Waiting for Rafa

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Something tells me you have a specific opponent in mind whom you think was "lucky."

 

[Front242]

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.

Something tells me you have a specific opponent in mind whom you think was "lucky."

Nah not just him He made a balls of matches against Murray too.

 

[Kieran]

Oh brother, it's a pity that old tennis.com forum is gone to the great cloud in the sky where opinions never die, but instead they battle on forever. I don't recall you being overly confident that Rafa would be #1 again before he dies, but he's turned the rivalry around, despite losing 4 of the last 5. There was never a chance that Nole could maintain that fish-eyed intensity, but there was always a chance that Rafa would make the adjustments needed and nail him. We ain't talking about Federer here.

As for predicting Rafa to win Wimbo this year, unfortunately, I wasn't so bold. This was as brazen as I got, and you know me, if I feel it, you'll hear about it!

My gut was more like this, but next year, with the extra week to make the transition? Trust me, I'll exhume this thread and tell a lot of Pholks "I told ya so..."

 

[DarthFed]

Oh brother, it's a pity that old tennis.com forum is gone to the great cloud in the sky where opinions never die, but instead they battle on forever. I don't recall you being overly confident that Rafa would be #1 again before he dies, but he's turned the rivalry around, despite losing 4 of the last 5. There was never a chance that Nole could maintain that fish-eyed intensity, but there was always a chance that Rafa would make the adjustments needed and nail him. We ain't talking about Federer here.

As for predicting Rafa to win Wimbo this year, unfortunately, I wasn't so bold. This was as brazen as I got, and you know me, if I feel it, you'll hear about it!

My gut was more like this, but next year, with the extra week to make the transition? Trust me, I'll exhume this thread and tell a lot of Pholks "I told ya so..."

You're right, Roger never came close to losing 7 in a row to Novak, not even in 2011. The question was whether Novak could keep 2011 up or even come close. He came back down to Earth in a big way in 2012 and has stayed there. I will admit I figured he could sustain 2011 form or come close to it for a couple years but he has dropped off in a major way. He is still great of course but not exactly a dominant #1.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Oh brother, it's a pity that old tennis.com forum is gone to the great cloud in the sky where opinions never die, but instead they battle on forever. I don't recall you being overly confident that Rafa would be #1 again before he dies, but he's turned the rivalry around, despite losing 4 of the last 5. There was never a chance that Nole could maintain that fish-eyed intensity, but there was always a chance that Rafa would make the adjustments needed and nail him. We ain't talking about Federer here.

If you actually think I thought then 25 year old Nadal would NEVER regain the number one ranking just because of one player, then you haven't been paying attention to a thing I said ever. There is no way in hell I ever implied that. I don't need the tennis.com forums to prove it because the proof is pretty simple: There's no way in hell I'm that stupid.

25 years old. That means Nadal then had at least, 5 years of near peak tennis to reclaim the ranking... I make fun of people who make predictions with any certainty a year or two from now, you think I'd go as far as making one involving five years? Yeah, no.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Something tells me you have a specific opponent in mind whom you think was "lucky."

Nah not just him He made a balls of matches against Murray too.

Which of Nadal's 2 finals against Djokovic involved luck? Also Murray was up 2 sets to love at their 2012 US Open final (and won the final set with a decisive double break lead), and beat him in straights at Wimbledon. Don't see how either of those victories involved luck.

 

[Kieran]

Oh brother, it's a pity that old tennis.com forum is gone to the great cloud in the sky where opinions never die, but instead they battle on forever. I don't recall you being overly confident that Rafa would be #1 again before he dies, but he's turned the rivalry around, despite losing 4 of the last 5. There was never a chance that Nole could maintain that fish-eyed intensity, but there was always a chance that Rafa would make the adjustments needed and nail him. We ain't talking about Federer here.

If you actually think I thought then 25 year old Nadal would NEVER regain the number one ranking just because of one player, then you haven't been paying attention to a thing I said ever. There is no way in hell I ever implied that. I don't need the tennis.com forums to prove it because the proof is pretty simple: There's no way in hell I'm that stupid.

25 years old. That means Nadal then had at least, 5 years of near peak tennis to reclaim the ranking... I make fun of people who make predictions with any certainty a year or two from now, you think I'd go as far as making one involving five years? Yeah, no.

No, you just disagreed with the thread that said he was gonna be #1 again, and you cited his difficulties with Novak as the main reason why. Don't worry about it, brother, there was only about 3 of us believed for a long time...

 

[Front242]

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.

Something tells me you have a specific opponent in mind whom you think was "lucky."

Nah not just him He made a balls of matches against Murray too.

Which of Nadal's 2 finals against Djokovic involved luck? Also Murray was up 2 sets to love at their 2012 US Open final (and won the final set with a decisive double break lead), and beat him in straights at Wimbledon. Don't see how either of those victories involved luck.

Well luckily for Nadal, Novak touched the net at RG in the 5th set last year and missed out on being up a break there and though he still hadn't won the game even with that point it sure didn't help either. This year at RG he really let that 2nd set slip by failing to even bring it to a tiebreak. If you prefer not to call it luck, then Novak's poor play came at just the right time for Nadal in both matches as he didn't exactly play magnificently to win either of those games that decided the break in each, more a case of Novak gifting them.

Murray was the one who almost mucked up that USO final but I think it's safe to say the momentum was fully with Novak after he caught up by bringing it to a 5th set and then he played a poor 5th set. A certain Swiss guy does that all too often so he's not the only one but again the poor play from Novak came back at the worst time. The wind dying down after Murray had bagged the first 2 sets helped Novak get it back level at 2 sets all but he made a right mess of the 5th set then.

At Wimbledon against Murray, Novak though flat mentally and possibly physically, (but mostly mentally from the match against Del Potro as his movement seemed fine) was actually up a break twice (sets 2 and 3?) or was it even each set? Can't recall but either way he lost all the breaks each time but Murray played much better than him that day in any case so I'm not considering that one in the same league as the others. He certainly could have won one of those 3 sans the Wimbledon final anyway with a bit less in the way of lulls at bad times.

 

[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....

 

[Front242]

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.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Oh brother, it's a pity that old tennis.com forum is gone to the great cloud in the sky where opinions never die, but instead they battle on forever. I don't recall you being overly confident that Rafa would be #1 again before he dies, but he's turned the rivalry around, despite losing 4 of the last 5. There was never a chance that Nole could maintain that fish-eyed intensity, but there was always a chance that Rafa would make the adjustments needed and nail him. We ain't talking about Federer here.

If you actually think I thought then 25 year old Nadal would NEVER regain the number one ranking just because of one player, then you haven't been paying attention to a thing I said ever. There is no way in hell I ever implied that. I don't need the tennis.com forums to prove it because the proof is pretty simple: There's no way in hell I'm that stupid.

25 years old. That means Nadal then had at least, 5 years of near peak tennis to reclaim the ranking... I make fun of people who make predictions with any certainty a year or two from now, you think I'd go as far as making one involving five years? Yeah, no.

No, you just disagreed with the thread that said he was gonna be #1 again, and you cited his difficulties with Novak as the main reason why. Don't worry about it, brother, there was only about 3 of us believed for a long time...

I'm pretty sure when you made that thread, you were only looking a year or maybe 18 months ahead, and not 5 years.

And hey, to your credit, you were right about this. But my point is, the thread was definitely NOT meant to assess the possibilities of Nadal regaining the number 1 ranking in 2017.

I'm not attempting to save face, because I sure as hell didn't see Nadal regaining the ranking in 2013 after his comeback, so I WAS wrong. What I am clarifying however, is WHAT I was wrong about. I was wrong about Nadal not regaining the number 1 ranking as soon as he did. But I wasn't wrong about him never regaining the number 1 ranking because I never said he wouldn't.

Sure you could claim your thread didn't specify a timeline, but we both know you were talking about a the near future. Fortunately, you were right.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Something tells me you have a specific opponent in mind whom you think was "lucky."

Nah not just him He made a balls of matches against Murray too.

Which of Nadal's 2 finals against Djokovic involved luck? Also Murray was up 2 sets to love at their 2012 US Open final (and won the final set with a decisive double break lead), and beat him in straights at Wimbledon. Don't see how either of those victories involved luck.

Well luckily for Nadal, Novak touched the net at RG in the 5th set last year and missed out on being up a break there and though he still hadn't won the game even with that point it sure didn't help either. This year at RG he really let that 2nd set slip by failing to even bring it to a tiebreak. If you prefer not to call it luck, then Novak's poor play came at just the right time for Nadal in both matches as he didn't exactly play magnificently to win either of those games that decided the break in each, more a case of Novak gifting them.

Murray was the one who almost mucked up that USO final but I think it's safe to say the momentum was fully with Novak after he caught up by bringing it to a 5th set and then he played a poor 5th set. A certain Swiss guy does that all too often so he's not the only one but again the poor play from Novak came back at the worst time. The wind dying down after Murray had bagged the first 2 sets helped Novak get it back level at 2 sets all but he made a right mess of the 5th set then.

At Wimbledon against Murray, Novak though flat mentally and possibly physically, (but mostly mentally from the match against Del Potro as his movement seemed fine) was actually up a break twice (sets 2 and 3?) or was it even each set? Can't recall but either way he lost all the breaks each time but Murray played much better than him that day in any case so I'm not considering that one in the same league as the others. He certainly could have won one of those 3 sans the Wimbledon final anyway with a bit less in the way of lulls at bad times.

The 2013 Roland Garros match was not a final. Your initial post mentioned finals so I didn't take it into the equation. Nevertheless, I'll remind you, as I have numerous times before, that Novak was lucky to even take it to a fifth set. Had it not been for that luck, the touching the net fiasco would never have taken place.

This year's FO final is simply a case of Novak not playing well enough to beat Nadal on clay in hot conditions in the FO final. I wouldn't call that luck. He just didn't play well. That's a failure on his part.

Wimbledon 2013 was again, a case of a bad performance by Novak. I don't view bad performances as luck because that would imply that how well a player plays is down to luck and well...that would be ludicrous.

 

[Front242]

Yeah, sorry that RG semi was for all purposes the final in 2013 so it's easy to forget it wasn't. Didn't play well pretty much sums it up though, as we all know Novak played way below potential at the finals of Wimbledon '13 and RG this year. Nadal himself said if Novak won set 4 he'd likely have won 'cos that 4th set was bizarre with both of them in bits, Novak puking and Nadal all hobbled. Major opportunity blown.

 

[DarthFed]

No luck involved. The fact of the matter is Nole came down to Earth and Rafa is still better than him on clay. The "bad" loss was USO 2013 much like USO 2012. Djokovic isn't that great on fast hards but he had chances in 2012 and Rafa is always very beatable for him on any hard court.

Nole hadn't been good in the big moments for awhile but maybe broke that hex at Wimbledon a bit. Yet I'd hold off on that as he had a disastrous loss to Kei at New York.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

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.

As you said, I don't think many predicted this slam pattern:
Nadal won 5 in a row.
Djokovic won 3 in a row.
Nadal won 4 in a row.
There was never any 'trading victories' in this rivalry (at the slams I mean).

And now Djokovic is saying he plans to retire at age 30.
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).
And the gap between them grew larger this year at Roland Garros (Nadal in 4).
The only slam in which Djokovic looks better than Nadal at is Wimbledon.

And since Wimbledon, Djokovic has gone downhill as fatherhood looms.
I hope Djokovic can overcome fatherhood, because even though their last 2 slam meetings only went 4 sets, they were 2 of my 5 favorite slam finals ever.

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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...