Who had the worse 5th set collapse in terms of converting straightforward breakpoint opportunities?

[calitennis127]

What a long and pointless comparison of team sports and inexperienced players with one very inexperienced player in an individual sport going h2h with a very experienced one.

Lol.....you are only saying this because you know absolutely nothing about the "team sports" I discussed or the scenarios I detailed. Nor do you relate at all to the mindset of American football or basketball players. It's above your head and your understanding of sports, so you have no choice but to be dismissive.

Also, you know how many 5 setters DM has even played in his life? 5. Wanna know how many he's won? 0.

Yeah, and we saw why based on how he handled the 5th set against Nadal. He handled that 5-setter just as well as the prior 4 apparently.

Rafa is 22-12 career in a 5th set. Sure, Medvedev had a chance to win, as he was in the final, and he gave himself a great chance by coming back from 2 sets down. He failed to convert in a very early break chance, but that hardly constitutes a collapse.

Lol.....in your absolutely wimpy, feeble-minded mental world, yes, you're right. It was not a collapse. It was just a polite and pleasant challenge to Nadal that ended just the way you wanted it to.

You and Broken are both absolute wimps in terms of how you understand sports psychology, but at least you have a biological excuse for that. He doesn't, which is really sad.

In fact, he kept pressing and did get a break back.

Yeah, Moxie. How awesome a job he did to go from being one point away from a break in the 5th, then losing a break after going up 40-0 at 2-2, to then going down a double break, to then breaking back once. What a magisterial and heroic effort. He entertained us all before allowing Nadal to get #19. It was great theater, wasn't it?

Ho-hum, let's all pick some dandy lions now.

That he didn't win is no shame. The effort he turned in was amazing. But he in no way "collapsed."

Lol.....right. You are only saying that because you do not understand sports psychology at all and you approach it like a complete wimp. He was one point away from going up a break in the 5th with his opponent clearly struggling. He went from that golden opportunity to being down two breaks. That is a collapse to anyone who is looking to seize the moment and win. To you it wasn't a collapse because you are a feeble-minded cliché-repeater about experience. Like Broken, you can't help being slow and cheesy in your thoughts.

You've picked out 2 matches that you seem to wish had gone differently, identified a break opportunity missed, and have spun a tale that if but for those particular missed break chances, things might have gone the other way. Sure, they might have, but that's a lot of assuming, as per your usual.

No, it really isn't a lot of assuming. We could just as easily go back to matches that Djokovic or Medvedev won and look at breakpoints they converted and say "had they lost those, winning would have been much more unlikely." Breakpoints in decisive sets determine far more than just a numbers change on the scoreboard. Nadal knows that (and you don't), which is why he treats them like match points to play for his life.

 

[calitennis127]

Opportunities to break go begging all the time in tennis.

Tell Nadal that about the four breakpoints he missed (2 in 2 separate games) in the 5th set of the 2007 Wimbledon final. Would you have a problem with me saying that the 5th set would have been entirely different had he converted 1 of those?

I doubt it. Because it would be Nadal the one converting, you would not tell me "oh it would be such a royal assumption to suggest that Nadal's chances of winning would have been immensely greater had he converted one of those breakpoints." But because it was Nadal saving the points against Medvedev, those points were just individual points over the course of a long match.

Sure Moxie. You can't hide your ridiculous level of bias and prejudice anytime someone presses you just a little bit.

 

[calitennis127]

So Cali debunking the significance of experience by using a bunch of examples from team sports...Says it all.

Not really Mr. Cornball.....in "team sports" experience is brought up just as much as it is in individual sports, and it is used as just much of an excuse.

But I am glad that you said this, because it proves my point even more about how the likes of yourself and Moxie do not understand Nadal's success. Nadal never had your attitude about "experience," and good for him - that would make him more like Kevin Durant (hey Moxie, do you know who that is? Or is that just some random "team sport" guy out there?") than Rafael Nadal. When Nadal was very young, he took the opportunities to win titles when he reached finals and didn't wait until he was 26 "with experience" after losing 25 tight matches to finally win a title. He made it happen right then and there, in the moment. And that's because he is nothing like you or Moxie.

 

[Moxie]

Tell Nadal that about the four breakpoints he missed (2 in 2 separate games) in the 5th set of the 2007 Wimbledon final. Would you have a problem with me saying that the 5th set would have been entirely different had he converted 1 of those?

I doubt it. Because it would be Nadal the one converting, you would not tell me "oh it would be such a royal assumption to suggest that Nadal's chances of winning would have been immensely greater had he converted one of those breakpoints." But because it was Nadal saving the points against Medvedev, those points were just individual points over the course of a long match.

Sure Moxie. You can't hide your ridiculous level of bias and prejudice anytime someone presses you just a little bit.

I will have discussed, perhaps, the "what-ifs" about those break points, in the context of the match. But, unlike you, I don't try to create parallel universes, and threads to massage over them. Nadal didn't convert them, and he lost the match. End of story. I won't mention the difference in caliber of opponent in those 2 matches, because that seems meaningless to you.

You spend an awful lot of time telling the rest of us that we don't understand "sports psychology," as if you were the resident expert. I know that sports psychology is not your field, so you might just pull the derision back a hair. You've been called out on how this thread is rather ridiculous. I would quote you back to yourself: "so you have no choice but to be dismissive."

Anyway, yes, I know who Kevin Durant is. He's a women's synchronized swimmer. And no amount of inexperience on his part has kept the US women's team from winning the 2019 Esther Williams trophy. What an addition he is to the team! (And yes, this has exactly as much relevance to individual sports as everything you posted above.)

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not really Mr. Cornball.....in "team sports" experience is brought up just as much as it is in individual sports, and it is used as just much of an excuse.

But I am glad that you said this, because it proves my point even more about how the likes of yourself and Moxie do not understand Nadal's success. Nadal never had your attitude about "experience," and good for him - that would make him more like Kevin Durant (hey Moxie, do you know who that is? Or is that just some random "team sport" guy out there?") than Rafael Nadal. When Nadal was very young, he took the opportunities to win titles when he reached finals and didn't wait until he was 26 "with experience" after losing 25 tight matches to finally win a title. He made it happen right then and there, in the moment. And that's because he is nothing like you or Moxie.

So Medvedev should be ashamed because he wasn’t able to do what one of the greatest players of all time did? Maybe he’s you know...not as good?

 

[calitennis127]

I will have discussed, perhaps, the "what-ifs" about those break points, in the context of the match. But, unlike you, I don't try to create parallel universes, and threads to massage over them. Nadal didn't convert them, and he lost the match. End of story. I won't mention the difference in caliber of opponent in those 2 matches, because that seems meaningless to you.

Yes, Medvedev should have won in more convincing fashion in the US Open final. I agree with you there. It should not have taken him so long to get going.

You spend an awful lot of time telling the rest of us that we don't understand "sports psychology," as if you were the resident expert. I know that sports psychology is not your field, so you might just pull the derision back a hair.

I understand a lot of things. I'm multidimensional.

Anyway, yes, I know who Kevin Durant is. He's a women's synchronized swimmer. And no amount of inexperience on his part has kept the US women's team from winning the 2019 Esther Williams trophy. What an addition he is to the team!

Okay, I was just making sure. Mea culpa. You knew more than I thought about him.

(And yes, this has exactly as much relevance to individual sports as everything you posted above.)

Experience is talked about just as much in the context of team sports as in individual sports. Like I said above, Nadal did not wait until he lost 10 finals to have sufficient "experience" to win a Grand Slam. If he had a mindset anything like yours, he would not have had the success that he has had.

 

[calitennis127]

So Medvedev should be ashamed because he wasn’t able to do what one of the greatest players of all time did? Maybe he’s you know...not as good?

Well, it all depends on how you define it. If you take the conservative grandpa-sitting-by-the-fire-with-the-family approach, yes, Medvedev can one day tell his grandkids that he once played in a US Open final against the greatest moonballer in tennis history and barely lost. And he can fall back on the "I was better than 99% of humanity" argument. Or say that in the big picture he has a great life and an enjoyable career and he is very blessed to have many things that other people don't.

But if you view it through the lens of someone who is at the top of his sport trying to make it to the top, then yes, I do think Medvedev should be ashamed that he lost the match - first for how he started it and second for how he fell apart in the 5th set.

 

[Fiero425]

Well, it all depends on how you define it. If you take the conservative grandpa-sitting-by-the-fire-with-the-family approach, yes, Medvedev can one day tell his grandkids that he once played in a US Open final against the greatest moonballer in tennis history and barely lost. And he can fall back on the "I was better than 99% of humanity" argument. Or say that in the big picture he has a great life and an enjoyable career and he is very blessed to have many things that other people don't.

But if you view it through the lens of someone who is at the top of his sport trying to make it to the top, then yes, I do think Medvedev should be ashamed that he lost the match - first for how he started it and second for how he fell apart in the 5th set.

The one thing I kept screaming at the TV during the match was Medvedev standing back too far behind the baseline allowing Rafa to run his arse to death! It's all well and good to actually outlast Nadal in a long rally and even hit a winner to do it, but at what cost do you keep that up for HOURS? I knew a 5th wouldn't have much to do with skill by then! It was definitely going to be as what Rafa wanted, a war of attrition! He wasn't going to lose that battle over 5 sets! Medvedev had already overplayed; shocked he even made it a contest at the end after allowing himself to get behind! Nole knows to get that early lead to hold off Rafa! These other knuckleheads that take their time to get going will always end up failing against him; Thiem & A. Zverev to name just a couple! They have the skill, but as always their heads never seem to catch up when it counts! :whistle: :cuckoo:

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well, it all depends on how you define it. If you take the conservative grandpa-sitting-by-the-fire-with-the-family approach, yes, Medvedev can one day tell his grandkids that he once played in a US Open final against the greatest moonballer in tennis history and barely lost. And he can fall back on the "I was better than 99% of humanity" argument. Or say that in the big picture he has a great life and an enjoyable career and he is very blessed to have many things that other people don't.

But if you view it through the lens of someone who is at the top of his sport trying to make it to the top, then yes, I do think Medvedev should be ashamed that he lost the match - first for how he started it and second for how he fell apart in the 5th set.

Of course you can all someone a grandpa then refer to Nadal as a moonballer, thus being the grumpy embarrassing bitter uncle. Hey, there's a place for everyone in this family.

Here's a question...do you think Federer blowing 2910669696996 matches in which he had match points is shameful? Why have you never made a thread about them? But god forbid he blows a break point vs. Nadal...

It's funny how Cali tries to psychoanalyze Nadal fans' response yet literally every thread he makes (hidden underneath the whole "I understand Nadal's game better than anyone" nonsense) is simply him being bitter about Nadal wiping his ass with your tennis knowledge with every major that he wins as you continue to jerk off to old Nalbandian highlights in matches he may not have even won.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, Medvedev should have won in more convincing fashion in the US Open final. I agree with you there. It should not have taken him so long to get going.

....
Experience is talked about just as much in the context of team sports as in individual sports. Like I said above, Nadal did not wait until he lost 10 finals to have sufficient "experience" to win a Grand Slam. If he had a mindset anything like yours, he would not have had the success that he has had.

Medvedev didn't win that match, so any talk that he should have won it in "more convincing fashion" is a misstatement. And that he "should have won" it, at all, is an exaggeration. You love love love to talk about how people "should have won" matches they lost. In this case, DM did give himself great chances, and yes, I agree that he should be very disappointed that he didn't win. But if there are any "should's" involved here, it's that Rafa "should" have closed it out sooner and not let it get to 5, or even 4.

I'm not convinced you're so "multi-dimensional," as you tend to be fairly one-note around here. But as I said, you're not a sports psychologist, so you don't get to pretend that your understanding of it is more keen than that of anyone else.

As to experience amongst athletes in team sports, of course that gets talked about. It just doesn't have as much bearing as you think it does on individual sports, as a comparison. Even if a young phenom is one on a young team, they still have each other to lean on, to pump each other up, and someone else does some heavy lifting at some point, or at least gives the hot-shot-up-and-comer some respite. No such thing for a first timer in a Major final in tennis, or, say, golf. Sure, Roger and Rafa didn't wait to be asked twice to win their first Major finals. You neglected to acknowledge who their opponents were, as I pointed out above. Philipoussis, who played Roger in his first, and was only in his own 2nd final, then never won a Major. Puerta was also in his first, and only final, when he played Rafa at RG. Even Djokovic didn't win his first, as he was playing Roger. Vastly different comparisons, in terms of opponents. And I could be wrong, but I don't see DM in the same category as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. He's having a big breakout year, though, so we shall see where he goes from here.

 

[Moxie]

The one thing I kept screaming at the TV during the match was Medvedev standing back too far behind the baseline allowing Rafa to run his arse to death! It's all well and good to actually outlast Nadal in a long rally and even hit a winner to do it, but at what cost do you keep that up for HOURS? I knew a 5th wouldn't have much to do with skill by then! It was definitely going to be as what Rafa wanted, a war of attrition! He wasn't going to lose that battle over 5 sets! Medvedev had already overplayed; shocked he even made it a contest at the end after allowing himself to get behind! Nole knows to get that early lead to hold off Rafa! These other knuckleheads that take their time to get going will always end up failing against him; Thiem & A. Zverev to name just a couple! They have the skill, but as always their heads never seem to catch up when it counts!

But that's where Medvedev tends to stand to return serve. You can wish he played different than his normal, but it's pretty understandable that he stuck with what was comfortable for him. He did make some effort to be more aggressive, and some of it paid off. As to Rafa wanting a "war of attrition" in that match...I doubt it. He's 10 years older, and he was up two sets to love on DM. I'm sure what he really wanted was to get off the court in 3 or 4. I'm sure the "knuckleheads" know that they should try to get ahead on Rafa, as they do know with all the guys ahead of them. The question is if they can do it. Hell, however much Novak knows that he should, he can't always do it, either. You act as if the reason they lose to Nadal is only lack of cojones. I'd argue it's mostly because Nadal is better.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm just honestly trying to figure out how stupid do you have to be to think that a guy who was down 2 sets and a break should have won a match. Like literally every argument you can make about missed opportunities in the subsequent sets is debunked by the fact that a guy missed his opportunity to close out the match in straights, as he should have. So if anyone should have won that match "in more convincing fashion," it most certainly wasn't Medvedev.

 

[imjimmy]

I'm just honestly trying to figure out how stupid do you have to be to think that a guy who was down 2 sets and a break should have won a match. Like literally every argument you can make about missed opportunities in the subsequent sets is debunked by the fact that a guy missed his opportunity to close out the match in straights, as he should have. So if anyone should have won that match "in more convincing fashion," it most certainly wasn't Medvedev.

Exactly right. Medvedev was NEVER ahead in the score until the 5th set. He was also down 2 sets to 0. How can he be "expected" to win the match? If there was choking in the match, it was mostly Nadal's. His overhead miss in set 3 was akin to the miss Roddick had in Wimb 2009 Final. He double faulted on break points. Some of his regulation forehands didn't even clear the net. One of his forehands actually bounced before hitting the net.

The match was a story of Nadal getting nervous while closing on the championship. Medvedev then taking advantage and changing strategy. Then Nadal getting exhausted (deep into the match) and then choking again while closing in set 5, but somehow managing to do it eventually.
Didn't Nadal destroy Medvedev in Montreal? What changed in a couple of weeks.

This was a usual slam final of a Great player vs a slam-greenhorn. Usually these are straight set victories for the champion. Except this time, Nadal wasn't playing well enough and got tight. Had it been Federer or Novak, they would have likely won this match in straights as well in routine fashion.

 

[calitennis127]

B-Shitty, you're a joke and you always have been. You talk like you are some kind of objective tennis observer and time after time you are disproven. Time after time (for example, when it comes to age in tennis, which no one was louder on than you were for years) you are proven wrong, and then you act like you never said the things you did. Then when you are right (sort of), it is by accident and for reasons you yourself don't even understand. What's even funnier is how I got under your skin for years by pointing out how cheesy and cliché you were, so now you go around cussing at everyone and being flamboyant in your rhetoric to prove that you're not boring. It's no different than Durant in 2017 acting like he was some hardcore gangster and picking up 15 technical after a decade of being quiet and modest. It's fitting he is your favorite player because you both put on the same kind of ridiculous act.

Here's a question...do you think Federer blowing 2910669696996 matches in which he had match points is shameful? Why have you never made a thread about them? But god forbid he blows a break point vs. Nadal...

Oh please, get the fuck out of here you biased moron. This is a perfect example of how you pose as objective only to reveal the most extreme bias. The breakpoints Federer missed out on during the 2007 French Open final were so egregiously clear that only you (or Moxie) would deny that Federer lost the match in a staggeringly pitiful fashion. To talk about that like he merely blew a single break point and I'm making a big deal of it is beyond stupid.

It's funny how Cali tries to psychoanalyze Nadal fans' response yet literally every thread he makes (hidden underneath the whole "I understand Nadal's game better than anyone" nonsense)

You're just a complete retard, lol. What I have said is that I understand the reasons for Nadal's success - in terms of his competitive mindset - a million times better than you, let alone that piece of dry/stale toast named Moxie. Notice that in 2015 I was almost alone among people on this board in not saying that he was "old" or "done." I did not see that for a minute, while idiots like yourself were saying that his movement and his game were unrecognizable.

So yes, I do understand his success better than you. You are too emotionally dry to possibly understand what drives his competitive mindset.

It's funny how Cali tries to psychoanalyze Nadal fans' response yet literally every thread he makes (hidden underneath the whole "I understand Nadal's game better than anyone" nonsense) is simply him being bitter about Nadal wiping his ass with your tennis knowledge with every major that he wins as you continue to jerk off to old Nalbandian highlights in matches he may not have even won.

Lol.....try to be flamboyant and have some personality, Broken, try. You are not fooling anyone. Everybody knows you're boring and cliché, and always will be. Do you really think that this new act of cursing and attacking is deceiving anyone who has communicated with you for a while? You're better off just going back to being the cheesy Paul Annaclone you have always been. That's who you are and we accept it.

Now, as for your point, I have never gone out on a limb and said Nadal will or will not do anything specifically - precisely because I understand why he succeeds. Did I ever say that Nadal should not win 4 US Opens? No, I did not. Have I ever said that if Federer and Djokovic (and others) play to their potential they would keep Nadal from such a feat? Absolutely.

But I have too much respect for Nadal's competitive mindset and too much understanding of his opportunism and pettiness to possibly discount him, in absolute terms, from winning certain events. That is because, like I said, I understand the reasons for his success far more than the boring little cliché-spouter known as B-Shitty!

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Well, it all depends on how you define it. If you take the conservative grandpa-sitting-by-the-fire-with-the-family approach, yes, Medvedev can one day tell his grandkids that he once played in a US Open final against the greatest moonballer in tennis history and barely lost. And he can fall back on the "I was better than 99% of humanity" argument. Or say that in the big picture he has a great life and an enjoyable career and he is very blessed to have many things that other people don't.

But if you view it through the lens of someone who is at the top of his sport trying to make it to the top, then yes, I do think Medvedev should be ashamed that he lost the match - first for how he started it and second for how he fell apart in the 5th set.

Guys, stop feeding the troll. He pretends that he has "respect" for Nadal but he doesn't as shown in the bolded part (and throughout his countless posts). He has just gone NUTS lately because Nadal is going to pass Federer. He has lost his mind so he is lashing out on everything that moves. :cuckoo:

 

[calitennis127]

Exactly right. Medvedev was NEVER ahead in the score until the 5th set. He was also down 2 sets to 0. How can he be "expected" to win the match?

You know imjimmy, I really have not spent enough time addressing your bullshit over the years. Like Broken, you pose as some kind of objective final voice on tennis debates, but in the end you are just an extreme partisan to Nadal. I will give Mike credit in that he clearly lays out the strengths and weaknesses of Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal, while you on the other hand are always trying to paint an ideal picture of Nadal (e.g. overstating how impressive he was at the 2013 US Open). It really is a farce.

If there was choking in the match, it was mostly Nadal's. His overhead miss in set 3 was akin to the miss Roddick had in Wimb 2009 Final.

Nadal was standing at the fucking baseline after a long rally. For you and B-Shitboy to act like it was an easy overhead that he always makes is ridiculous.

He double faulted on break points. Some of his regulation forehands didn't even clear the net. One of his forehands actually bounced before hitting the net.

Wow.....what an awful match he must have played, unlike any other in his entire career. Nadal is so amazing all the time that for a mere mistake to occur on his racquet indicates that he was completely off against Medvedev. Sure jimmy, sure.

The match was a story of Nadal getting nervous while closing on the championship.

Lol.....yeah, fall back on that one as your excuse. It's funny how you start from the premise that Nadal is unbeatable and amazing if playing his real game. You simply take that for granted. So any time someone else starts doing well against him it is because he is not playing anything like himself or playing nowhere near his potential.

Your analysis is ultimately a complete joke because you start from that ridiculous premise. You work backward on everything. Nadal to you is the unbeatable GOAT, so any time he is not winning it has to do with him not playing at his usual awesome level, which somehow has hardly ever appeared on indoor hardcourts despite being such an amazing hardcourt player in your mind.

Medvedev then taking advantage and changing strategy.

No, he just started playing better.

Then Nadal getting exhausted (deep into the match) and then choking again while closing in set 5, but somehow managing to do it eventually.

Yeah, and Medvedev did not choke at all, having 3 breakpoints to go up 2-0 or losing serve after going up 40-0. That wasn't a choke at all.

Didn't Nadal destroy Medvedev in Montreal? What changed in a couple of weeks.

The conditions and playing style familiarity, genius.

Had it been Federer or Novak, they would have likely won this match in straights as well in routine fashion.

Because they are better hardcourt players.

 

[calitennis127]

Guys, stop feeding the troll. He pretends that he has "respect" for Nadal but he doesn't as shown in the bolded part (and throughout his countless posts). He has just gone NUTS lately because Nadal is going to pass Federer. He has lost his mind so he is lashing out on everything that moves. :cuckoo:

Good technique to distract from all the times you have been called a troll, even by fellow Nadal fans.

 

[calitennis127]

I'm just honestly trying to figure out how stupid do you have to be to think that a guy who was down 2 sets and a break should have won a match.

I'm just honestly trying to figure out how stupid you have to be to not realize that a match that is 2 sets to 0 becomes radically different at 2 sets all with the player on the comeback having breakpoints early in the 5th set.

Just honestly. I mean really. How could you be that stupid B-Shitty? Just honestly.

Just honestly.

Like literally every argument you can make about missed opportunities in the subsequent sets is debunked by the fact that a guy missed his opportunity to close out the match in straights, as he should have.

Like literally this little pansy named B-Shitty wants to talk like he literally has some spunk. But, like literally, he doesn't.

So if anyone should have won that match "in more convincing fashion," it most certainly wasn't Medvedev.

Medvedev could have played a million times better in the first set after getting the early break; you yourself said something to that effect after the match B-Shitty (like literally, I'm just honestly re-stating what you said). And, more to the point, Medvedev completely pulled his punch in the 5th set.

Like literally.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

How do you explain that Medvedev also got CRUSHED by Nadal at the Canadian Open in the middle of his huge summer and without losing a set in that tournament up until the final? :scratch: Then he wins Cincinnati even beating Djokovic along the way and then beats the crap out of everyone in the USO, except again Nadal. What is it about Nadal? :scratch: Why does Medvedev only choke against Nadal? Oh wait, could it be that Nadal is actually great???

Spoiler

 

[calitennis127]

In this case, DM did give himself great chances, and yes, I agree that he should be very disappointed that he didn't win. But if there are any "should's" involved here, it's that Rafa "should" have closed it out sooner and not let it get to 5, or even 4.

Moxie, let me give you an opportunity to demonstrate (for once in your life) the slightest bit of sports acumen. Please tell me how and where in the 3rd set Nadal completely fell apart or allowed his level to drop. I would like to see you try to explain that one. So please, go ahead.

I'm not convinced you're so "multi-dimensional," as you tend to be fairly one-note around here.

Lol

But as I said, you're not a sports psychologist, so you don't get to pretend that your understanding of it is more keen than that of anyone else.

The fact that you are making this an issue of official credentials shows 2 things: 1) how much of a piece of dry toast you are, and 2) how culturally white you are. My point about sports psychology is not about official occupation. For you to make it about that is ridiculous. The field of "sports psychology" is mostly just a regurgitation of standard clichés that parents tell their children about focus, desire, determination, controlling emotions, etc.

As to experience amongst athletes in team sports, of course that gets talked about. It just doesn't have as much bearing as you think it does on individual sports, as a comparison.

Experience gets talked about constantly both in team sports and in individual sports. And what about situations where most of the team is young and inexperienced and there are no "experienced" players to lean on? Or when the opposing team has vastly more experience? What do you have to say about those? Nothing, of course. Because you don't know anything about them.

Even if a young phenom is one on a young team, they still have each other to lean on, to pump each other up, and someone else does some heavy lifting at some point, or at least gives the hot-shot-up-and-comer some respite.

They also don't have the mistakes of others to worry about.

No such thing for a first timer in a Major final in tennis, or, say, golf.

But that really doesn't apply to Medvedev, who had just played in two MS finals in front of huge crowds with the whole tennis world watching.

Sure, Roger and Rafa didn't wait to be asked twice to win their first Major finals. You neglected to acknowledge who their opponents were, as I pointed out above. Philipoussis, who played Roger in his first, and was only in his own 2nd final, then never won a Major. Puerta was also in his first, and only final, when he played Rafa at RG. Even Djokovic didn't win his first, as he was playing Roger.

All fair points but I would retort that in Medvedev's case, this was not a good excuse. He was playing Nadal at the US Open (not the French), and he had just won an MS title on hardcourts. He had also played Nadal in another MS final recently. He was on the right surface and had the requisite experience and momentum. Nadal notoriously struggles on hardcourts (his cobbled-together gadget-play at the US Open notwithstanding) and has never won a World Tour Finals or event at Shanghai or Bercy.

So Nadal at the US Open was as vulnerable to being beat as Medvedev was going to get. And he blew it.