Waiting for Rafa

[Billie]

I really can't believe you can go about same old things over and over again and fight about things that happened in past and are long gone. My gosh are your lives so boring? But it does show me how painful that 2011 was so it makes me a little bit giggly as well.:snigger

Yes, talking about old-ish tennis matches between players who are still very relevant today, on a tennis forum no less, must be some definite indicator as to the level of excitements in our lives, or lack thereof. There's no other explanation.

No, that is not correct. You and Kieran went back and forth about who said what 3 years ago, there is nothing about tennis here, if you want to be realistic and objective.

Don't mind me, go back to replying back what you said 3 years ago if that is what excites you :laydownlaughing

 

[Kieran]

It was two and a half years ago, Billie, get it correct. :snigger

And the thread is about Waiting for Rafa, which is what that old thread was, in its way. It was run as an objective corrective to the prevailing wisdom, as stated by the commentators in NADALRG2005's post, which stated that Novak at that stage (post-Oz 2012) owned Rafa in the way Rafa owns Roger and this would prevent Rafa from ever getting back on top.

He was cooked, in other words. I tended to disagree, and gave people the chance to disagree also - or add caveats (2017, etc :lolz: :snigger) . There was Moxie, me and Tented for a while. It was satisfying when young Ralph showed he's nobody's patsy, but even more sweet when he finally got there. I believe he'd have gotten there in 2012, but for the worst injury break of his career.

I'm thinking of running it again, by the way - anybody want to sign below? :snigger

Meantime, Novak is on court now - Rafa is on next! Vamos!! :clap :clap :clap

 

[Kieran]

And when did Nole talk about retiring at age 30? And Rafa didn't look better than Nole at AO, at least Nole made it to 5 sets vs. Stan

Ahem, you're forgetting something.

Such as? Oh the "fact" that the only reason Rafa lost was because of his back? Stan was up a set and a break and also beat the much superior medium hard court player a couple rounds before...

Coincidentally, I'm watching at the moment the Federer-Baggy Oz final of 2006. Federer is down a set, and a break, and he's staving off break points in the third game of the second set.

No way Roger wins this... :nono

 

[Kieran]

Not getting to a tiebreak in a set against Rafa in Paris is hardly unique, but if you think Rafa was "lucky" Novak touched the net, it could be simply argued that Novak was lucky that Rafa missed "The Backhand."

Neither "The Net" nor "The Backhand" cost either men the game, let alone the match....

Yup, which is why I said the net touch didn't lose him the game but certainly didn't help either. Same applies in each case as they were both big points.

So where was Rafa ever lucky against Novak? I missed something...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I really can't believe you can go about same old things over and over again and fight about things that happened in past and are long gone. My gosh are your lives so boring? But it does show me how painful that 2011 was so it makes me a little bit giggly as well.:snigger

Yes, talking about old-ish tennis matches between players who are still very relevant today, on a tennis forum no less, must be some definite indicator as to the level of excitements in our lives, or lack thereof. There's no other explanation.

No, that is not correct. You and Kieran went back and forth about who said what 3 years ago, there is nothing about tennis here, if you want to be realistic and objective.

Don't mind me, go back to replying back what you said 3 years ago if that is what excites you :laydownlaughing

No I'd rather cry about the lack of Djokovic fans and how Mastoor gets unfair treatment.

...or compare Moxie to hitler.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And when did Nole talk about retiring at age 30? And Rafa didn't look better than Nole at AO, at least Nole made it to 5 sets vs. Stan

Ahem, you're forgetting something.

Such as? Oh the "fact" that the only reason Rafa lost was because of his back? Stan was up a set and a break and also beat the much superior medium hard court player a couple rounds before...

Uh...you said "at least Djokovic made it to 5 sets vs. Stan." If you don't think Nadal's back injury suffered early in the second set pretty much totally prevented that from ever being a possibility then you're kidding yourself.

Honestly, the way non-Nadal fans still shrug off that injury is absolutely laughable. Oh Stan was up a set and 2-0. What an insurmountable lead! You mean to tell me that there's no way Nadal could have broken back in set 2 with pretty much the entire set left to play for? And you mean to tell me there's no way the match could have went 5 sets after that?

But no you're right. Stan was never going to blow that lead. He was playing too good. That's why a barely functioning Nadal still took a set from him. But oh right, Stan lost that set BECAUSE Nadal was injured and it affected his concentration. Yes, Nadal's injury affected Stan more than it affected Nadal. A healthy Nadal would have been straight setted, but lucky for him, his injury allowed him to take a set.

The funny thing? That awesome logic is actually exactly what people are saying, once you analyze it enough.

I honestly still am not over how dumb the forums were after that match.

 

[Kieran]

I really can't believe you can go about same old things over and over again and fight about things that happened in past and are long gone. My gosh are your lives so boring? But it does show me how painful that 2011 was so it makes me a little bit giggly as well.:snigger

Yes, talking about old-ish tennis matches between players who are still very relevant today, on a tennis forum no less, must be some definite indicator as to the level of excitements in our lives, or lack thereof. There's no other explanation.

No, that is not correct. You and Kieran went back and forth about who said what 3 years ago, there is nothing about tennis here, if you want to be realistic and objective.

Don't mind me, go back to replying back what you said 3 years ago if that is what excites you :laydownlaughing

No I'd rather cry about the lack of Djokovic fans and how Mastoor gets unfair treatment.

...or compare Moxie to hitler.

Yeah, in terms of oddball comments, comparing sweet sista Moxie to Hitler was as bizarre as, well, comparing the forum to life in China, Russia or Korea! :lolz:

 

[brokenshoelace]

He was cooked, in other words. I tended to disagree, and gave people the chance to disagree also - or add caveats (2017, etc :lolz: :snigger) . There was Moxie, me and Tented for a while. It was satisfying when young Ralph showed he's nobody's patsy, but even more sweet when he finally got there. I believe he'd have gotten there in 2012, but for the worst injury break of his career.

NOTE: The following will discuss something that was said 2 years ago. Posters who don't want any part of our unexciting lives are advised to disregard this post.

The bolded part is exactly what I meant. Your thread, whether implicitly or explicitly, was talking about Nadal getting his number 1 ranking by the end of the year. Many brought up the amount of points Novak had to defend (understandably so) to entertain the possibility.

Yeah, I didn't think he'd get the number 1 ranking that year. You're right, he might have had he not missed the second half completely.

Though in fairness, I also didn't think he'd get the number 1 ranking in 2013, but you can forgive me for "lacking belief" when Nadal was coming off a 7-month injury (or a 7-month rest, if you believe some...or a 7-month silent ban, if you believe others).

 

[Kieran]

Your thread, whether implicitly or explicitly, was talking about Nadal getting his number 1 ranking by the end of the year. Many brought up the amount of points Novak had to defend (understandably so) to entertain the possibility.

It clearly wasn't, brother, but I'll absolve you cos the wait is over and the King is back and up a break on the ever-valiant tough guy Gasquet. :clap

You gonna co-sign a similar thread if I run it - or will ya wait til 2017... :snigger :hug

 

[brokenshoelace]

Your thread, whether implicitly or explicitly, was talking about Nadal getting his number 1 ranking by the end of the year. Many brought up the amount of points Novak had to defend (understandably so) to entertain the possibility.

It clearly wasn't, brother, but I'll absolve you cos the wait is over and the King is back and up a break on the ever-valiant tough guy Gasquet. :clap

You gonna co-sign a similar thread if I run it - or will ya wait til 2017... :snigger :hug

We're in 2014. I'll wait till 2019.

 

[Kieran]

Your thread, whether implicitly or explicitly, was talking about Nadal getting his number 1 ranking by the end of the year. Many brought up the amount of points Novak had to defend (understandably so) to entertain the possibility.

It clearly wasn't, brother, but I'll absolve you cos the wait is over and the King is back and up a break on the ever-valiant tough guy Gasquet. :clap

You gonna co-sign a similar thread if I run it - or will ya wait til 2017... :snigger :hug

We're in 2014. I'll wait till 2019.

Well, we saw after Oz how Stan owns Rafa the way Rafa owns Roger, so I think I'll join ya! :laydownlaughing

 

[brokenshoelace]

And now Djokovic is saying he plans to retire at age 30.

...Source? Because something tells me you just made that up.

 

[Front242]

And now Djokovic is saying he plans to retire at age 30.

...Source? Because something tells me you just made that up.

Surely not? He'd never make anything up. I did loads of searches after he posted that and got nothing. He likes to stir the $h1t as you know. Now anything's possible with a kid on the way and he does look burnt out often these days but I'm sure he'll play a bit more than that.

 

[DarthFed]

And when did Nole talk about retiring at age 30? And Rafa didn't look better than Nole at AO, at least Nole made it to 5 sets vs. Stan

Ahem, you're forgetting something.

Such as? Oh the "fact" that the only reason Rafa lost was because of his back? Stan was up a set and a break and also beat the much superior medium hard court player a couple rounds before...

Uh...you said "at least Djokovic made it to 5 sets vs. Stan." If you don't think Nadal's back injury suffered early in the second set pretty much totally prevented that from ever being a possibility then you're kidding yourself.

Honestly, the way non-Nadal fans still shrug off that injury is absolutely laughable. Oh Stan was up a set and 2-0. What an insurmountable lead! You mean to tell me that there's no way Nadal could have broken back in set 2 with pretty much the entire set left to play for? And you mean to tell me there's no way the match could have went 5 sets after that?

But no you're right. Stan was never going to blow that lead. He was playing too good. That's why a barely functioning Nadal still took a set from him. But oh right, Stan lost that set BECAUSE Nadal was injured and it affected his concentration. Yes, Nadal's injury affected Stan more than it affected Nadal. A healthy Nadal would have been straight setted, but lucky for him, his injury allowed him to take a set.

The funny thing? That awesome logic is actually exactly what people are saying, once you analyze it enough.

I honestly still am not over how dumb the forums were after that match.

All could've, would've, should've. What we do know is that Rafa was getting hammered before the injury and lost the match in 4 after it. Same gets said (rightfully so) when you heard Roger's fans talk about mono in 2008 and how that was the only reason he was playing so poorly most of the season. Don't know what could have happened, just know what did.

 

[Kieran]

I can't believe you think being a set and break down is unsurmountable, Darth. As I say, earlier I was watching the 2006 final.

Fact is, nobody is saying that Rafa would have won, but only that he could at least have competed. And given the shivers that beset Stan against a cripple, who knows? All we know is what we saw, which some Fedfans seem to think was a stupendous performance against a fully fit Rafa.

And I can't believe you compared an immobile player with Roger's bout of mono. If only! Roger played almost five hours in the heat of Australia with mono - and came back two days later to dispatch Berdy in straights. Oh, if only Rafa's back was just like that... :nono

 

[DarthFed]

I can't believe you think being a set and break down is unsurmountable, Darth. As I say, earlier I was watching the 2006 final.

Fact is, nobody is saying that Rafa would have won, but only that he could at least have competed. And given the shivers that beset Stan against a cripple, who knows? All we know is what we saw, which some Fedfans seem to think was a stupendous performance against a fully fit Rafa.

And I can't believe you compared an immobile player with Roger's bout of mono. If only! Roger played almost five hours in the heat of Australia with mono - and came back two days later to dispatch Berdy in straights. Oh, if only Rafa's back was just like that... :nono

First of all I highly doubt you were rewatching a GS final that Roger won. And secondly I never said it was insurmountable. BS is implying that Rafa would have definitely won had he not got hurt and I'd say given that Stan was up a set and break and was playing better than Rafa going into the match it is quite the leap of faith to assume he would come back and win.

Not much different than some Fed fans back in the day using mono as an excuse for his poor play all the way through the Olympics in 2008. But hey Roger beat Tipsy in 5, and played so "amazing" in the RG and Wimby finals right? I seem to remember you are one who didn't let that one fly.

 

[Kieran]

I promise you, I had a bucket of popcorn and I was watching the Baggy match again and I remember thinking to myself: "given that Stan - er, Baggy - was up a set and a break, it is quite a leap of faith to think that Roger will come back and win."

Broken never mentioned Rafa winning the match. Nobody did. He responded to the suggestion by you that "Rafa didn't look better than Nole at AO, at least Nole made it to 5 sets vs. Stan." Of course Rafa didn't go to five - he could barely move after a set and 3 games...

 

[Front242]

I think could barely move is a bit exaggerated. He'd loosened up quite a bit towards the end of the match. Still hampered but hardly could barely move either. I've watched tennis matches with guys in a lot worse state than that.

 

[Kieran]

I think could barely move is a bit exaggerated. He'd loosened up quite a bit towards the end of the match. Still hampered but hardly could barely move either. I've watched tennis matches with guys in a lot worse state than that.

Could he compete at that level?

 

[Front242]

I think could barely move is a bit exaggerated. He'd loosened up quite a bit towards the end of the match. Still hampered but hardly could barely move either. I've watched tennis matches with guys in a lot worse state than that.

Could he compete at that level?

Well in the 4th set of their 2011 USO final when Novak twinged his back he was serving just as slow as Nadal and won it 6-1 so anything is possible. Sampras won a match after barfing his guts up everywhere. It's hardly easy to win if you're not feeling physically well but it's possible too.