What I like about 2014

[Kieran]

Nadal has played great tennis and lost, buddy, but in Paris it's the hardest ask in tennis history to beat him. What I said is legitimate. And by the way, I have never been slow coming on here and saying the better man won when Rafa loses. Some fans scarper when their guy takes a hit, I never have.

But in Paris, you'd need some basis for contradicting the assertion that Nadal's best is better than any version of anybody else. Of course upsets happen, but who can predict them? Are you willing to say who can beat Nadal in Paris, and back it up with a strong proof?

You should move on from Nadal and get back on topic, you're labouring it now. It was four hours ago when you said you were done here... :s

 

[Front242]

Nadal has played great tennis and lost, buddy, but in Paris it's the hardest ask in tennis history to beat him. What I said is legitimate. And by the way, I have never been slow coming on here and saying the better man won when Rafa loses. Some fans scarper when their guy takes a hit, I never have.

But in Paris, you'd need some basis for contradicting the assertion that Nadal's best is better than any version of anybody else. Of course upsets happen, but who can predict them? Are you willing to say who can beat Nadal in Paris, and back it up with a strong proof?

You should move on from Nadal and get back on topic, you're labouring it now. It was four hours ago when you said you were done here... :s

If someone replies to your post you naturally feel obliged to reply, which I did. To Broken's post. And then you replied so I did too. That's how it works on forums.

 

[Kieran]

Nadal has played great tennis and lost, buddy, but in Paris it's the hardest ask in tennis history to beat him. What I said is legitimate. And by the way, I have never been slow coming on here and saying the better man won when Rafa loses. Some fans scarper when their guy takes a hit, I never have.

But in Paris, you'd need some basis for contradicting the assertion that Nadal's best is better than any version of anybody else. Of course upsets happen, but who can predict them? Are you willing to say who can beat Nadal in Paris, and back it up with a strong proof?

You should move on from Nadal and get back on topic, you're labouring it now. It was four hours ago when you said you were done here... :s

If someone replies to your post you naturally feel obliged to reply, which I did. To Broken's post. And then you replied so I did too. That's how it works on forums.

Yeah, it can go on and on, eh?

Anyhow, I think this season will be the most open in years, and El Dude's Doomsday scenario is upon us. Other players will grasp. Whether or not they'll get a firm grip, is another thing. Dimi doing well in Oz will hopefully spur JJ. Stan will spur other players who were considered statistics en route to the title. It's already been a topsy-turvy beginning, let's all hope that rights itself in Paris... :snigger

 

[Front242]

One thing's for sure if Nadal loses this year at RG I can't wait to hear, he wasn't at his best

 

[Kieran]

One thing's for sure if Nadal loses this year at RG I can't wait to hear, he wasn't at his best

Well, you'll have your proof right there - he'll have lost...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I agree, but he can be both healthy and playing his best and still lose. It can happen! Except to Kieran, it can't.

That's what I dislike about hardcore Nadal fans and likely the same with others.

"As for the slams, if Rafa is at his best, he takes Paris. At his best, nobody can stop him there, no matter what version of themselves they channel."

No one is unbeatable in tennis or any sport, even when playing their best on their best surface, etc. It's insulting to the other players out there. All of them. Anyway, hopefully 2014 will be a good year for tennis.

Realistically, Nadal at 100% physically AND playing his best tennis at Roland Garros is the closest thing to unbeatable in tennis. I agree with your general point but I think in this particular instance, we can let it slide since it's not so ridiculous to suggest.

 

[Front242]

I agree, but he can be both healthy and playing his best and still lose. It can happen! Except to Kieran, it can't.

That's what I dislike about hardcore Nadal fans and likely the same with others.

"As for the slams, if Rafa is at his best, he takes Paris. At his best, nobody can stop him there, no matter what version of themselves they channel."

No one is unbeatable in tennis or any sport, even when playing their best on their best surface, etc. It's insulting to the other players out there. All of them. Anyway, hopefully 2014 will be a good year for tennis.

Realistically, Nadal at 100% physically AND playing his best tennis at Roland Garros is the closest thing to unbeatable in tennis. I agree with your general point but I think in this particular instance, we can let it slide since it's not so ridiculous to suggest.

For sure, apart from that rare occurrence in 2009 it's been one of the safest bests in sports history. For the record that was the one year I backed Nadal outright and the miserable git lost :laydownlaughing Very mixed emotions, €2,000 poorer at the time but also utterly delighted

 

[El Dude]

I agree with Broken. I hear what you are saying, Front242, but at this point I think its semantics. Rafa at Roland Garros is of course not technically "unbeatable," but as Broken and Kieran both said, is the player-tournament combo that is as close to unbeatable as you'll find in tennis history. 59-and-freakin'-1.

If Robin Soderling never players again, he'll always have that "1" even if and when someone inevitably becomes "2." Robin will have done at a time right in the heart of Rafa's prime, while "2" most likely will be viewed as the beginning of the end.

 

[Moxie]

On a side note, it is interesting to me that Rafa receives such ire from his non-fans. I wonder if it is partially a personality thing, because he does come across as rather pouty, which ends up seeming less dignified than Roger's stoicism. Or it might be because he's so damned good, or his style of play that causes people to beat themselves just as much he scores winners and crafts points, or....all of the above and more.

That said, of the Big Four, I've got to say that Rafa is the most irritating loser, just as Novak is the most irritating winner (the shirt pulling), although Novak makes up for it by being such a gracious loser. Roger is pretty mild on both accounts, which may be why he's less annoying to most, and Andy still has that veneer of underdog so its hard to fault whatever his response is.

Personally, I don't think the ire that he receives is a "personality-thing." Your feeling that he's "pouty" is an opinion. I think it has much more to do with that Nadal is the biggest rival of both Federer and Djokovic. He has two camps of fans against him. At this point, every Slam loss or win generates enormous conversation, because of how much it matters to the legacy of all 3.

To bring it back to your original idea: I do agree that 2014 is suddenly less certain than the last years have been.

Roland Garros: I don't agree with any notion that Novak needs any more motivation than he already has to win it. Or any more game. We'll see how long Rafa can guard the citadel.

After that, I'm not sure. We have to see how Murray comes back. I'm in with those that think Roger looks to be having a better 2014. And I hope I'm not going out on a limb to say that Rog and Rafa will have a better Wimbledon. :laydownlaughing DelPotro also just became more of a question mark. I think Wawrinka will feature in Paris. I'm hoping for another of the youngsters to go deep in a major, but I couldn't say who it might be. Maybe Dimitrov, finally? Raonic is uninteresting. Janowicz has injury and head issues. (Though I like him.)

 

[El Dude]

Moxie, my feeling that he is "puoty" is an opinion, but its a common one. I mean, he certainly is poutier than the other three of the Big Four. But I think your point is a good one, although it should probably apply to Djokovic as well. It might have something to do with the fact that Nadal is the only member of the Big Four that has a winning record against the other three.

I agree with your last paragraph. Raonic is kind of boring, isn't he? Is anyone a fan of his? It seems Dimitrov and Janowicz have their fans, but everyone is pretty "meh" on Raonic. I really like Dimitrov, and Janowicz only a bit less - he's fun to watch because he's a bit of a wildcard; it feels like he could beat anyone, but also lose to anyone.

 

[Front242]

Of course he's pouty lol. How could anyone deny the facial expressions he makes in interviews, on court and most notably in matches he loses with the grumpy handshake in particular with the umpire. Now all players look grumpy some of the time in defeat but some of the looks Nadal gives the umpire in particular are priceless.

If this isn't pouting I dunno what is. Besides Victoria Beckham obviously. Pout at the net to Rosol's face and to the umpire.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmROvr_d90c&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, my feeling that he is "puoty" is an opinion, but its a common one. I mean, he certainly is poutier than the other three of the Big Four. But I think your point is a good one, although it should probably apply to Djokovic as well. It might have something to do with the fact that Nadal is the only member of the Big Four that has a winning record against the other three.

I agree with your last paragraph. Raonic is kind of boring, isn't he? Is anyone a fan of his? It seems Dimitrov and Janowicz have their fans, but everyone is pretty "meh" on Raonic. I really like Dimitrov, and Janowicz only a bit less - he's fun to watch because he's a bit of a wildcard; it feels like he could beat anyone, but also lose to anyone.

Well, I'd ask you to define "pouty." I'll agree he complains about lots of things. The schedule, the fact that lower-ranked players don't get enough money, his knees. By the same token, he sucks it up on court. My point about him being a nemesis to the other big players is right, I believe. And Djokovic does get short-shrift for the same reason, IMO. If you weren't in there to ruin the party, people wouldn't try so hard to take you down.

Raonic does have fans on this board. Mostly amongst the Canadians. I like Janowicz more than Dimitrov, which is purely taste. It has bored me that Dimitrov has taken so long to "up-and-come." And Janowicz reminds me of Safin, so I keep hoping for the best for him. (Though it's not like hoping the best from Safin wasn't a bit of a fool's errand.)

 

[brokenshoelace]

I agree, but he can be both healthy and playing his best and still lose. It can happen! Except to Kieran, it can't.

That's what I dislike about hardcore Nadal fans and likely the same with others.

"As for the slams, if Rafa is at his best, he takes Paris. At his best, nobody can stop him there, no matter what version of themselves they channel."

No one is unbeatable in tennis or any sport, even when playing their best on their best surface, etc. It's insulting to the other players out there. All of them. Anyway, hopefully 2014 will be a good year for tennis.

Realistically, Nadal at 100% physically AND playing his best tennis at Roland Garros is the closest thing to unbeatable in tennis. I agree with your general point but I think in this particular instance, we can let it slide since it's not so ridiculous to suggest.

For sure, apart from that rare occurrence in 2009 it's been one of the safest bests in sports history. For the record that was the one year I backed Nadal outright and the miserable git lost :laydownlaughing Very mixed emotions, €2,000 poorer at the time but also utterly delighted

Sorry about your loss. Believe me when I say I wish you never lost that 2000 euros!

On a serious note, nobody's unbeatable in the literal sense. However, there's something to be said when there's literally only one man (Djokovic) people would even think to give a shot against Nadal at Roland Garros. Nadal has played 60 matches at Roland Garros, won 59, lost 1, and only came close to losing one other time (to Novak last year). That's an outrageous level of dominance.

 

[Moxie]

Of course he's pouty lol. How could anyone deny the facial expressions he makes in interviews, on court and most notably in matches he loses with the grumpy handshake in particular with the umpire. Now all players look grumpy some of the time in defeat but some of the looks Nadal gives the umpire in particular are priceless.

If this isn't pouting I dunno what is. Besides Victoria Beckham obviously. Pout at the net to Rosol's face and to the umpire.

There are plenty of youtube examples of Roger being crotchety, and Novak being combative or Andy being cranky, too. If you'd stop making it about personalities, and go back to making it about tennis, it would be more valid. We can try to undermine the personalities of the players how best our favorites. But what really does matter is how they play tennis. And when we complain about their personalities or behaviors, it's by-and-large because we already don't like them, for beating our favorites. I think that's just true.

 

[TsarMatt]

Of course he's pouty lol. How could anyone deny the facial expressions he makes in interviews, on court and most notably in matches he loses with the grumpy handshake in particular with the umpire. Now all players look grumpy some of the time in defeat but some of the looks Nadal gives the umpire in particular are priceless.

If this isn't pouting I dunno what is. Besides Victoria Beckham obviously. Pout at the net to Rosol's face and to the umpire.

There are plenty of youtube examples of Roger being crotchety, and Novak being combative or Andy being cranky, too. If you'd stop making it about personalities, and go back to making it about tennis, it would be more valid. We can try to undermine the personalities of the players how best our favorites. But what really does matter is how they play tennis. And when we complain about their personalities or behaviors, it's by-and-large because we already don't like them, for beating our favorites. I think that's just true.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd_ISSzxyZk[/video]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEprAqJ_UAM[/video]

Indeed.

 

[El Dude]

And when we complain about their personalities or behaviors, it's by-and-large because we already don't like them, for beating our favorites. I think that's just true.

It might frequently be true, but I don't think it is always or inherently true.

I'll use myself as an example. I find Novak Djokovic's match-winning antics a bit annoying - ripping his shirt off, especially - but it doesn't matter who he beats, whether it is Federer or another player I like. I also find Nadal's poutiness mildly irking. It doesn't make me dislike him as a person (frankly, I don't know him) or respect his game any less - and it has nothing to do with his dominance of Federer, its because he is, well, pouty (or maybe sulky is a better word). He just doesn't seem to have the graciousness that, say, Novak or Roger do when they lose. Or think of Andy Murray crying when he lost the 2012 Wimbledon. I might be mis-remembering, but Rafa always just looks mad when he loses in a final.

It is also frequently true that people defend the personalities and behaviors of their favorites because they like them, and end up being in a bit of denial or having a skewed perception because they want to see their favorite as perfect.

In this instance, Moxie, I think you are defending your favorite player, but in a bit of denial about his tendency to sulk when things don't go his way. We all have quirks and flaws, and Rafa is no different. I'm not saying you should love or respect him any less, but in fact love him regardless of his quirks - or even because of them! Love the Pout!

 

[El Dude]

For everyone's enjoyment:

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

Or this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EP4pYV-jak

John McEnroe, "Champion des Tirades," outdoes them all.

 

[tented]

For everyone's enjoyment:

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

Or this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EP4pYV-jak

John McEnroe, "Champion des Tirades," outdoes them all.

And let's not forget this gem:

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YCg9JIIgw8[/video]

 

[Moxie]

And when we complain about their personalities or behaviors, it's by-and-large because we already don't like them, for beating our favorites. I think that's just true.

It might frequently be true, but I don't think it is always or inherently true.

I'll use myself as an example. I find Novak Djokovic's match-winning antics a bit annoying - ripping his shirt off, especially - but it doesn't matter who he beats, whether it is Federer or another player I like. I also find Nadal's poutiness mildly irking. It doesn't make me dislike him as a person (frankly, I don't know him) or respect his game any less - and it has nothing to do with his dominance of Federer, its because he is, well, pouty (or maybe sulky is a better word). He just doesn't seem to have the graciousness that, say, Novak or Roger do when they lose. Or think of Andy Murray crying when he lost the 2012 Wimbledon. I might be mis-remembering, but Rafa always just looks mad when he loses in a final.

It is also frequently true that people defend the personalities and behaviors of their favorites because they like them, and end up being in a bit of denial or having a skewed perception because they want to see their favorite as perfect.

In this instance, Moxie, I think you are defending your favorite player, but in a bit of denial about his tendency to sulk when things don't go his way. We all have quirks and flaws, and Rafa is no different. I'm not saying you should love or respect him any less, but in fact love him regardless of his quirks - or even because of them! Love the Pout!

A lot of that would be you, Dude, because you're very even-handed. I think Nadal has been easy-going about some of his non-major losses, but I'll give you that he's not looked to happy about them in some of his Major losses. But why should he? He's a competitor and he wants to win. What I think he gets less credit for is how magnanimous he is when he wins. He was very low-key when he trounced Roger in RG 2008, and when Fed was so upset in AO 2009. I don't think how players handle loss is that critical, unless they're too complacent. Being disappointed is what you want from them. How they deal with wins is more of what makes the person.

 

[Front242]

Of course he's pouty lol. How could anyone deny the facial expressions he makes in interviews, on court and most notably in matches he loses with the grumpy handshake in particular with the umpire. Now all players look grumpy some of the time in defeat but some of the looks Nadal gives the umpire in particular are priceless.

If this isn't pouting I dunno what is. Besides Victoria Beckham obviously. Pout at the net to Rosol's face and to the umpire.

There are plenty of youtube examples of Roger being crotchety, and Novak being combative or Andy being cranky, too. If you'd stop making it about personalities, and go back to making it about tennis, it would be more valid. We can try to undermine the personalities of the players how best our favorites. But what really does matter is how they play tennis. And when we complain about their personalities or behaviors, it's by-and-large because we already don't like them, for beating our favorites. I think that's just true.

El Dude stated he found Nadal pouty and I concurred that I do too so clearly he was right that many do. Frankly it's obvious from his facial expressions and I even posted a video link to demonstrate and I stated clearly above they all look grumpy at times when they lose. I highlighted it above and of course there are loads of clips of others with grumpy faces but he does pout more than them and that's all El Dude was saying and I happen to agree. It's hardly the end of the world if he has a grumpy face a lot of the time. It's the tennis people watch him for.