, there is no dancing around what Nalbandian was capable of back then. There's also no dancing around that it never meant anything as far as winning slams goes. So just quite how that would have meant he would have beaten Nadal at the FO -- the toughest task in tennis -- is beyond me. How about beating Hewitt at Wimbledon first? Or hell, Baghdatis at the AO? I've got a feeling this could take a while if I am to name Nalbandian's grand slam losses. Conversely, it would take two seconds to name Nadal's FO losses.

 

 

[calitennis127]

“When Nadal has a “recent edge”, it is by squeaking out final sets with Djokovic missing his chances.” Ummm, Nadal didn’t have an edge when he beat him in the final set at the FO in 2013, as Novak had won their recent meeting in Monte Carlo. Likewise, the fact that they had split their meetings that year before playing in Montreal isn’t enough for Nadal to have an edge, so he beat him in the third. So you bringing up that Nadal having an edge was only enough to give him final set victories is inane, since Nadal didn’t have an edge when he won those matches. He established it by actually winning those matches.

Yeah, so you're only proving my point that talking of an "edge" at all is ultimately trivial, unless one player has an extensive winning streak against the other. Also, the phrase "recent edge" was your invention, not mine. My point in using it was just to say that if either of them tends to have a greater psychological edge from recent wins, it would be Djokovic since his wins tend to be more one-sided. But more to the point, I don't see why Nadal's tight wins at Roland Garros and Montreal somehow made it an inevitability or near-inevitability that he would triumph in tight moments at a match at the US Open. Djokovic by that time in his career was a big boy and was no stranger to tight moments on big stages.

And yes, indeed, there is no dancing around what Nalbandian was capable of back then. There’s also no dancing around that it never meant anything as far as winning slams goes.

But what were the reasons?

 So just quite how that would have meant he would have beaten Nadal at the FO — the toughest task in tennis — is beyond me.

Match-up and psychological dynamic.

You are also being a Captain Hindsight right now. It is easy to say now that Nadal has been unbeatable on clay after a decade of great success at Roland Garros. In 2006, Nadal only had one French Open under his belt. He was regarded as a young King of Clay but there was not an absolute aura of invincibility on the surface either.

How about beating Hewitt at Wimbledon first? Or hell, Baghdatis at the AO?

The reasons for his losses to those guys have little applicability to the match-up possibility I am speaking of.

 

 

[calitennis127]

I don’t think you can be said to be the ultimate authority on the mentality of elite level athletes, especially because you’re constantly trying to convince us of all the theoretical matches that Nalbandian would have won…if only. I have addressed your points, (which you ignore.) It’s not a very game arguing position to just diss me. You could do better than that, if your position were stronger. Your own positions are generally emotion-based, not fact-based. You’re so convinced that a match should have gone differently, especially where it involves Nadal, whom you hate with a passion. You say you understand the mentality of these athletes, but you really do impose a lot of yourself on their thinking, which is a stretch, imo. You’d do better to look at the players at the time and at what actually happened. It’s what gets you into trouble. You expend so much effort trying to argue that Nalbandian would have won matches he didn’t, or never played, or saying that Novak’s loss to Nadal at the USO in 2013 is worse than his loss to Murray at Wimbledon in 2013. You give a total pass to Murray, yet acknowledge nothing of how Nadal was playing in that part of the 2013 season. Much less all of it. That is blinkered and agenda-driven. And you look down your nose at me.

 

Moxie, I do not hate Nadal. I hate how his fans characterize his success. There are actually aspects of his mindset and his game that I deeply admire. I was rooting for him to beat Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon final before I joined the tennis.com boards. What made me begin to root against him were the asinine comments made by numerous Nadal fans about how and why he was beating Federer.

But, again, let me ask:

Do you believe that the 4th sets of the 2011 US Open final and the 2015 French quarterfinal between Djokovic and Nadal, in which Nadal lost 6-1 on both occasions, were reflective of how prior sets in those matches were played?

 

 

[brokenshoelace]

Broken_shoelace wrote:
“When Nadal has a “recent edge”, it is by squeaking out final sets with Djokovic missing his chances.” Ummm, Nadal didn’t have an edge when he beat him in the final set at the FO in 2013, as Novak had won their recent meeting in Monte Carlo. Likewise, the fact that they had split their meetings that year before playing in Montreal isn’t enough for Nadal to have an edge, so he beat him in the third. So you bringing up that Nadal having an edge was only enough to give him final set victories is inane, since Nadal didn’t have an edge when he won those matches. He established it by actually winning those matches.

Yeah, so you’re only proving my point that talking of an “edge” at all is ultimately trivial, unless one player has an extensive winning streak against the other. Also, the phrase “recent edge” was your invention, not mine. My point in using it was just to say that if either of them tends to have a greater psychological edge from recent wins, it would be Djokovic since his wins tend to be more one-sided. But more to the point, I don’t see why Nadal’s tight wins at Roland Garros and Montreal somehow made it an inevitability or near-inevitability that he would triumph in tight moments at a match at the US Open. Djokovic by that time in his career was a big boy and was no stranger to tight moments on big stages.

Broken_shoelace wrote:
And yes, indeed, there is no dancing around what Nalbandian was capable of back then. There’s also no dancing around that it never meant anything as far as winning slams goes.

But what were the reasons?

Broken_shoelace wrote:
So just quite how that would have meant he would have beaten Nadal at the FO — the toughest task in tennis — is beyond me.

Match-up and psychological dynamic. You are also being a Captain Hindsight right now. It is easy to say now that Nadal has been unbeatable on clay after a decade of great success at Roland Garros. In 2006, Nadal only had one French Open under his belt. He was regarded as a young King of Clay but there was not an absolute aura of invincibility on the surface either.

Broken_shoelace wrote:
How about beating Hewitt at Wimbledon first? Or hell, Baghdatis at the AO?

The reasons for his losses to those guys have little applicability to the match-up possibility I am speaking of.

Yes, I am being captain hindsight. And hindsight tells us that Nadal was close to unbeatable at Roland Garros, and a player whose most famous moment is kicking a linesjudge was not going to change that.

And LOL @ "psychological dynamic." Yup, the same player who didn't have the psychology to finish off Marcos freaking Baghdatis a few months earlier despite being two sets up, and had a made a career out of screwing up matches he should have won, was going to have the psychology to beat the mentally toughest competitor on the tour, on the surface he's unbeatable on, just because of his artistic backhand.

In be4 Madrid, Paris, Indian Wells, bla bla (and Nalbandian's losing H2H vs. Nadal).