Totally Classless comments from Uncle Toni...

[StantheMan]

The only reason why Da Man won was because Rafa "ALLOWED" him to win by refusing to retire.


http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/crowds-boos-add-to-pain-for-rafael-nadal-says-coach-toni/story-fnbe6xeb-1226811580453

 

[tented]

The only reason why Da Man won was because Rafa "ALLOWED" him to win by refusing to retire.


http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/crowds-boos-add-to-pain-for-rafael-nadal-says-coach-toni/story-fnbe6xeb-1226811580453

An inauspicious beginning at Tennis Frontier, to say the least.

Let me quote it back to you, in its proper perspective:

"After midnight, when the lights were turned out and Rod Laver Arena was empty, when the requirement no longer existed for Rafael Nadal to demonstrate the brave face, it became apparent to his camp how wounding the hostile crowd reception had been during his Australian Open defeat to Stan Wawrinka. Nadal's coach and uncle, Toni, told The Australian in the early hours of yesterday morning that Nadal refused to retire at Melbourne Park because he wanted to give the capacity crowd its money's worth and allow Wawrinka the honour of being triumphant in a properly completed final of a major championship."

At no time is the assertion made "the only reason why Da Man won was because Rafa "ALLOWED" him to win by refusing to retire."

The whole point is that Rafa knew he was going to lose, and he then had a choice: retire, and deprive Stan of being able to complete a three-set win, while also not providing the crowd and TV audiences a full match; or keep playing, and let the match officially conclude.

It's the same thing Rafa did on the same court a few years ago against Ferrer. He knew then, too, that he wasn't going to win, but he didn't want to retire and deprive Ferrer and the rest of us the satisfaction of seeing a completed match.

 

[Riotbeard]

The only reason why Da Man won was because Rafa "ALLOWED" him to win by refusing to retire.


http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/crowds-boos-add-to-pain-for-rafael-nadal-says-coach-toni/story-fnbe6xeb-1226811580453

An inauspicious beginning at Tennis Frontier, to say the least.

Let me quote it back to you, in its proper perspective:

"After midnight, when the lights were turned out and Rod Laver Arena was empty, when the requirement no longer existed for Rafael Nadal to demonstrate the brave face, it became apparent to his camp how wounding the hostile crowd reception had been during his Australian Open defeat to Stan Wawrinka. Nadal's coach and uncle, Toni, told The Australian in the early hours of yesterday morning that Nadal refused to retire at Melbourne Park because he wanted to give the capacity crowd its money's worth and allow Wawrinka the honour of being triumphant in a properly completed final of a major championship."

At no time is the assertion made "the only reason why Da Man won was because Rafa "ALLOWED" him to win by refusing to retire."

The whole point is that Rafa knew he was going to lose, and he then had a choice: retire, and deprive Stan of being able to complete a three-set win, while also not providing the crowd and TV audiences a full match; or keep playing, and let the match officially conclude.

It's the same thing Rafa did on the same court a few years ago against Ferrer. He knew then, too, that he wasn't going to win, but he didn't want to retire and deprive Ferrer and the rest of us the satisfaction of seeing a completed match.

I'm no fan of rafa, but the fact he finished was a credit to him as a competitor and human being.

 

[shawnbm]

tented and riotbeard say all that I could say. Nadal is a class guy and it was clear he was impaired. Even so, Stan the Man earned this title in every way--he beat a ton of great players, including the three time defending champion over five sets, and outright outplayed the great Nadal over a set and went up a break in the second. Here's the thing--you don't have a shot at the trophy if you don't make it to the dance in the first place--no asterisks allowed!

 

[Denis]

The only reason why Da Man won was because Rafa "ALLOWED" him to win by refusing to retire.


http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/crowds-boos-add-to-pain-for-rafael-nadal-says-coach-toni/story-fnbe6xeb-1226811580453

An inauspicious beginning at Tennis Frontier, to say the least.

Let me quote it back to you, in its proper perspective:

"After midnight, when the lights were turned out and Rod Laver Arena was empty, when the requirement no longer existed for Rafael Nadal to demonstrate the brave face, it became apparent to his camp how wounding the hostile crowd reception had been during his Australian Open defeat to Stan Wawrinka. Nadal's coach and uncle, Toni, told The Australian in the early hours of yesterday morning that Nadal refused to retire at Melbourne Park because he wanted to give the capacity crowd its money's worth and allow Wawrinka the honour of being triumphant in a properly completed final of a major championship."

At no time is the assertion made "the only reason why Da Man won was because Rafa "ALLOWED" him to win by refusing to retire."

The whole point is that Rafa knew he was going to lose, and he then had a choice: retire, and deprive Stan of being able to complete a three-set win, while also not providing the crowd and TV audiences a full match; or keep playing, and let the match officially conclude.

It's the same thing Rafa did on the same court a few years ago against Ferrer. He knew then, too, that he wasn't going to win, but he didn't want to retire and deprive Ferrer and the rest of us the satisfaction of seeing a completed match.

I'm no fan of rafa, but the fact he finished was a credit to him as a competitor and human being.

Exactly. I don't like Nadal's antics, but the fact that he did not retire was an act of great gamesmanship. Good on Rafa.

 

[nehmeth]

Well, in the "old days" trolls would spam the boards during a slam fortnight, not after. It is nice to see a community who will stand up for the truth, even when they're not fans of the player being bashed. It's rare and something of great value.

 

[StantheMan]

The "truth" is that if Uncle Toni was sincere and classy he would say" Stan played an excellent match. On this night, the better player won." What we heard intead was "Rafa is a very nice guy so instead of defaulting he ALLOWED Stan to win." In one statement, Uncle Toni basically is trying his best to prop up his guy and at the same time taking some legitimacy out of Stan's well deserved win.

 

[Riotbeard]

The "truth" is that if Uncle Toni was sincere and classy he would say" Stan played an excellent match. On this night, the better player won." What we heard intead was "Rafa is a very nice guy so instead of defaulting he ALLOWED Stan to win." In one statement, Uncle Toni basically is trying his best to prop up his guy and at the same time taking some legitimacy out of Stan's well deserved win.

Looks like willful misreading of what Tony said. What good would it due to act like Rafa wasn't hurt?! Or do you think that everyone including Stan believed that serving first serves at 70 mph, was some sort of tactic. I think everyone has said and believes Stan deserves his crown. He beat the 3 time defending champ for crying out loud, but to act like Rafa was uninjured seems really silly and treating Stan like a child.

 

[Front242]

I'm 110% sure if this had not been a final Nadal would've retired just as Tomic did. It was decent of him to play on till completion as others stated as slam wins due to retirement leave a sour taste in many peoples mouths. Good on him. Can't have been easy and it wasn't easy for Stan either. He turned into a 2500 ranked challenger player after 2-0 2nd set as he was thrown off by the whole situation.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm sure your stay here will be long and fruitful.

 

[TsarMatt]

The only reason why Da Man won was because Rafa "ALLOWED" him to win by refusing to retire.


http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/crowds-boos-add-to-pain-for-rafael-nadal-says-coach-toni/story-fnbe6xeb-1226811580453

An inauspicious beginning at Tennis Frontier, to say the least.

Let me quote it back to you, in its proper perspective:

"After midnight, when the lights were turned out and Rod Laver Arena was empty, when the requirement no longer existed for Rafael Nadal to demonstrate the brave face, it became apparent to his camp how wounding the hostile crowd reception had been during his Australian Open defeat to Stan Wawrinka. Nadal's coach and uncle, Toni, told The Australian in the early hours of yesterday morning that Nadal refused to retire at Melbourne Park because he wanted to give the capacity crowd its money's worth and allow Wawrinka the honour of being triumphant in a properly completed final of a major championship."

At no time is the assertion made "the only reason why Da Man won was because Rafa "ALLOWED" him to win by refusing to retire."

The whole point is that Rafa knew he was going to lose, and he then had a choice: retire, and deprive Stan of being able to complete a three-set win, while also not providing the crowd and TV audiences a full match; or keep playing, and let the match officially conclude.

It's the same thing Rafa did on the same court a few years ago against Ferrer. He knew then, too, that he wasn't going to win, but he didn't want to retire and deprive Ferrer and the rest of us the satisfaction of seeing a completed match.

I'm no fan of rafa, but the fact he finished was a credit to him as a competitor and human being.

Exactly. I don't like Nadal's antics, but the fact that he did not retire was an act of great gamesmanship. Good on Rafa.

Take notes, Bernard - everyone is making you look bad now, including 19 year old Nick Kyrgios who still managed to play out his entire match against Benoit Paire despite barely being able to move at one stage.

But I agree. Nadal had every excuse in the book to throw in the towel and really give the AO a bittersweet conclusion. It's amazing he kept playing despite knowing he had no real chance of winning.

 

[Moxie]

^I don't fault Bernie for pulling out of a first round if he was injured. Perhaps he should think better of his scheduling, in future, since he's done well at the AO in the past. But refusing to retire from a final is a wholly different thing. With two legs to stand on, Nadal would never have retired from that match. Good on the partisans from all different sides for recognizing the dignity in that.

@StantheMan: As Riotbeard pointed out, you are willfully misreading the intent of Toni's remark. If you'd like to start over around here, we'll give you a mulligan.

 

[El Dude]

The one thing I'm disagreeing here is the idea that Rafa "knew he was going to lose" and that he only continued playing out of respect to Wawrinka. I think that's half the truth, the other half being that he thought could still win - thus the 3rd set, which he actually did win. He probably hoped that Stan would get jitters. But I don't think he thought, "I'm going to lose so better make this look good so Stan and his fans feel goOd about it." I think more likely he thought, "Man, things don't look good but I'm going to give it my all despite the pain and hope that I can somehow pull this one out."

That interpretation doesn't make him less of a competitor - if anything, it makes him more of one.

 

[tented]

The one thing I'm disagreeing here is the idea that Rafa "knew he was going to lose" and that he only continued playing out of respect to Wawrinka. I think that's half the truth, the other half being that he thought could still win - thus the 3rd set, which he actually did win. He probably hoped that Stan would get jitters. But I don't think he thought, "I'm going to lose so better make this look good so Stan and his fans feel goOd about it." I think more likely he thought, "Man, things don't look good but I'm going to give it my all despite the pain and hope that I can somehow pull this one out."

That interpretation doesn't make him less of a competitor - if anything, it makes him more of one.

Well, the truth is we'll never know for sure, but your interpretation is certainly valid. My guess is Rafa couldn't believe he won the third set. He probably thought Stan would finish him off in straights. When that didn't happen, then your idea of giving it all despite the pain is likely what happened.

 

[Moxie]

The one thing I'm disagreeing here is the idea that Rafa "knew he was going to lose" and that he only continued playing out of respect to Wawrinka. I think that's half the truth, the other half being that he thought could still win - thus the 3rd set, which he actually did win. He probably hoped that Stan would get jitters. But I don't think he thought, "I'm going to lose so better make this look good so Stan and his fans feel goOd about it." I think more likely he thought, "Man, things don't look good but I'm going to give it my all despite the pain and hope that I can somehow pull this one out."

That interpretation doesn't make him less of a competitor - if anything, it makes him more of one.

Well, the truth is we'll never know for sure, but your interpretation is certainly valid. My guess is Rafa couldn't believe he won the third set. He probably thought Stan would finish him off in straights. When that didn't happen, then your idea of giving it all despite the pain is likely what happened.

I kind of agree with El Dude, and said as much during the live chat, as much as it matters. I think it was nehmeth asked me specifically that, if I thought Rafa was just playing it out, or actually thought he could win, and I said, 'both.' Rafa is hugely competitive, and it was "just" a tight back. With luck, and a little time, a back can loosen up, which it seemed to be doing. And Stan was giving him a little time by making a hash of it, for a while there. That's why I say the victory was fully Stan's. While Rafa may have been thinking he'd just play it out in the 2nd, the 3rd set gave him reason to believe he might pull it off by grit, alone. Which Stan, I wager, realized too, and remembered just in time what had gotten him that far.

 

[Front242]

He definitely had hoped he may actually level the match at least as he could see Stan had completely lost the plot. And Nadal's movement was definitely improving already by set 4. If Stan had continued to clown around Nadal may have got it to a 5th set and then I wouldn't have fancied Stan's chances. It was a horrendously poor match to watch after 2-0 2nd set though.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

You have to play it out, if you can, and if you know you are not making your injury worse. There is the respect for Stan part but also who is to say Stan would not get hurt? Got to keep playing.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The one thing I'm disagreeing here is the idea that Rafa "knew he was going to lose" and that he only continued playing out of respect to Wawrinka. I think that's half the truth, the other half being that he thought could still win - thus the 3rd set, which he actually did win. He probably hoped that Stan would get jitters. But I don't think he thought, "I'm going to lose so better make this look good so Stan and his fans feel goOd about it." I think more likely he thought, "Man, things don't look good but I'm going to give it my all despite the pain and hope that I can somehow pull this one out."

That interpretation doesn't make him less of a competitor - if anything, it makes him more of one.

Nadal was not going to win, under any circumstances.

People are really overreacting to Stan's 3rd set jitters. Let's put it that way: If you can't serve, can't move, and can barely hit the ball, you're not going to beat a top 10 player under any circumstances. We see players lose matches because their movement is a split second off, let alone if they can't move at all.

Was a tiny part of Nadal hoping for a miracle after winning the 3rd set? Maybe. Did he believe he can win? He would have been delusional. Wawrinka had two full sets after that to simply keep the ball in play. That's literally all he needed to do to win. Reportedly, Nadal's words to Toni were "it's over" after he got injured. Sounds like he conceded defeat.

 

[El Dude]

Here's the problem we face. Saying that Rafa realized it was game over and he was just playing it out for Stan's sake totally invalidates Stan's title. Saying that Rafa didn't realize the game was over and gave it his all until the end, despite his injury, says that even Rafa is mortal, at least when he's not 100%.

While either one could be true, I'd rather go with the latter because A) it validates Stan's performance and B) isn't as harsh to the opposition as the former. In other words, if you pick the first view you're basically saying that Rafa could beat Stan with an arm tied behind his back if healthy, but if you pick the second view you're still acknowledging that Rafa is superior, but you're simply saying that Stan is a formidable opponent that requires even an elite player to be on his game.

Again, why do Rafa fans need that extra edge? Rafa's already the best. Why can't we acknowledge that he's not unbeatable given a small advantage on an opponent's part? Why do we need for him to be so injured that he's just playing it out for the sake of appearances? That's totally invalidating to Stan and what he's accomplished. It doesn't even say anything good about Rafa.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Here's the problem we face. Saying that Rafa realized it was game over and he was just playing it out for Stan's sake totally invalidates Stan's title. Saying that Rafa didn't realize the game was over and gave it his all until the end, despite his injury, says that even Rafa is mortal, at least when he's not 100%.

While either one could be true, I'd rather go with the latter because A) it validates Stan's performance and B) isn't as harsh to the opposition as the former. In other words, if you pick the first view you're basically saying that Rafa could beat Stan with an arm tied behind his back if healthy, but if you pick the second view you're still acknowledging that Rafa is superior, but you're simply saying that Stan is a formidable opponent that requires even an elite player to be on his game.

Again, why do Rafa fans need that extra edge? Rafa's already the best. Why can't we acknowledge that he's not unbeatable given a small advantage on an opponent's part? Why do we need for him to be so injured that he's just playing it out for the sake of appearances? That's totally invalidating to Stan and what he's accomplished. It doesn't even say anything good about Rafa.

See, the problem with the above is that it's essentially saying: How can we present things in the nicest, most diplomatic way possible?

The common theme I'm saying around here from most is: Yes, Rafa was injured, but no we shouldn't say he was, or that it affected the outcome. Uh why not? It's the truth. "Affecting the outcome" by the way, does not mean that he would have won but lost due to injury. It simply means the match turns out the way it did because of the injury. In other words, the action we witnessed from the 2-0 in the second set onward unfolded the way it did due to the injury, which of course, is undeniable.

Why should we sugar coat it? And more importantly, why does it invalidate Stan's title? He won it. He's in the record books. He has his trophy and his 2000 points. Nothing can ever invalidate it.

The main reason why I think the line of thinking above is puzzling is that it seems admittedly forced. Why can't we just say the truth, which is the following:

Stan was outplaying Nadal, was ahead on the scoreboard, Nadal got injured and seemed to be in severe pain. Said injury took his game apart. Stan messed up the 3rd set, but recovered and won anyway.

What's wrong with the above? It's disrespectful to Stan? Why? Is it not the truth? Can any part of it be argued against?

He was playing a guy who was serving softballs and literally could barely move. Why are we acting like this is not a big deal? All I hear is how this affected Stan's concentration... Dude (no pun intended), it didn't affect Stan's anything nearly as much as it affected Nadal. He was playing A) IN pain, B) In tears C) with no concentration because you can't focus on the point itself when you're in so much pain. All you're thinking about is the injury.

The "Nadal fans edge" part is baffling to me. Is there anything I said that is fabricated, or even manipulated? I laid out exactly the way the match unfolded, and not even in a subjective way. If that somehow "gives Nadal fans an edge" then it's because the edge is there due to the way things happened. It's unfortunate but that's the truth.

Honestly, for 2 days I've yet to see anyone challenge the above interpretation of the match. All I'm hearing essentially screams: Yeah, it's true, but don't put it like that since it's not too nice.