Waiting for Rafa

[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?

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.

Come on. I watched the Pete match and it was deep in the fifth already. And Rafa was just as gassed in that fourth against Nole.

Be fair about Rafa, for once. Once Rafa's back went, the match was over, and once or twice he even looked ready to concede. His back was at him all the rest of the season. Federer gets a whole season (2013) where his back is used as an excuse, but he was never immobilised in a match like this, but with Rafa...anything is possible?

I know you love him but this takes the cake... :laydownlaughing

 

[Front242]

I'm merely saying I've seen guys hurt badly win matches and could barely move doesn't cut it. The anti inflammatories kicked in towards the end and he was definitely moving better. Still serving slow but moving better than I'd describe as "could barely move" personally.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I am assuming the wait is over?

 

[the AntiPusher]

I'm merely saying I've seen guys hurt badly win matches and could barely move doesn't cut it. The anti inflammatories kicked in towards the end and he was definitely moving better. Still serving slow but moving better than I'd describe as "could barely move" personally.

Mentally Rafa was never dialed into that match..The inflammatories did kick in but too late and his back Never loosen to the point that he was more than 80 % or to the point where Rafa could truly trust his back.. hence.. bad movement, no real feel for the ball & timing and lack of execution.. Acourse..it would have taken a 5th set for Rafa to pull this one out..

 

[Kieran]

I'm merely saying I've seen guys hurt badly win matches and could barely move doesn't cut it. The anti inflammatories kicked in towards the end and he was definitely moving better. Still serving slow but moving better than I'd describe as "could barely move" personally.

There was no way he was winning that match once his back went, and you know, and I know it. Even with Stan getting an attack of the vapors, Nadal was a lame duck...

 

[DarthFed]

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...

Well, let's not penalize me for responding to our resident clown with an accurate statement Rafa had a better result than Nole at AO (usually doesn't happen) but they were mowed down by the same player, one of the matches was difficult.

 

[Kieran]

I am assuming the wait is over?

Vamos! It is! :clap

 

[Front242]

I'm merely saying I've seen guys hurt badly win matches and could barely move doesn't cut it. The anti inflammatories kicked in towards the end and he was definitely moving better. Still serving slow but moving better than I'd describe as "could barely move" personally.

Mentally Rafa was never dialed into that match..The inflammatories did kick in but too late and his back Never loosen to the point that he was more than 80 or to the point where Rafa could truly trust his back.. hence.. bad movement, no real feel for the ball & timing and lack of execution.. Acourse..it would have taken a 5th set for Rafa to pull this one out..

Yeah bad movement for sure and not running down many balls as a result and there was no way he was winning even as badly as Stan played since Rafa tweaked his back but even so, I'm just saying could barely move is too exaggerated. People who've hurt their back to the extent they can't stand up, sit down or do anything know exactly what I mean. Rafa was rigid and stiff and slow to move but he could move. Many players over the years have been the same, refusing to try and run balls down and serving slow but even then I wouldn't call it barely able to move. More a case of cautious to not hurt it more or unable to move to one side or the other, painful to bend/twist and hence the slow serve.

Having hurt my back before I know exactly what barely able to move is and that match wasn't even close to that.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah bad movement for sure and not running down many balls as a result and there was no way he was winning even as badly as Stan played since Rafa tweaked his back

Thank you, brother. We'll agree on this, first time we agree on anything since the Dubs won last years All-Ireland... :smooch

 

[Federberg]

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.

seconded

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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:

That is a legitimate response to unfair accusation of trolling

 

[Kieran]

That is a legitimate response to unfair accusation of trolling

It's not. It's hyperbolic and unfair. You would be better to appreciate the forum and its mods, while disagreeing without going into rabid ecstasies of bile. There is nothing in Moxie that could bring to mind Hitler, of all people. You lost your argument when you resorted to that sort of thing...

 

[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.

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.

You're comparing Roger's mono to Nadal tweaking his back mid match to the point of barely being able to track down balls?

 

[brokenshoelace]

BS is implying that Rafa would have definitely won had he not got hurt

Uh what? Where? How? I said, in response to your "at least Novak went to the fifth set with Stan" that Nadal's injury meant going to a fifth was pretty much impossible. I also, RIGHTLY pointed out that just because Stan was on fire and was up a set and 2-0, that it doesn't mean the match was done and dusted had Nadal not gotten injured. Do you seriously not recall tons of matches in which Nadal reversed a lead like that or a super hot opponent against Nadal couldn't maintain his level? So I'm saying it's rich to imply that the match was over at that point before Nadal's injury. I bet you weren't nearly as confident in the live chat at that point, before Nadal tweaked his back.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Did you watch a lot of guys in a grand slam final move worse than Nadal did due to injury and have any chance of winning against an elite opponent playing great tennis? Didn't think so.

Barely moved IS an exaggeration in general, but in no way is it an exaggeration in tennis terms. Let me ask you this: Put ANY player moving the way Nadal was in that final against a top 10 player, would they have any chance of winning 3 sets?

 

[brokenshoelace]

My favorite thing that nobody talks about, quite conveniently, is Nadal rolling his first serve in play throughout that match after the injury. As if that's just a minor detail that in no way affected the outcome.

 

[Federberg]

^Re tossing in puff serves.. didn't Novak do much the same in the 4th set at Flushing in 2011?

I take your point that Rafa was clearly injured. Not sure anyone disputes this. I suspect what gets people going is protestations that the outcome WOULD have been different. Unquestionably it COULD have been different. But Stan certainly deserves respect for his performance when Rafa wasn't injured. It's just too disrespectful. Now I'm not saying you're saying Rafa would have won.. but there's just a hint of a flavour of that. And non Rafa fans aren't going to just sit back and accept the absurdness of that type of suggestion. Bottom line.. he lost.

As I've said before, I find the quality of Marin's win at Flushing to be superior to Stan's. There can be no doubt about what he achieved there. I know some trollish Rafa fans (we all know who I'm talking about) would suggest that Rafa would have beaten him if he was there. But that's just a nonsense statement. I daresay Serena would have beaten Virginia Wade in 74(?) when she won Wimbledon.. but who cares? She wasn't there. No need to inflict fantasies on other forum members

 

[Kieran]

I suspect what gets people going is protestations that the outcome WOULD have been different.

You might want to help us out here, and point to one of these protestations...

 

[Front242]

My favorite thing that nobody talks about, quite conveniently, is Nadal rolling his first serve in play throughout that match after the injury. As if that's just a minor detail that in no way affected the outcome.

I mentioned that and also compared it to Novak doing the same at the USO 2011 final. He was barely serving any faster although his other movement was leagues better than Rafa's in the AO '14 after 2-0 down in set 2 because not all back injuries are the same and I watched both again earlier for a few mins to confirm. Clearly Rafa's movement was nowhere near Novak's in that USO 4th set but whatever pain they both felt their serves were at least about the same.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

You're comparing Roger's mono to Nadal tweaking his back mid match to the point of barely being able to track down balls?

Just comparing the fact that excuses were made for both of them. I responded to the clown's statement with a fact and you felt the need to basically say that I needed to disclose the fact that Rafa got hurt during the final. So how is that different than saying Rafa lost due to the injury? Are you demanding that any time we discuss Stan's AO win it is necessary to have a disclaimer at the bottom talking about Rafa' injury down a set and break? Once we say player X lost BECAUSE he was sick/injured that is an excuse. The fact of the matter is...they were there and they lost.