Waiting for Rafa

[NADAL2005RG]

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=103041

Q. What about your injuries in the wrist? For the China Open you got the champion in 2005. In the Olympics you got the champion in 2008. Last year you got back to No.1 in the world. What is Beijing in your mind?

RAFAEL NADAL: Well, the injury I my wrist, as I said before, I cannot say 100% because I still feel something when I start for the first five minutes of the practice. But in general the injury is not limiting me to compete. The injury is past, I think.

Beijing always was an important part, important city for my career. I know I won in 2005. Last year I played the final here, became No.1. But for me the most unforgettable moment here was the Olympic Games 2008, one of the most important moments in my career. Was here in Beijing. Beijing is always a place that I will not forget.

 

[Kieran]

^^ So it's not 100% after all, eh?

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ Thanks, AP.

YW, Np, Vamos

 

[NADAL2005RG]

^^ So it's not 100% after all, eh?

He's not 100% in the first 5 minutes of practice.
But he's 100% in the matches.
And I'm not sure how long his practice is but if its 100 minutes then he's 95% in practice I'm proud to say.

 

[Kieran]

^^ So it's not 100% after all, eh?

He's not 100% in the first 5 minutes of practice.
But he's 100% in the matches.
And I'm not sure how long his practice is but if its 100 minutes then he's 95% in practice I'm proud to say.

Your science is bamboozling - it must be right, so! :huh:

 

[Front242]

^^ So it's not 100% after all, eh?

He's not 100% in the first 5 minutes of practice.
But he's 100% in the matches.
And I'm not sure how long his practice is but if its 100 minutes then he's 95% in practice I'm proud to say.

Your science is bamboozling - it must be right, so! :huh:

Maybe his practice is 5 minutes or 6 minutes?

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^ So it's not 100% after all, eh?

He's not 100% in the first 5 minutes of practice.
But he's 100% in the matches.
And I'm not sure how long his practice is but if its 100 minutes then he's 95% in practice I'm proud to say.

Do you believe the $hit you say? This is a very important question for my perception of you.

 

[Front242]

^^ So it's not 100% after all, eh?

He's not 100% in the first 5 minutes of practice.
But he's 100% in the matches.
And I'm not sure how long his practice is but if its 100 minutes then he's 95% in practice I'm proud to say.

Do you believe the $hit you say? This is a very important question for my perception of you.

Check out the last line of his signature! In fact, I should add one myself along the lines of "If Federer had not lost 23 times to Nadal he'd have a better h2h!" :cover

 

[NADAL2005RG]

^ The point of the signature statement is that Djokovic's 3 victories all came in a row and represented a period of just 6 months in this very long rivalry (2006-2014).
A bizarre situation.
Even more bizarre after seeing this review of the 2012 Australian Open Final:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Lylybycxc

Skip Bayless: They can still be playing and Djokovic would win the match, because he now owns Nadal psychologically just the way Nadal owns Federer psychologically. It only happens in the sport of tennis....Once you break somebody's will its done, your done, and you can play as long as you want and you won't beat the guy.

Stephen A. Smith: It's over....It's over....No disagreement there.

 

[Kieran]

Experts, eh? They're ten a penny...

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ The point of the signature statement is that Djokovic's 3 victories all came in a row and represented a period of just 6 months in this very long rivalry (2006-2014).
A bizarre situation.
Even more bizarre after seeing this review of the 2012 Australian Open Final:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Lylybycxc

Skip Bayless: They can still be playing and Djokovic would win the match, because he now owns Nadal psychologically just the way Nadal owns Federer psychologically. It only happens in the sport of tennis....Once you break somebody's will its done, your done, and you can play as long as you want and you won't beat the guy.

Stephen A. Smith: It's over....It's over....No disagreement there.

LMAO. You're actually quoting Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith?

 

[Kieran]

^ The point of the signature statement is that Djokovic's 3 victories all came in a row and represented a period of just 6 months in this very long rivalry (2006-2014).
A bizarre situation.
Even more bizarre after seeing this review of the 2012 Australian Open Final:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Lylybycxc

Skip Bayless: They can still be playing and Djokovic would win the match, because he now owns Nadal psychologically just the way Nadal owns Federer psychologically. It only happens in the sport of tennis....Once you break somebody's will its done, your done, and you can play as long as you want and you won't beat the guy.

Stephen A. Smith: It's over....It's over....No disagreement there.

LMAO. You're actually quoting Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith?

Hey! They're not the only ones who didn't think Rafa could turn around the rivalry with Novak...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I watch ESPN First Take every weekday, and those guys have not said the word "Nadal" since those 2012 comments
But they'll be forced to if Nadal equals/surpasses Federer's slam record.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

At China, Nadal could not have asked for a better Doubles match, 5-7 6-4 4-10.
As he said in an interview, he's been on the tour for so long that its not that hard to get his rhythm back.
But if his rhythm was lacking, that doubles match would have been very useful.
Facing a guy (Gasquet) you are 12-0 against will also help.

 

[DarthFed]

^ The point of the signature statement is that Djokovic's 3 victories all came in a row and represented a period of just 6 months in this very long rivalry (2006-2014).
A bizarre situation.
Even more bizarre after seeing this review of the 2012 Australian Open Final:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Lylybycxc

Skip Bayless: They can still be playing and Djokovic would win the match, because he now owns Nadal psychologically just the way Nadal owns Federer psychologically. It only happens in the sport of tennis....Once you break somebody's will its done, your done, and you can play as long as you want and you won't beat the guy.

Stephen A. Smith: It's over....It's over....No disagreement there.

And so it doesn't count since they all came in a row? And why quote 2 clowns who have barely ever watched a tennis match.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ The point of the signature statement is that Djokovic's 3 victories all came in a row and represented a period of just 6 months in this very long rivalry (2006-2014).
A bizarre situation.
Even more bizarre after seeing this review of the 2012 Australian Open Final:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Lylybycxc

Skip Bayless: They can still be playing and Djokovic would win the match, because he now owns Nadal psychologically just the way Nadal owns Federer psychologically. It only happens in the sport of tennis....Once you break somebody's will its done, your done, and you can play as long as you want and you won't beat the guy.

Stephen A. Smith: It's over....It's over....No disagreement there.

And so it doesn't count since they all came in a row? And why quote 2 clowns who have barely ever watched a tennis match.

Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless shouldn't even be quoted when it comes to the NBA.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ The point of the signature statement is that Djokovic's 3 victories all came in a row and represented a period of just 6 months in this very long rivalry (2006-2014).
A bizarre situation.
Even more bizarre after seeing this review of the 2012 Australian Open Final:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Lylybycxc

Skip Bayless: They can still be playing and Djokovic would win the match, because he now owns Nadal psychologically just the way Nadal owns Federer psychologically. It only happens in the sport of tennis....Once you break somebody's will its done, your done, and you can play as long as you want and you won't beat the guy.

Stephen A. Smith: It's over....It's over....No disagreement there.

LMAO. You're actually quoting Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith?

Hey! They're not the only ones who didn't think Rafa could turn around the rivalry with Novak...

Actually, other than overzealous Novak fanboys (Novak will own him forever) and super emo Nadal fans (Nadal will never beat Novak unless he hits flat, serves at 300 mph, fires uncle Toni, plays with his right hand), most figured that they'd go back to trading victories. As unbearable as the forums were back then, I remember most being fairly level headed about this. However, most figured Novak will win their big meetings in Slams (myself included), and that's been the biggest surprise since then (the fact that Nadal has won them all).

Nevertheless, I said this then, and I still believe this, going forward Novak will be winning more than losing to Nadal, especially when you factor in most of the tour being played on hards (where Novak is just superior on a match-to-match basis), Nadal's physical state, wear and tear, etc...

Come to think of it, I'd like Nadal's chances against Novak more their meeting was in a slam rather than a best of 3 at a Masters 1000 event or some other tournament.

 

[Kieran]

Ah brother, back in the misty-eyed days of tennis.com, when about 3 of us declared that Rafa would indeed storm to the top of the game again, you were one of the ones who said he wouldn't turn the rivalry with Novak, and so this would stop him.

Oh for the days, eh?

But I agree that Rafa would have a better shot where it matters more to him - which is the majors. I'm not too surprised that he's won all the matches between them at the majors since Oz 2012...

 

[Front242]

The majors matter just as much to Novak. He's just had some bad losses last few years but he won Wimbledon this year with a great performance. He was in a good position to win a few more of those finals he lost last few years though and luckily for his opponents his concentration went walkabout far too long.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ah brother, back in the misty-eyed days of tennis.com, when about 3 of us declared that Rafa would indeed storm to the top of the game again, you were one of the ones who said he wouldn't turn the rivalry with Novak, and so this would stop him.

Oh for the days, eh?

But I agree that Rafa would have a better shot where it matters more to him - which is the majors. I'm not too surprised that he's won all the matches between them at the majors since Oz 2012...

Yes, I didn't think Nadal would regain the number 1 ranking when you made the thread in February of 2012 (it took about a year and a half later for that to happen, by the way. I never said Nadal would NEVER regain the ranking).

"Turning it around is subjective." Yes, I didn't predict he would turn it around, and hell, you could argue he didn't. They've been trading matches since, which is exactly what I said would happen back then (and kept reiterating). What I didn't expect, is for Nadal to beat Djokovic in all of their slam meetings since...but you know, I kinda literally mentioned that in my previous post.

I wasn't here after Wimbledon to remind you that you falsely predicted Nadal would win the tournament as a payback for you not hushing over me predicting Djokovic would beat him in the FO final. So there, consider this a late "I told you so."