Waiting for Rafa

[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.

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.

Neither of those injuries were as severe and they didn't take place as early as set 2. Nadal's injury in set 2, the set in which he was clearly hampered the most meant he was sentenced to go down 2 sets to love. How many injured players are going to get back from that kind of deficit in a major final do you know of?

 

[Front242]

^ Read my next few posts, you're well behind I said he clearly wasn't winning that match. I was mostly debating that he "could barely move". He couldn't move anywhere near properly to win or play well but he could move is all I was saying.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

Yes, he did. He also had the 2 set to 1 lead and knew that toughing out and going for his shots for one set means he'll win the championship. His movement wasn't nearly as hampered but his serve was. He started crushing his ground strokes to avoid rallies and it paid off, which is exactly what Nadal did in set 3 against Wawrinka. You CAN do it, catch your opponent off guard and win a set, but you're not going to do it over 5 sets with that kind of injury.

The situations were not the same. Nadal was also physically drained by set 4 at the US Open, which is different to a fresh Wawrinka, with a 2 set to love lead playing some otherworldly tennis. You can win a set, not 3, with that sort of injury. And it's much easier to win said set when you're in front because mentally you know "one more set and I'm home." After set 2 in the AO final, Nadal had to win three sets with the shape he was in against an in form opponent. That was never going to happen.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I'm saying the two excuses are not quite the same because one was more tangible and visibly hampered a player more than the other. This makes them quite different.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ Read my next few posts, you're well behind I said he clearly wasn't winning that match. I was mostly debating that he "could barely move". He couldn't move anywhere near properly to win or play well but he could move is all I was saying.

Well I don't think the umpire would have allowed the match to continue if Nadal could literally "barely move." In fact, I'm pretty sure he would have been taken into a hospital for an urgent treatment of sudden paralysis.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

I'm saying the two excuses are not quite the same because one was more tangible and visibly hampered a player more than the other. This makes them quite different.

Ah, so at some level of injury/illness it is more legit to make it an excuse as compared to others. Most who watched Roger back then were wondering what in the world was wrong with his game for pretty much that entire year. The AO especially was like watching an entirely different player. Naturally certain fans would come up with the mono excuse. Certainly we can't talk about Roger's poor 2008 without bringing up mono right? Certainly we can't talk about Stan's AO win without bringing up Rafa's back right?

 

[tented]

^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.

I'm not aware of anyone having ever made the statement he WOULD have won. I am, however, aware of many people having said he COULD have won.

Who said he would have won?

 

[tented]

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

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

I've PM'ed him, asking him to provide a source. Thus far, he hasn't written back, or posted one. I also told him making such unfounded statements is trolling.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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...

Hyperbolic and unfair is calling a fellow poster racist without basis. Attempting
to bring attention to dictatorial tendencies involved in trying to curb legitimate discussion
is not hyperbolic or unfair.

I had zero intention of trolling when I was wondering about how Murray will
be received when he plays in London again and I don't think anyone else thought
it was a troll either except the moderator.

I have appreciation for the forum; however, that does not mean I have to
put up with unfair accusations about me or tolerate the curbing of discussion
on legitimate topics.

 

[tented]

Hyperbolic and unfair is calling a fellow poster racist without basis.

I agree.

Attempting to bring attention to dictatorial tendencies involved in trying to curb legitimate discussion is not hyperbolic or unfair.

I agree ... although calling anyone "Hitler" is over-the-top. To have described the actions as dictatorial would have been more than enough to have made your point.

I had zero intention of trolling when I was wondering about how Murray will be received when he plays in London again

I didn't think you were trolling. I'm curious about the topic myself. In fact, I think I was the first person to mention it.

I have appreciation for the forum; however, that does not mean I have to put up with unfair accusations about me or tolerate the curbing of discussion on legitimate topics.

I agree.

 

[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...

Hyperbolic and unfair is calling a fellow poster racist without basis. Attempting
to bring attention to dictatorial tendencies involved in trying to curb legitimate discussion
is not hyperbolic or unfair.

I had zero intention of trolling when I was wondering about how Murray will
be received when he plays in London again and I don't think anyone else thought
it was a troll either except the moderator.

I have appreciation for the forum; however, that does not mean I have to
put up with unfair accusations about me or tolerate the curbing of discussion
on legitimate topics.

You wouldn't believe how often I've had mods pm me and ask would I delete a post, and it's never been a problem. I'd never consider it dictatorial or intolerable, because they have an important role in keeping order, and sometimes I disrupt things. I accept this. But none of them are comparable to Hitler! I mean, seriously, that's hyperbolic and unfair.

The forum is great because most of the time we get more leeway than on other sites. We have to give and take, it's the nature of things...

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I'm saying the two excuses are not quite the same because one was more tangible and visibly hampered a player more than the other. This makes them quite different.

Ah, so at some level of injury/illness it is more legit to make it an excuse as compared to others. Most who watched Roger back then were wondering what in the world was wrong with his game for pretty much that entire year. The AO especially was like watching an entirely different player. Naturally certain fans would come up with the mono excuse. Certainly we can't talk about Roger's poor 2008 without bringing up mono right? Certainly we can't talk about Stan's AO win without bringing up Rafa's back right?

We'll never know to what extent Roger's level was a result of mono. Perhaps it was just a drop in level, which continued from 2008 on, coupled with mono. For Nadal, his play from 2-0 in the second set until the end of the match is a direct result of the injury and that's not even disputable. So yeah, they're hardly the same situations.

You would actually have a case if you said Roger's condition affected an entire season, whereas Nadal's injury affected one match, but that's a different argument.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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...

Hyperbolic and unfair is calling a fellow poster racist without basis. Attempting
to bring attention to dictatorial tendencies involved in trying to curb legitimate discussion
is not hyperbolic or unfair.

I had zero intention of trolling when I was wondering about how Murray will
be received when he plays in London again and I don't think anyone else thought
it was a troll either except the moderator.

I have appreciation for the forum; however, that does not mean I have to
put up with unfair accusations about me or tolerate the curbing of discussion
on legitimate topics.

I think everyone's problem is that you're blowing this out of proportion. I've personally went back and forth with a moderator or two because of my disagreement with a deleted post. And it happened a loooooooooot back in the tennis.com days, but the difference is you seem like you're embarking on some agenda driven campaign to fight for what's "right." A little over the top, and redundant, that's all. At the heart of what you're saying you raise fair points, the way you're going on about it is a bit annoying.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

I'm saying the two excuses are not quite the same because one was more tangible and visibly hampered a player more than the other. This makes them quite different.

Ah, so at some level of injury/illness it is more legit to make it an excuse as compared to others. Most who watched Roger back then were wondering what in the world was wrong with his game for pretty much that entire year. The AO especially was like watching an entirely different player. Naturally certain fans would come up with the mono excuse. Certainly we can't talk about Roger's poor 2008 without bringing up mono right? Certainly we can't talk about Stan's AO win without bringing up Rafa's back right?

We'll never know to what extent Roger's level was a result of mono. Perhaps it was just a drop in level, which continued from 2008 on, coupled with mono. For Nadal, his play from 2-0 in the second set until the end of the match is a direct result of the injury and that's not even disputable. So yeah, they're hardly the same situations.

You would actually have a case if you said Roger's condition affected an entire season, whereas Nadal's injury affected one match, but that's a different argument.

Yes the point is it is irrelevant to speculate what could have happened to try to make excuses for what actually did happen. And what happened is Roger was badly off kilter most of 2008 and Rafa managed to lose a GS final to Stan.

 

[Kieran]

I'm surprised you keep bringing this up, Darth, there's no comparison at all. Zilch. What happened to Rafa in Oz is something I never seen happen to anybody in a major final, let alone an all time great. It was unprecedented and ultimately meant he couldn't compete...

 

[DarthFed]

^ And what's that have to do with me stating that Wawrinka won the match in 4? I'm not the one calling for asterisks...

 

[Kieran]

^ And what's that have to do with me stating that Wawrinka won the match in 4? I'm not the one calling for asterisks...

Nay brother, neither am I, I went off Gerard Depardieu when he took a leak in front of passengers on a flight out into Dublin... :snigger

 

[isabelle]

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.

I'm saying the two excuses are not quite the same because one was more tangible and visibly hampered a player more than the other. This makes them quite different.

Ah, so at some level of injury/illness it is more legit to make it an excuse as compared to others. Most who watched Roger back then were wondering what in the world was wrong with his game for pretty much that entire year. The AO especially was like watching an entirely different player. Naturally certain fans would come up with the mono excuse. Certainly we can't talk about Roger's poor 2008 without bringing up mono right? Certainly we can't talk about Stan's AO win without bringing up Rafa's back right?

We'll never know to what extent Roger's level was a result of mono. Perhaps it was just a drop in level, which continued from 2008 on, coupled with mono. For Nadal, his play from 2-0 in the second set until the end of the match is a direct result of the injury and that's not even disputable. So yeah, they're hardly the same situations.

You would actually have a case if you said Roger's condition affected an entire season, whereas Nadal's injury affected one match, but that's a different argument.

The return of mono....how long will it be an excuse to explain bad results ??? This illness is usually short (less than 1 month) and not serious...when Youngderer loses it's because his opponent played better than him, period....he's like any other player around, he has bad days and good days, he can't play at his best level all the time even when healthy and not injured. Is it so difficult fot his fans to understand that ???

 

[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.

I'm not aware of anyone having ever made the statement he WOULD have won. I am, however, aware of many people having said he COULD have won.

Who said he would have won?

As I said.. I'm not saying B.S said that Rafa would have won. But the persistence with which this issue gets brought up makes non Rafa fans suspect an agenda. It might be wrong, but it forces people to speak up. As I also said, I do agree, given his history turning round bad starts that he could have won. It's as if bringing it up enough times is going to change the outcome. The whole thing gets tiring after a while. We could all focus on the misfortunes of the players we support and talk about woulda coulda shoulda, but some grounding and acceptance is good for the soul. You don't hear Fedfans ever complaining about the limp display of the umpire at Flushing in the 2009 final, Roger lost in the end and deservedly so. We've moved on.. Forum whining is every bit as irritating as the scratching on a blackboard sometimes!

 

[Federberg]

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.

I'm saying the two excuses are not quite the same because one was more tangible and visibly hampered a player more than the other. This makes them quite different.

Ah, so at some level of injury/illness it is more legit to make it an excuse as compared to others. Most who watched Roger back then were wondering what in the world was wrong with his game for pretty much that entire year. The AO especially was like watching an entirely different player. Naturally certain fans would come up with the mono excuse. Certainly we can't talk about Roger's poor 2008 without bringing up mono right? Certainly we can't talk about Stan's AO win without bringing up Rafa's back right?

We'll never know to what extent Roger's level was a result of mono. Perhaps it was just a drop in level, which continued from 2008 on, coupled with mono. For Nadal, his play from 2-0 in the second set until the end of the match is a direct result of the injury and that's not even disputable. So yeah, they're hardly the same situations.

You would actually have a case if you said Roger's condition affected an entire season, whereas Nadal's injury affected one match, but that's a different argument.

The return of mono....how long will it be an excuse to explain bad results ??? This illness is usually short (less than 1 month) and not serious...when Youngderer loses it's because his opponent played better than him, period....he's like any other player around, he has bad days and good days, he can't play at his best level all the time even when healthy and not injured. Is it so difficult fot his fans to understand that ???

Lol! I totally agree! For the record while I thought he legitimately had mono, I for one don't think that was the reason for his losses after Australia. He lost because of the damage to his confidence and even more importantly his illness meant he wasn't able to do his post Australia tune up in Dubai. He wasn't able to adjust properly. But the bottom line is that he lost.. it's history, we should all move on. He's had many more glory days since. Made all the sweeter because of the adversity!