Waiting for Rafa

[brokenshoelace]

^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!

I have an agenda indeed, and that is to bring up the notion that every non Rafa fan seemingly refuses to hear for one reason or another: Nadal's back injury meant he had no chance in getting back in that match. He would have had a much better chance had he not gotten injured (better chance relative to his injured self, not relative to his opponent or his play).

This should be obvious to everyone yet ever since that final some 9 months ago, it somehow manages to stir controversy. For the life of me I don't see why.

Excuses? Sometimes they're legitimate. This one is. Does it justify the result? He could have very well lost anyway. It justifies the action that transpired from the second set onward though, unless that's the way Nadal normally moves, serves, and goes for broke to avoid rallies.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You don't hear Fedfans ever complaining about the limp display of the umpire at Flushing in the 2009 final

Uh, they bring it up all the time...I'm pretty sure even Fed fans would disagree with you on that one. Front and Darth Fed bring up this match repeatedly, and rightfully so. Roger should have won.

Now, just how is that an apt analogy is beyond me, since one is just a case of someone not playing well (or at least not playing well when it matters) while the other is a case of a player not being able to play well due to injury. If we're comparing results, Roger should have won that final, while if we take the action before Nadal's injury, Nadal shouldn't have won in AO. That however, is not the issue in question here, and never was.

 

[Kieran]

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.

Admit it, you didn't find a single post that backs up your bold assertion regarding "protestations that the outcome WOULD have been different." Because there were none, right?

But don't let that stop you...

 

[Federberg]

You don't hear Fedfans ever complaining about the limp display of the umpire at Flushing in the 2009 final

Uh, they bring it up all the time...I'm pretty sure even Fed fans would disagree with you on that one. Front and Darth Fed bring up this match repeatedly, and rightfully so. Roger should have won.

Now, just how is that an apt analogy is beyond me, since one is just a case of someone not playing well (or at least not playing well when it matters) while the other is a case of a player not being able to play well due to injury. If we're comparing results, Roger should have won that final, while if we take the action before Nadal's injury, Nadal shouldn't have won in AO. That however, is not the issue in question here, and never was.

I suspect they bring it up more because they were disgusted that Roger let one get away. The specific issue I was raising was more to do with actions the umpire should have taken regarding the use of the challenge system. But I'm not willing to let old Rog get off the hook because of that. Anyway.. maybe they do maybe they don't, I'm not going to speak on their behalf. He lost, I've moved on... my point is that perhaps you should too. Rafa is going to have huge success in the future, he's too good not to.

 

[DarthFed]

^ The umpire in that match was an idiot but that exchange didn't play any role in the outcome. DelPo actually broke himself to lose the 3rd set right after that changeover. Frustrations in that match were strictly for Roger, he couldn't have played worse and even then he still should've won.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^naah naah. del potro should've won..and he did.

 

[tented]

Can we all agree on the following points?

- Rafa was being outplayed by Wawrinka in the AO final, therefore lost the first set.

- Rafa hurt his back towards the beginning of the second set.

- His movement was affected: not to the point where he had to retire, but enough to make it clear this wasn't a normal, healthy example of his capabilities.

- It is possible that even if he had not injured his back, Wawrinka still would have won.

- It is possible that even if he had not injured his back, he would have turned the match around, and eventually won in four or five sets. Which leads to ...

- We have all seen the Big Four come back from 1 or 2 sets down at Slams, and win in 4 or 5, even when they were clearly initially being outplayed and/or their game was initially off to the point where they didn't win in straights.

- We'll never know how it would have ended had Rafa's back not been injured, so it's impossible to state with any absolute certainty what would have happened.

Agreed?

 

[Federberg]

^ Totally agreed. I wish we didn't have to have these types of discussions! All the time! If your player loses accept it and move on! They do...

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

^ Even Rafa said at his press conference after that AO final he didn't know if he could win that match against Wawrinka in the final,regardless of the injury he sustained in the match.Personally speaking Wawrinka deserved to win the match.Wawrinka had a great game plan and executed it well,especially in that first set.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Can we all agree on the following points?

- Rafa was being outplayed by Wawrinka in the AO final, therefore lost the first set.

- Rafa hurt his back towards the beginning of the second set.

- His movement was affected: not to the point where he had to retire, but enough to make it clear this wasn't a normal, healthy example of his capabilities.

- It is possible that even if he had not injured his back, Wawrinka still would have won.

- It is possible that even if he had not injured his back, he would have turned the match around, and eventually won in four or five sets. Which leads to ...

- We have all seen the Big Four come back from 1 or 2 sets down at Slams, and win in 4 or 5, even when they were clearly initially being outplayed and/or their game was initially off to the point where they didn't win in straights.

- We'll never know how it would have ended had Rafa's back not been injured, so it's impossible to state with any absolute certainty what would have happened.

Agreed?

Amen My Brotha... this will suffice for most knowledgeable tennis fans however but it will not stick in the "Front or back" of some of his haters' minds

 

[Federberg]

^Is it the haters that keep on bringing up this issue? I certainly don't! Not that I would class myself as a hater anyway. Certainly not a fan, but I have the highest respect for his achievements. Certain Rafa fans - not you - like to make snide comments and get a pass. That seems to be ok, but then when they make comments that in their own minds are fact, they don't like to be challenged! And.. BS.. if it was you who raised this issue, I'm certainly not saying you make snide comments. Not your style, you have more class than that, so please don't bite on that

 

[tented]

^Is it the haters that keep on bringing up this issue?

The first mention of AO in this thread which led to the previous 4-5 pages was by DarthFed:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2975&pid=138985#pid138985

 

[Kieran]

And can we also agree that no Rafa fans on this forum ever posted that he WOULD have won if he hadn't been injured? Seriously, that's a bogus claim that I'm getting tired of reading, and I'm not the only one.

Anybody who sees fit to post this claim again should be kept honest and prove it...

 

[Federberg]

^To be fair.. reading the history, it was Nadal2005RG who first mentioned the AO. DF made a pithy comment back, and then BS defended Rafa's performance by bringing up the injury. Technically DF was right about sets won, but there's no question it was... provocative

Imagine if someone brought up Wimbledon 2011, and someone pointed out that Roger only got to the QF(?). If Fed fans tried to defend Roger by saying he was injured (we all remember slamming Fed for bringing up the injury in the post Berdy loss interview), that poster would be given short shrift. And rightly so... he lost.. deal with it.. move on and celebrate your guys next triumphs

 

[tented]

^To be fair.. reading the history, it was Nadal2005RG who first mentioned the AO. DF made a pithy comment back, and then BS defended Rafa's performance by bringing up the injury. Technically DF was right about sets won, but there's no question it was... provocative

I just went through all of nadal2005rg's posts in this thread, and saw no mention of AO prior to Darth's post I linked to.

 

[Federberg]

^To be fair.. reading the history, it was Nadal2005RG who first mentioned the AO. DF made a pithy comment back, and then BS defended Rafa's performance by bringing up the injury. Technically DF was right about sets won, but there's no question it was... provocative

I just went through all of nadal2005rg's posts in this thread, and saw no mention of AO prior to Darth's post I linked to.

Here it is...

And in the mean time Djokovic is not even making the final of Australia and US Open (and their 2013 US Open match was Nadal 6-1 in the 4th set).

 

[Federberg]

I think you need to look at DF's response in the context of who the poster was..

 

[tented]

^To be fair.. reading the history, it was Nadal2005RG who first mentioned the AO. DF made a pithy comment back, and then BS defended Rafa's performance by bringing up the injury. Technically DF was right about sets won, but there's no question it was... provocative

I just went through all of nadal2005rg's posts in this thread, and saw no mention of AO prior to Darth's post I linked to.

Here it is...

And in the mean time Djokovic is not even making the final of Australia and US Open (and their 2013 US Open match was Nadal 6-1 in the 4th set).

That is not a mention of the Nadal/Wawrinka final, nevertheless an example of, as you put it, "I suspect what gets people going is protestations that the outcome WOULD have been different." (A claim you still haven't backed up with any examples.)

I think you need to look at DF's response in the context of who the poster was..

Even if that were true, it would still mean Darth mentioned it first.

 

[Federberg]

^It's open to interpretation I suppose. But DF wasn't focussed on mentioning the final in my reading. He was responding to Nadal2005RG's comment about how much better Rafa has performed than Novak. DF made the point that Novak did better against Stan than Rafa did. I suspect that a lot of non Rafa fans, have built up a lot of irritation at Nadal2005RG's posts over the last month, and couldn't resist getting a dig in. I would have resisted, but I totally understand where he was coming from. BS chose to bite, when it was obvious to me, that DF was only making such a comment to slap at Nadal2005RG.. woe to us non Rafa fans for daring to make such comments even when provoked!

 

[Kieran]

This topic is still going on? I thought we all reached agreement above?

I wonder if this current saga is similar to the (unsubstantiated, obviously) claim that Rafa fans make protestations that Rafa WOULD have, etc, if he wasn't injured, and so forth...