Totally Classless comments from Uncle Toni...

[the AntiPusher]

Is it a way to perform a background check on a new poster/Troll?

 

[El Dude]

"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."

Nothing wrong with that - I agree with what you said, but that isn't what I'm disagreeing with. What I don't get is the need to emphasize Rafa's injury to the point of invalidating Stan's accomplishment, as if there was no way that Stan could have possibly won if Rafa was anywhere close to form. I mean, I don't think that Stan would have stood much of a chance against a healthy Rafa, but the emphasis becomes a bit extreme and invalidating.

Its one thing to say, "Rafa wasn't on his game because he was hurting," and another to say "Rafa could barely move and just played on out of courtesy to make it seem like Stan's victory meant something." The second completely invalidates Stan's victory and save's face for Rafa (or, really, his fans). I don't think it is as much "telling it like it is," as you imply, but looking at it from an "Rafa-centric" perspective.

I think the fact that Rafa won a set means both that A) he's an amazing player and can play at a high level even when hurt, and B) he wasn't completely unable to play. If he really "was serving softballs and literally could barely move"--a direct quote from you--then he wouldn't have taken a set. I'm sorry, Broken, but that sort of statement invalidates Stan and supports the "Rafa can only lose if he's hurt" mentality that some Rafa fans propagate.

Just to be clear, Rafa fans aren't the only ones guilty of this. My fellow Roger fans like to say, "Roger is playing like crap now," seemingly avoiding the distinct possibility that Roger is just old and no longer the player that he was.

But again, why not keep it at the level of "Rafa was hurt and not playing 100%" rather than taking it up a notch and saying "Rafa should've been in a wheel chair - what a great sportsman for playing on and making it seem like Stan won." The edge is still there in the first--it acknowledges that Rafa was hurt and didn't play his best--but the second takes it to another whole level of Rafa grandiosity.

 

[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.

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.

Except that Nadal was the prohibitive favorite, under almost all circumstances. He strained his back. Obviously he didn't come back from it, but to say that he couldn't have is to negate a lot of what you know about him. He did play on, and, when he won the 3rd, I think he gave himself a punter's chance. Some of his wins, though while he was healthy, have had the faith of the delusional. I think that's what El Dude is trying to say. In the end, if Rafa gave himself a glimmer or hope or not, I'm not sure that it really matters. Wawrinka had a lot of answers to the puzzle, and was the better on the day. Rafa wasn't the last man standing. Stan was.

 

[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.

Except that Nadal was the prohibitive favorite, under almost all circumstances. He strained his back. Obviously he didn't come back from it, but to say that he couldn't have is to negate a lot of what you know about him.

Except he was the favorite BEFORE the match, and before the injury. Just let a fortuneteller inform the bookmakers that Nadal was going to sprain his back and not be able to move or serve as early as the second set, and let's see who would become the favorite then. Totally irrelevant argument.

Also, none of what I said negates what I've known about him. It's totally in line with what i know about him, and about human beings: When your back is hurting so much that you can't move, serve, or hit the ball, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO WIN A TENNIS MATCH AGAINST A TOP 10 PLAYER. Let me ask you something, in the history of tennis, have you ever seen anyone get an injury so early in the match, that hampers him so badly, and go on to win it? Against a top 10 opponent in a major to boot? I'll keep waiting...

I'm sorry but the level of argumentation above is absolutely ridiculous. Also, what I know about Nadal? What I "know" about Nadal is that according to him, he's lost matches due to a knee injury that wasn't affecting his movement or ball-striking nearly as much as the back injury was affecting him on Sunday (cough*Rosol*cough). Sorry, but he's not superhuman, and if you thought he could still win it after the injury, I can't be held responsible for gullibility and false hopes. In fact, the result pretty much shows which one of us was right... So I really don't understand what ground you're standing on when you're offering these arguments.

In order to win, Nadal would have had to A) Somehow ion the 4th set despite facing break points in literally each and every service game and then B) Go on to win a fifth by holding his serve throughout AND break Stan given that there's no tie-break? Uh yeah sure. Sorry, not my fault you overestimate Nadal. That speaks to your fandom being over the top, not me being too defensive and looking for "an edge."

 

[brokenshoelace]

Its one thing to say, "Rafa wasn't on his game because he was hurting," and another to say "Rafa could barely move and just played on out of courtesy to make it seem like Stan's victory meant something." The second completely invalidates Stan's victory and save's face for Rafa (or, really, his fans). I don't think it is as much "telling it like it is," as you imply, but looking at it from an "Rafa-centric" perspective.

I think the fact that Rafa won a set means both that A) he's an amazing player and can play at a high level even when hurt, and B) he wasn't completely unable to play. If he really "was serving softballs and literally could barely move"--a direct quote from you--then he wouldn't have taken a set. I'm sorry, Broken, but that sort of statement invalidates Stan and supports the "Rafa can only lose if he's hurt" mentality that some Rafa fans propagate.

Watch the service speed and watch his movement. Forget the score. Now tell me if he was serving or moving anywhere near the level required to win a major final. He won a set, yeah that's a testament to his grit and a testament to Wawrinka falling apart in that one. Unfortunately, everyone is forgetting he needed 3 sets to win, not 1. Three full sets while serving at 160 Kph, not reaching any ball that wrong foots him, having to take complete guesses on the return of serve, and be totally unable to stretch on the backhand side.

The problem is, most of you are arguing in generalities. I'm simply arguing about what took place on the court. Am I exaggerating in any way, the way Nadal played with my description above? If so, please, someone prove me otherwise.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Some of his wins, though while he was healthy, have had the faith of the delusional. I think that's what El Dude is trying to say.

Read your own words: While healthy. He wasn't against Stan after that injury. Big difference, another irrelevant argument.

 

[brokenshoelace]

"Rafa should've been in a wheel chair - what a great sportsman for playing on and making it seem like Stan won."

I never said either. He could walk fine, he didn't need a wheel chair. He couldn't move on a tennis court. There's a huge difference. By tennis standards, Nadal was barely moving. Find me an ATP player who moves as badly as Nadal was moving then.

I also never praised Nadal for being a great sportsman and playing on. I said both he and Stan handled it well. That's about it. I don't think he deserves a Nobel prize for it. He played, in part because of the crowd (and it's delusional to think that didn't factor in), his opponent, and to give himself a fighting chance, which I never denied by the way. Having a fighting chance however, does not mean he ever had any REALISTIC (emphasis on this word) chances of winning the match, not unless Wawrinka twisted his own back.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Anyway, summary from this thread:

Let's ignore facts for the sake of political correctness. I've yet to see someone actually disagree with my assessment of Nadal's game after the injury (other than one instance where "barely move" was taken literally).

Somehow saying Nadal was injured invalidates Wawrinka's victory. No it doesn't. First of all, Wawrinka had to win 6 full matches before that final, and was already ahead in the final itself. So nothing will ever invalidate his victory, except the constant projections happening here.

 

[Moxie]

Broken, I'm standing on the same theoretical ground you are…the unforeseeable 'what might have been.' You're saying he couldn't have won. I'm saying he may have harbored a glimmer of hope. It will never be provable which of those things is right. You have your opinion. I'm not completely on the other side from you, just trying to add a nuance that I see. But I won't split hairs with you any longer, if you'd prefer.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You're saying he couldn't have won. I'm saying he may have harbored a glimmer of hope. It will never be provable which of those things is right.

The final result was not good enough of a proof?

 

[Moxie]

You're saying he couldn't have won. I'm saying he may have harbored a glimmer of hope. It will never be provable which of those things is right.

The final result was not good enough of a proof?

:laydownlaughing OK, I give.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Anyway, I'll state my case clearly just as to explain what I mean:

Most want to acknowledge that Wawrinka was already beating a healthy Nadal in the first set. That is not only fair, but absolutely accurate. This SHOULD be acknowledged.

The same people would more or less dismiss any argument regarding "Nadal would have turned the match around if it wasn't for the injury" because there's no point in speculating, and Wawrinka was already soundly outplaying him. I agree on both accounts.

However, and here is my biggest issue: The same people want to argue that an injured Nadal actually HAD the chance to turn the match around.

OK, now, I have to stop you right there. If we're supposed to concede that Warwinka was the superior player that day anyway (again, something I agree with), and that even a healthy Nadal might have struggled to turn the match around (which could very well be true), how are we supposed to seriously think that Nadal realistically still had a chance to win after the injury?

I'm sorry if I was being too much of a prick in some of the above responses, but hopefully this one clarifies my stand. I do think it's a legitimate gripe that I have with the logic behind some of the above arguments. Though I may be biased...

 

[Moxie]

Haha…I still don't think we're far removed from the same point, and I've already acknowledged on another thread that I was being bossy, but I'll concede that here again. And yes, you were being a bit of an arrogant prick. (Oops…did I add "arrogant?") Bottom line: Rafa lost, and we fans are trying not to be horrible about it, while at the same time suffering from the pain of it, and trying to work it out. I'm sorry if punching at each other seemed more dignified than punching at the detractors.

:hug :smooch

 

[Tennis Miller]

Is it a way to perform a background check on a new poster/Troll?

I work for the NSA and I already know.


Cheers (and kidding)

But seriously, they do know....

TM

 

[Front242]

The poster you're alluding to has been banned.

 

[Kieran]

I agree with both Moxie and Broken, funny enough. Rafa did play on out of respect to his opponent, and obviously he did so knowing he wasn't going to do permanent damage. Had he been told by the trainer - or if he already knew - that further play was foolhardy, he'd have shaken hands.

But I also think that as Stan mentally folded, Rafa may have hoped his back would loosen up, the pills would kick in, and he'd have a chance to make things more difficult. I doubt he won the 3rd and thought he could win, but I bet he thought, well, hang in there, movement is improving, and if Stan could just continue to...

But I disagree with El Dude that any interpretation of what happened invalidates Stan's victory. He got the win, and in the circumstances we all witnessed. Whatever Rafa's intentions were for playing on, they don't change a single fact of what we already know...

 

[Mog]

I agree with both Moxie and Broken, funny enough. Rafa did play on out of respect to his opponent, and obviously he did so knowing he wasn't going to do permanent damage. Had he been told by the trainer - or if he already knew - that further play was foolhardy, he'd have shaken hands.

But I also think that as Stan mentally folded, Rafa may have hoped his back would loosen up, the pills would kick in, and he'd have a chance to make things more difficult. I doubt he won the 3rd and thought he could win, but I bet he thought, well, hang in there, movement is improving, and if Stan could just continue to...

But I disagree with El Dude that any interpretation of what happened invalidates Stan's victory. He got the win, and in the circumstances we all witnessed. Whatever Rafa's intentions were for playing on, they don't change a single fact of what we already know...

Very well said kieran.

 

[StantheMan]

????

 

[Riotbeard]

I agree with both Moxie and Broken, funny enough. Rafa did play on out of respect to his opponent, and obviously he did so knowing he wasn't going to do permanent damage. Had he been told by the trainer - or if he already knew - that further play was foolhardy, he'd have shaken hands.

But I also think that as Stan mentally folded, Rafa may have hoped his back would loosen up, the pills would kick in, and he'd have a chance to make things more difficult. I doubt he won the 3rd and thought he could win, but I bet he thought, well, hang in there, movement is improving, and if Stan could just continue to...

But I disagree with El Dude that any interpretation of what happened invalidates Stan's victory. He got the win, and in the circumstances we all witnessed. Whatever Rafa's intentions were for playing on, they don't change a single fact of what we already know...

Very well said kieran.

Ditto.

 

[isabelle]

It's not the 1st time Toni is classless..remember when he said RG's crowd was stupid when they supported Robin in 2009.....he's not fairplay at all even if his nephew is