When will Nadal mention the silent "K" word?

[Front242]

@ 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)...

Nah I give him his due credit for his wins but just saying this year's RG he got some help from Novak to get back the break is all. Last year neither of them played particularly well at RG I thought and Novak was plain crap first two sets. the DFs at RG 2012 to end set 1, match point and Rome MP were plain poor play. Don't buy that a player of Djokovic's calibre should DF so much for any other reason than poor play. Even Fed doesn't do that against Nadal and look how he poops his pants when ahead against Nadal.

 

[Kieran]

Why did Rafa miss that backhand against Novak in the fifth set in Oz in 2012?

It went down as a UFE, but it clearly wasn't. Nole had earned it by hassling him for a year. Likewise, Nole double-faulting on match point in both Rome and Paris in 2012, and shanking a couple of crucial ones in the fifth this year (which he was blessed to reach, by the way, just like he was blessed to get to four last year, where Nadal was brilliant in the first two sets).

"cupcake draw..."

Also, I am not buying the post-Wimbledon 2009 excuse. Nadal was in good enough condition to reach the semifinals of the US Open.

So here's a serious lapse in logic. Rafa has a cupcake draw the year he wins the USO, but the year he only reached the semis, he was playing his best? Why not reverse the order there and think differently?

By the way, from memory, I don't think Rafa beat a single top ten player post-Wimbledon 2009 until clay 2010. I think the first top ten dude he beat was Roger in Madrid.

And you think he was at his best in 2009? You're kidding, right? Seriously? :snigger

"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.

Actually, I'm more referring to Paris, where some peeps think Nole should have won one by now, and I insist he's been lucky to get to five this year, and four last year...

 

[shawnbm]

I guess the topic of Rafael Nadal's knees is closed?

 

[calitennis127]

Kieran, I have much more to say, but for now let me ask this question: what would you be saying about the end of 2009 for Nadal if he had beaten Davydenko in the Shanghai final and either made it to the Paris Masters final or even won it?

He was not far away from doing either. This notion that his game was completely off at that time is not true.

At the WTF, he played Djokovic - who is a tough match-up for him on all hards, as well as Davydenko (playing the tennis of his life at the time and who had also beaten him in the 2008 Miami final), and Soderling (who, on a low-bouncing hardcourt, will always have an edge against Nadal).

Why was Nadal so, so, so, so terrible at the end of 2009? What about his level was so below par?

In fact, it can quite easily be argued that Nadal's fall season in 2009 was BETTER than his fall season of 2008. In 2008, he lost in the Madrid semifinal and bowed out early in Paris. In 2009, he reached the Shanghai final and made the semis of Paris. So, which fall season went better for him, 2008 or 2009?

 

[Kieran]

Your thinking, as usual when it comes to Knadal, is wrong: in 2008 he was sated, he'd taken the castle, won W and the Olympics, and wound down the year with very little play after the US Open, and what little there was didn't seem urgent. He retired injured in Paris and doffed his cap on a great year.

In 2009, he came back after W, played timidly on the US HC season, tore his abdomen, went down abjectly in the semis in Flushing Meadows, and didn't beat a single top player for the rest of the year.

His confidence was gone and he wasn't the same guy who tore up the tour the following summer. You know this, right: he was bullish and game in 2010, and he was timid and losing to everyone in the top 10 in 2009.

Do you not recall my nickname for him then?

Hamlet Nadal.

Because he was as lost and tortured as that fabled prince, and it wasn't until he was back on clay in 2010 that he found his confidence, form and place in the game again.

By the way, speaking of how important MS tourneys are, can you answer me this: were the US HC MS tourneys important to Nadal before the US Open in 2010?

If so, how?

 

[the AntiPusher]

Kieran, I have much more to say, but for now let me ask this question: what would you be saying about the end of 2009 for Nadal if he had beaten Davydenko in the Shanghai final and either made it to the Paris Masters final or even won it?

He was not far away from doing either. This notion that his game was completely off at that time is not true.

At the WTF, he played Djokovic - who is a tough match-up for him on all hards, as well as Davydenko (playing the tennis of his life at the time and who had also beaten him in the 2008 Miami final), and Soderling (who, on a low-bouncing hardcourt, will always have an edge against Nadal).

Why was Nadal so, so, so, so terrible at the end of 2009? What about his level was so below par?

In fact, it can quite easily be argued that Nadal's fall season in 2009 was BETTER than his fall season of 2008. In 2008, he lost in the Madrid semifinal and bowed out early in Paris. In 2009, he reached the Shanghai final and made the semis of Paris. So, which fall season went better for him, 2008 or 2009?

I would like to know who are the 5-7 posters who said that they LIKED Cali posts. I am just curious because all I see from Cali is anti-Rafa which is Ok but when that is your basic premise to post, then all I can say is God Bless.

 

[calitennis127]

Your thinking, as usual when it comes to Knadal, is wrong: in 2008 he was sated, he'd taken the castle, won W and the Olympics, and wound down the year with very little play after the US Open, and what little there was didn't seem urgent.

What???? Did you watch the Madrid semifinal against Simon?? You want to tell me he wasn't trying to win that match???? It was a 3-setter that lasted over 3 hours, played in Nadal's home country. He was bludgeoning forehand after forehand for 3 sets. You have to be kidding me. No one takes it casually playing in their home country, and that match was a brutal baseline war.

Why do you think the youtube poster "Pray4RF" put up three highlight packages (Parts 1, 2, and 3) of the Nadal-Simon match that combine for just under 30 minutes?

If you think Nadal wasn't putting his entire all into that match, you have to be kidding me.

Watch just part 2. Is Nadal not trying here? You have to be smoking something to say he isn't. These rallies were going for almost 30 shots on every other point. To say that Nadal wasn't trying hard is as illogical and absurd as a statement can get:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uiJ5NKK4ns

By the way, speaking of how important MS tourneys are, can you answer me this: were the US HC MS tourneys important to Nadal before the US Open in 2010?

If so, how?

Kieran, you have to be kidding me, again.

First of all, Nadal has always valued the clay MS events as preparation for Roland Garros. He treats MS events as a HUGE deal, and rightfully so.

Second, Nadal did not lose in the first round of Toronto 2010 because he didn't care. He didn't walk out disinterested. He lost in straight sets to Andy Murray in the SEMIFINALS. If you think Nadal didn't want to win that match, you are dreaming.

Third, Nadal has never done well at Cincinnati. Never. There is always an excuse for it provided by fans. The fact was that he lost to Baghdatis in three tight sets. Baghdatis once reached an AO final and can play a little bit on hardcourts.

Now, did Nadal treat Cincinnati as seriously as the US Open? I don't believe so. But that was partially because I think he was tired from Toronto and also because he never really fancies his chances in Cincinnati, given his history there. But, I also don't doubt that he would have won that Baghdatis match if he could have.

Furthermore, Nadal's first two matches at the US Open were very, very far from impressive. They were drawn-out and boring, with Nadal's opponents doubling him up in winners. To say that he just magically flipped a switch once he got to New York is not true at all.

 

[Kieran]

Let me show you how you should have answered a query regarding how seriously Ralph took the US HC MS tourneys before Flushing Meadows:

"Warm Up Sessions"

It's a fair question, but it's one that I think people are posing because they are making too big a deal of Madrid and Rome, when in fact that hasn't been Djokovic's main concern since he won Melbourne.

As John McEnroe pointed out at the 2010 US Open, after Nadal won the French that year, the first thing he brought up as his next objective was not the upcoming Wimbledon tournament, but the US Open. I believe Djokovic has been of the same mindset in 2013 after winning Melbourne.

He had already won Indian Wells multiple times, he had already won Miami multiple times. He had already won Rome multiple times. He had already won Madrid. The only MS event between the Australian Open and the French Open that he hadn't won was Monte Carlo. He took care of that, and the moment he did so his focus was on Paris. He may not have said it, but my intuition is that this was the case.

And, let's face it, everyone (especially the players) knows Roland Garros is the ultimate prize of the clay season. Djokovic is well aware of that after the disappointment of 2011 especially, when he was the consensus favorite heading into Roland Garros. So, this year, after Melbourne and then especially after Monte Carlo, his sights have been primarily set on Paris. Everything else has just been warm-up sessions (minus, perhaps, the Monte Carlo event, and that's only because he hadn't won it before 2013), whether they are being interpreted as such or not.

 

[kskate2]

Kieran, Cali and anyone else interested in this discussion. Please open a separate thread if you want to debate Nadal's level at any given stage of his career. This thread is about if/when the knee word will be mentioned.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, the OP was joking, though, so...the thread developed naturally.

The answer about Knadal's Nee?

It'll be mentioned by everybody long after he's retired...

 

[SF Nadalite]

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...

Forgive me, I was looking at it in a similar way to how Rafa has handled the grass courts...getting comfortable on the surface, good match play, mostly as preparation for the Slam...with a strong performance in a Masters as a good indicator that he is feeling good on the court.

I have no doubt he has winning as his goal - I'd just settle for a strong showing

 

[Kieran]

There's nothing to forgive!

But I'd love to see his 2010 serve again - that'd help preserve his knees...

 

[Front242]

Why did Rafa miss that backhand against Novak in the fifth set in Oz in 2012?

It went down as a UFE, but it clearly wasn't. Nole had earned it by hassling him for a year. Likewise, Nole double-faulting on match point in both Rome and Paris in 2012, and shanking a couple of crucial ones in the fifth this year (which he was blessed to reach, by the way, just like he was blessed to get to four last year, where Nadal was brilliant in the first two sets).

Actually, I'm more referring to Paris, where some peeps think Nole should have won one by now, and I insist he's been lucky to get to five this year, and four last year...

I've posted this before but I personally thought (and in fact thought this was also the general consensus) that both Nadal and Djokovic both played subpar in the first 2 sets of RG 2012, Djokovic in particular naturally. But the tennis on display was far from brilliant from Nadal also in those first two sets imo. Also, still not sure that those UFEs by both guys were anything but sloppy play really but each to their own. I mean the best players miss time shots too. They're human after all.

Djokovic played extremely well to break Nadal end of set 4 and force the TB in which he played very well. So not sure that was luck really. And don't forget the muck service game Djokovic played to give the crucial break back in set 5 of RG this year which most definitely was lucky for Nadal as if Djokovic kept that break he'd have been serving for the match. Not just Djokovic who is lucky. One break in the 5th is all Rosol needed and if Djokovic hadn't bottled that service game, one break would've done it for him there too.

 

[Kieran]

Come on, buddy, Djoker bottled the game in the fifth and Rafa didn't bottle the game at 6-5 in the 4th? You sure? Cos you're beginning to sound like Cali. And Rafa missing That Backhand was a forced error, just like Novak touching the net off that volley in the fifth. By the way, Rafa was immense in the game that he broke back in, from memory. Sure, Novak made a bags of the volley, but he won the next point. But other than that, this was a break of serve hard-earned and a huge performance from Nadal...

 

[Front242]

Come on, buddy, Djoker bottled the game in the fifth and Rafa didn't bottle the game at 6-5 in the 4th? You sure? Cos you're beginning to sound like Cali. And Rafa missing That Backhand was a forced error, just like Novak touching the net off that volley in the fifth. By the way, Rafa was immense in the game that he broke back in, from memory. Sure, Novak made a bags of the volley, but he won the next point. But other than that, this was a break of serve hard-earned and a huge performance from Nadal...

Got a link to the full match by any chance? 'cos I distinctly recall that being a crap game by Djokovic to give back the break. Also, regarding forced v unforced errors. Look at Fed's crap play for over a year now. How many of those are forced errors or just because he's playing crap ? Sorry but top players and that includes Nadal and Djokovic throw in slop too. Djokovic played rubbish last Sunday and I wouldn't really call those all forced errors. He missed some sitters of volleys. Just really poor play.

 

[Moxie]

^ I agree that some errors will be unforced, and some will be forced, in a match against elite players that goes 5 sets. Sometimes they lose focus and play lower than their best level. However, I don't think there's a strong argument that Djokovic was cheated out of match that he should have won, either in 2012 or this year at RG. If anything, the stronger position is that Nadal blew a chance to serve it out again in 4. But he let Novak back in, and Djokovic was capitalizing, until he couldn't any more. I'm not sure what the argument is over this match. There's a perfect parallel between the two, with the RG semi and the AO final in 2012: each went 5, the loser was up a break in the 5th, and the other guy prevailed, on his preferred surface. Good matches, but finally the predictable winner prevailed. And in two similar and tight ones, they got one each.

 

[Garro]

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.

You hit the nail on the head really. Even if Rafa did get a fairly easy draw in 2010, Rafa, playing at a lower level, took down the guys a year later who were supposed to have given him trouble. So it's a bit silly to suggest that he only won the event because of a weak draw. I don't think anyone would have stopped him that year the way he was playing.

As for Nadal's knees, he'll talk probably the next time he's asked about it.

 

[Srini]

Nadal i think already mentioned the K word implicitly. After the Wimbledon loss when quizzed about his physical condition he said "Now is not the time to talk about these things" or something to that effect.

 

[Moxie]

Just to address the difference between a "cupcake" draw, and a draw that 'opens up', I don't see that Nadal's 2010 was that different from 2011. The major difference was that Murray went out in 2010 before he faced Nadal, and in 2011, Rafa had to beat him. Nadal even faced Nalbandian in 2011, who had missed his chance in 2010, (for those who care.) Rafa faced Verdasco and Youzhny in 2010, both players who had beaten him or troubled him on HCs.

Think of it this way: the bottom half of the recent Wimbledon was over-loaded with 3 of the top 4, at the initial draw. Then Rafa and Roger went out. The draw opened up beautifully for Andy Murray. And, if Verdasco hadn't turned out to be on a late career streak, and done the expected, (i.e., to have gone quietly in straights,) wouldn't some be inclined to look at it, in retrospect, as a cupcake draw for Murray, when it was nothing of the kind? It was a draw that "opened-up." Likewise, Djokovic was seen to have the easy path to the finals, and, while he made it there, Del Potro seems to have done just enough to hamstring his final.

The draw is only a projection of what might be, and the players just play who's in front of them. They have no control over who they don't play, and I don't think that should be seen as a detriment to what they accomplish when they win. Times being what they are, I don't believe there are any cupcake draws, just opportunities to be seized when the present themselves.

 

[calitennis127]

Let me show you how you should have answered a query regarding how seriously Ralph took the US HC MS tourneys before Flushing Meadows:

"Warm Up Sessions"

It's a fair question, but it's one that I think people are posing because they are making too big a deal of Madrid and Rome, when in fact that hasn't been Djokovic's main concern since he won Melbourne.

As John McEnroe pointed out at the 2010 US Open, after Nadal won the French that year, the first thing he brought up as his next objective was not the upcoming Wimbledon tournament, but the US Open. I believe Djokovic has been of the same mindset in 2013 after winning Melbourne.

He had already won Indian Wells multiple times, he had already won Miami multiple times. He had already won Rome multiple times. He had already won Madrid. The only MS event between the Australian Open and the French Open that he hadn't won was Monte Carlo. He took care of that, and the moment he did so his focus was on Paris. He may not have said it, but my intuition is that this was the case.

And, let's face it, everyone (especially the players) knows Roland Garros is the ultimate prize of the clay season. Djokovic is well aware of that after the disappointment of 2011 especially, when he was the consensus favorite heading into Roland Garros. So, this year, after Melbourne and then especially after Monte Carlo, his sights have been primarily set on Paris. Everything else has just been warm-up sessions (minus, perhaps, the Monte Carlo event, and that's only because he hadn't won it before 2013), whether they are being interpreted as such or not.

Very clever. However, this does not address the initial point I made, which was that MS events are, in general, taken very seriously by the top players. You dismissed Djokovic's 7-3 hardcourt record over Nadal heading into the 2010 US Open as, essentially, petty because none of the wins was "biggies".

I don't see how that view holds up at all. Are Indian Wells, Miami, Montreal, Cincinnati, Paris, and World Tour Finals not "biggies"?

As for 2010, I will grant that Nadal did not pour his heart and soul into Toronto and Cincinnati, given that his ultimate goal was to win the US Open. However, it is a non sequitur to go from that position to also saying that MS events are no big deal and essentially just trivial. Moreover, Nadal did not lose to the analogue of Dimitrov or Berdych in Toronto 2010; he lost to some guy named Andy Murray. He also has NEVER done well in Cincinnati. Would you say that he has never taken Cincinnati seriously? Ever? Not once?

After all, hasn't Nadal won something like 22 of those petty MS events? I think he has taken them fairly seriously in general.