When will Nadal mention the silent "K" word?

[Ricardo]

let's just say at this point his knee is always a bit sore, sometimes more and sometimes less. It IS sore when he wins and when he loses..... so it doesn't really matter, does it? like someone said, vast majority of the players are never 100% healthy, they just have some niggling injuries here and there.

 

[SF Nadalite]

i actually think the summer will be interesting. I'm not thinking he will play more than the Master's events, maybe one lead up. Montreal is the first full week of August - so that would roughly be 5 weeks off, Cincy is the next week (I'd guess completely dependent on how he felt/played in Montreal)...then US Open starts end of the month.

so much was made after Wimbledon regarding his lack of mobility by the end of the match. As much as team Rafa complains about the hard courts, perhaps the fresh slippery grass/low bounce notion will be a good comparison once he hits the hard courts to see if the knees are the main problem.

i vote for a quarter finals in Montreal - skip Cincy - then a run to the semi's at NYC

 

[Kieran]

i vote for a quarter finals in Montreal - skip Cincy - then a run to the semi's at NYC

Semi-final? Not good enough. Nadal is meant for better than to enter slams in the hope of being a semi-finalist. If that's the best his knees can give him, he's better off out of it.

If his knees are fine on hards, then he enters to win the US Open...

 

[calitennis127]

btw, i couldn't help but notice that just two or three days after the historic british triumph and the most thorough Djokovic slam final loss in years, we have Fedal threads getting more attention than the new top guys, and hardly new dedicated Murrovic threads (instead, big 4 talk)... we really should start facing the music and shift some attention


/kidding, of course, as most of the Murrovic talk is still channelled in the Final thread.

In fairness, apart from one or two, the Djokolites have vanished from the site. Since the Buddhist of Monte Carlo lost, there's only been Nehmeth and Herios and maybe someone else who's posted. The others maybe waiting til the HC's. And Andy has many admirers but only One Fan. So there wouldn't be a huge amount of posting new threads about them.

Everyone knows, anyway, that once the 'Nees are sorted, we'll be back living in a Ralphy realm...

Yeah, like when he had the easiest draw in the history of Grand Slam tournaments en route to the US Open final of 2010.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, like when he had the easiest draw in the history of Grand Slam tournaments en route to the US Open final of 2010.

If it was, it's about time Nadal had an easy run at something, but didn't he face Novak in that final?

 

[calitennis127]

Yeah, like when he had the easiest draw in the history of Grand Slam tournaments en route to the US Open final of 2010.

If it was, it's about time Nadal had an easy run at something, but didn't he face Novak in that final?

He did, and Djokovic played well below his potential in that match. It was probably the worst Grand Slam final he has ever played considering the surface and the match-up. That was a gimme opportunity at his #2 Slam, especially considering how he won after saving two match points against Federer. After escaping the semis by the skin of his teeth, he was given a second chance at the tournament against a player he had dominated on hardcourts. That was probably the biggest wasted opportunity of his career.

My bigger point, though, was that Nadal got probably the two biggest cupcakes in the quarters and semis that he could have asked for: Verdasco and Youzhny, BOTH coming off of long, draining 5-set matches. Remember that was the year Verdasco beat Nalbandian and Ferrer, and also one of the years that Murray bowed out early.

 

[shawnbm]

Let's not go there, folks. Every grand slam win is a significant achievement and should not be demeaned. I recall that Rafa had a few things go his way in winning that only US Open in 2010--but what champion hasn't. Federer has had it, Pete, Bjorn, Andre and Ivan the Terrible. They have all had the benefit of a key guy getting knocked out early at some point. It is a two week affair and there are many variables in place. It takes a lot, with a little luck, to win slams--but when you win 5, 7, 10, 12 or 17 of them, that is usually a pretty good indicator that you may bring more to the table than your run-of-the-mill top 100, 50, 25 or 10 player; don't cha think?

 

[Kieran]

He did, and Djokovic played well below his potential in that match. It was probably the worst Grand Slam final he has ever played considering the surface and the match-up. That was a gimme opportunity at his #2 Slam, especially considering how he won after saving two match points against Federer. After escaping the semis by the skin of his teeth, he was given a second chance at the tournament against a player he had dominated on hardcourts. That was probably the biggest wasted opportunity of his career.

So many errors in this paragraph you should be held back after school for detention. Firstly, and most crucially, before 2011, Novak didn't "dominate" Nadal anywhere that mattered. When the match was a biggie for him, Nadal won. Like he did in this final, where he dominated Novak, and Novak fought well.

Secondly, isn't it funny how when Nadal played "well below his potential" in 2011, you think that this was Novak, then and forever more. But when Rafa turned tables on him in all big matches since Oz 2012, you scarper and refuse to post?

Which is the real Novak? Which is the real Nadal? Novak gets credit for for 2011, but in 2010 Rafa dropped only one set in the whole US Open and barely ever lost his serve, and yet he gets nuthin' from you for this? He was brilliant! He could have faced Federer in the semis and Pete in the final and he'd have taken home the cup.

Thirdly, you forget that I was in Row Zed in Flushing Meadows when a greenhorn Novak blew chances in every set in the final against Roger. Believe me, he's played worse than he did in 2010.

My bigger point, though, was that Nadal got probably the two biggest cupcakes in the quarters and semis that he could have asked for: Verdasco and Youzhny, BOTH coming off of long, draining 5-set matches. Remember that was the year Verdasco beat Nalbandian and Ferrer, and also one of the years that Murray bowed out early.

Verdasco beat the immortal Daveed? And you call him a cupcake? :snigger

 

[calitennis127]

Firstly, and most crucially, before 2011, Novak didn't "dominate" Nadal anywhere that mattered. When the match was a biggie for him, Nadal won.

Going into the 2010 US Open final, Djokovic was 7-3 against Nadal on hardcourts and all 7 of his wins came in straight sets:

- Miami 2007
- Montreal 2007
- Indian Wells 2008
- Cincinnati 2008 and 2009
- Paris 2009
- World Tour Finals 2009

Were none of these matches "biggies"? Did none of these matches matter?

Secondly, isn't it funny how when Nadal played "well below his potential" in 2011, you think that this was Novak, then and forever more.

You say that Nadal played "well below his potential" in 2011. Why don't you offer some proof of that?

The reality is that his game was completely in-tact and he was having the best season of his career, aside from the fact that he couldn't beat Djokovic. In fact, many Nadal fans were saying that during 2011; they repeatedly said that Nadal would have been having his most dominant season ever if it weren't for his losses to Djokovic.

But when Rafa turned tables on him in all big matches since Oz 2012, you scarper and refuse to post?

Refuse to post???? Huh? Where are you getting that idea?

 

[Kieran]

Forget about the three 2009 matches: unless you think that post-Wimbledon 2009 Nadal was 'playing to his full potential. The Biggie was the Olympics 2008. Who won that one?

In fact, in 2011, Nole was magnificent but if you think ythat Nadal didn't decline in their matches then you weren't paying attention.

But in 2010, Nadal was magnificent. Maybe Novak 'played to his potential' and just was beaten by the better guy. I certainly think so. 2011-Nole isn't the default setting on that guy: and even if it was, Nadal at the US Open 2010 would have claimed him. Can I prove this? Can you prove it wouldn't have happened? See how desperate you are to denigrate Nadal?

As for not posting, weren't you sulking just a little when Nadal brilliantly rebuffed the best of Novak in Paris? He took seven months off and still was able to win. Didn't you go a bit quiet between there and Rafa's loss at Wimbo? Come on, you can tell me, I'll keep a secret... :snigger

 

[DarthFed]

Unfortunately, that's been the case. The old muck is less damage for him, but let's hope IW is an indicator, and not just a statistic, and that it indicates that he can play through the HC season successfully as well...

Let's hope it is not an indicator of success Much different hard courts here than Indian Wells. Nadal won 2010 USO the "right" way and I gave him full credit for that. We'll see if he can do that again.

---

i vote for a quarter finals in Montreal - skip Cincy - then a run to the semi's at NYC

Semi-final? Not good enough. Nadal is meant for better than to enter slams in the hope of being a semi-finalist. If that's the best his knees can give him, he's better off out of it.

If his knees are fine on hards, then he enters to win the US Open...

Absolutely. Players like Fed, Rafa, Nole and Murray don't enter tournaments thinking a semifinal is a decent result. You are starting to see the light. This is why I say a QF loss is an "early" loss. QF is usually when the tournament starts for the great players. If Rafa is ready to go he should at least reach that point in every major he plays.

 

[Front242]

That was hardly the best of Djokovic in RG this year in fairness. Ahead with a break in the 5th and bottled it. Couldn't hit overheads to save his life that day. Nadal's forehand was great that day but he still ended up behind in the crucial 5th set and only got back on level terms thanks to a shockingly poor game from Novak. From there he played better but the lead was given back by sloppy play from Novak so I'd hardly say he brilliantly rebuffed the best of Novak. Rather he was lucky Novak played another of his sloppy games he throws in quite often of late when ahead. He's been poor last two major finals for much of both matches, blowing leads with 4-1 and 4-2 at Wimbledon. That was a terrible performance last Sunday.

 

[Kieran]

That was hardly the best of Djokovic in RG this year in fairness. Ahead with a break in the 5th and bottled it. Couldn't hit overheads to save his life that day. Nadal's forehand was great that day but he still ended up behind in the crucial 5th set and only got back on level terms thanks to a shockingly poor game from Novak. From there he played better but the lead was given back by sloppy play from Novak so I'd hardly say he brilliantly rebuffed the best of Novak. Rather he was lucky Novak played another of his sloppy games he throws in quite often of late when ahead. He's been poor last two major finals for much of both matches, blowing leads with 4-1 and 4-2 at Wimbledon. That was a terrible performance last Sunday.

Terrible last Sunday, agreed.

But why is it that when Nadal was shocking in 2011 it was given that Novak was just superior. And when Nadal wins, people say it's because "Novak was Shank City: compare him there with 2011!"

Compare Nadal in 2011 with Nadal in 2010!

Fact is, Novak hassled Rafa enough in 2011 to knock him off his game - and Rafa has done the same to him since Oz 2012. Nadal was out for 7 months and Nole set his cap on Paris - credit should be given when it's due...

 

[Front242]

That was hardly the best of Djokovic in RG this year in fairness. Ahead with a break in the 5th and bottled it. Couldn't hit overheads to save his life that day. Nadal's forehand was great that day but he still ended up behind in the crucial 5th set and only got back on level terms thanks to a shockingly poor game from Novak. From there he played better but the lead was given back by sloppy play from Novak so I'd hardly say he brilliantly rebuffed the best of Novak. Rather he was lucky Novak played another of his sloppy games he throws in quite often of late when ahead. He's been poor last two major finals for much of both matches, blowing leads with 4-1 and 4-2 at Wimbledon. That was a terrible performance last Sunday.

Terrible last Sunday, agreed.

But why is it that when Nadal was shocking in 2011 it was given that Novak was just superior. And when Nadal wins, people say it's because "Novak was Shank City: compare him there with 2011!"

Compare Nadal in 2011 with Nadal in 2010!

Fact is, Novak hassled Rafa enough in 2011 to knock him off his game - and Rafa has done the same to him since Oz 2012. Nadal was out for 7 months and Nole set his cap on Paris - credit should be given when it's due...

I'm giving him credit for winning (even if barely) at RG this year, sure. But he was indeed lucky Novak served up a crapfest to lose that crucial break in set 5. Nadal didn't have to do much there at all to get the break back. I'm merely disagreeing that Nadal brilliantly rebuffed Novak's best. The reality is he hung in there hoping to get back in front while behind in set 5 and managed to get back on level terms 'cos Novak played extremely poorly to give his break back (much like he did last Sunday in sets 2 and 3). From there I knew Novak wasn't going to win it but he was hardly playing his best there is all I'm saying. I'm not gonna bother discussing 2011 as all I was interested in commenting on was this year's RG.

 

[fedfan]

Yeah, like when he had the easiest draw in the history of Grand Slam tournaments en route to the US Open final of 2010.

If it was, it's about time Nadal had an easy run at something, but didn't he face Novak in that final?

He did, and Djokovic played well below his potential in that match. It was probably the worst Grand Slam final he has ever played considering the surface and the match-up. That was a gimme opportunity at his #2 Slam, especially considering how he won after saving two match points against Federer. After escaping the semis by the skin of his teeth, he was given a second chance at the tournament against a player he had dominated on hardcourts. That was probably the biggest wasted opportunity of his career.

When Rafa was serving 130mph +, I don't think anyone could've beaten him that day or the matches leading up. When Rafa mentioned "looking forward to NY" after hoisting #5 RG no one knew what he had up his sleeve.

 

[Kieran]

@ Front.

Yeah, but I think you missed my point: Novak gets credit for Nadal playing less confidently in 2011 (and rightly so) and why did Novak play less great on clay in 2012-2013, including double faulting on match point in two matches?

Because Nadal stuck it up to him.

Rafa took seven months off and still should have been done in four sets this year, actually, until he began to shank away his serve at 6-5 in the fourth. I'm not saying you're doing this, by the way, but some people go to remarkable lengths not to give him credit (Psst, it's Cali I'm referring to)...

 

[Moxie]

Yes, Cali in particular often finds reasons that Nadal "lucked" into a win ("cupcake draw,") or often faults the opponent, usually Novak of late, and Roger in the past, for not "playing to their potential" in essentially *gifting* the win to Nadal. He has said on other threads that Djokovic "could have and should have" beaten Nadal at RG in 2012-13. While he "could" have, because he was in the final/SF, there is no "should," and especially not in either of those cases, IMO. In 2012, Novak was just lucky it drizzled for so long, or he'd have been done in straights. This year, Nadal was the more consistently great player, of the two, but Nole, to his credit, got hot and the right moments to take the 2nd, and the 4th. Yes, he blew a lead in the 5th, but he also played dismally in the 3rd. Nadal never played dismally. And when he got back even in the 5th, he held his ground, and Novak did not. So the player who performed better won the match.

While there are people around here who don't like Nadal, or his game, most are respectful of his accomplishments. Cali is singularly strident in trying to undermine them at everyone opportunity. A man on a mission, certainly, even if it's a fool's errand.

 

[calitennis127]

Forget about the three 2009 matches: unless you think that post-Wimbledon 2009 Nadal was 'playing to his full potential. The Biggie was the Olympics 2008. Who won that one?

Nadal did. But how does that override all of the other matches which were MS level?

All of the top players take the MS events very seriously. That is actually where they have staked out their territory more than anywhere if you think about it. Murray's status in the game was established much more by his MS victories than his Slams, which until 3 days ago could not be referred to in the plural.

Also, I am not buying the post-Wimbledon 2009 excuse. Nadal was in good enough condition to reach the semifinals of the US Open. At Cincinnati, his health was fine and he made it to the semis. That tied his best result ever at the event. Later in 2009, Nadal made the Shanghai final and then the Paris semis. He couldn't have won all of those matches if he was playing well below his capability. By the time Djokovic got him in Paris and London, Nadal had gotten plenty of matches under his belt.

Djokovic beat him in those matches simply because he is the better hardcourt player.

You can't talk up Nadal's H2H over his opponents - which are very heavily affected by Nadal's Masters Series clay wins over top rivals - and then at the same time dismiss it as petty when Djokovic beats Nadal at hardcourt MS events. That is completely hypocritical and illogical.

"Look at all these wins Nadal has over Djokovic at Rome and Monte Carlo, he is so wonderful" but at the same time "Djokovic beat Nadal at Montreal and Cincinnati? Who cares? Just MS events!"

I'm not letting you get away with that, Kieran.

 

[Moxie]

For all the conversation about how much Djokovic dominated Nadal on hards, you have a hard time admitting that Nadal beat Djokovic in one of the HCs where it matters...a Slam. And also nearly beat him in AO 2012. And did beat him at the Olympics. Certainly Djokovic has the HC advantage over Nadal, but, in some of the big moments, Nadal has beaten him, or gotten all too close. Djokovic has also skunked Nadal 3 times on clay and one on grass, so that shows how tight things are between them.

 

[huntingyou]

The numbers don't lie:

Nadal leads Novak on clay 13-3 but in the other hand, Novak leads Nadal on hards 11-5.

So who it's suppose to beat who? If Novak has a legitimate shot at Rafa on clay and nobody would argue that; then Rafa has a legitimate shot at Novak on hards....but some people argue that notion. The numbers don't add up.

In 2010 at the UO, Rafa played his best tennis ever on that surface, serving 135 MPH out wide it's a serious proposition when the player doing so can dominate the baseline like Nadal. In 2011 with a much weaker serve, Rafa got the final against a much stronger draw...........I mean, he beat Andy Murray in the SF, didn't he? But in 2010 we must accept that Murray's upset at the hands of Wawrinka opened the door for Rafa? This is fuzzy math folks.

The undisputed truth is that Rafa has beaten ALL contenders on all surfaces (exception of Roger indoors)........let his fans enjoy his career.