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

[calitennis127]

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

Medvedev is far from perfect. He also lost to Kyrgios in Washington and his play at the US Open was up-and-down. His win over Djokovic was hardly dominant. He also avoided Federer. Don't act like he was crushing everyone except Nadal because that is not the case.

Nadal presented a tough match-up in certain ways. But the second match could have been and should have been handled much better by Medvedev. He got his first look at Nadal in Montreal and should have started off better in the US Open final.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Medvedev is far from perfect. He also lost to Kyrgios in Washington and his play at the US Open was up-and-down. His win over Djokovic was hardly dominant. He also avoided Federer. Don't act like he was crushing everyone except Nadal because that is not the case.

Nadal presented a tough match-up in certain ways. But the second match could have been and should have been handled much better by Medvedev. He got his first look at Nadal in Montreal and should have started off better in the US Open final.

When Kyrgios is hot he can beat anyone so don't downplay that loss. He beat Djokovic it doesn't matter in what fashion, he beat him. And he avoided Federer? Lesser players like Rublev and Dimitrov took care of Federer so I'd say it's Federer who avoided Medvedev. Stop being a baby, please.

 

[calitennis127]

No, not offended, just pointing out something that is factually incorrect. I know you live in your own world but some things like "choke" and "moonball" have a meaning. If you misuse them to characterize a situation, you're factually incorrect.

Lol.....well Nadal certainly is a moonballer. As for "choking," you of course have to define things in the most standard, cheesy way possible. For you, a choke has to be a player who is officially favored and in the lead becoming visibly nervous and losing to everyone's surprise. That is because you are a whore to official status and don't recognize any specific psychological dynamics.

First of all, your usage of the words collapse in this thread is strictly limited to the missed break point opportunities in the fifth set. It's literally there in the title "in terms of converting braek points."

And again, I ask, what part is using the exact service return positioning he did all match to which Nadal took advantage of with a serve and volley (as he did all match) constitute a collapse? So he collapsed because he missed a makeable forehand? lol sure...

In part, yes, dumbass. On points like that you have to raise your level, especially when dealing with Nadal who brings out his best in the most practically significant moments. You can't treat them like just any other point - look at Nadal and how he approaches them.

And the "collapse" refers not only to those points but to the inevitable consequences of not converting them.

Ah...OK so explain to me what do you call a guy being up two sets and a break, get broke back, have break points again at 4-4 in the third, miss a makeable overhead after he was on top in the rally, fail, lose the set, then fail to convert on break points in the fourth set again and lose it, and find himself break points down in the fifth? Why did none of that constitute a collapse?

Lol.....it would constitute a collapse if you are looking at it only in terms of statistics. But since you still - after all these years of watching Nadal - do not realize that he maximizes his ability well over 95% of the time, you fail to understand that if he is losing it is not because of him; it's because of his opponent. Nadal is the most constant athlete I have ever seen in any sport. He consistently plays at a certain level. If opponents don't match it, he pummels them. If they do match it, it becomes competitive. If they exceed it, there is nothing Nadal can do about it.

No, Trump's thing is golden showers, not brown.

Solid proof that the self-proclaimed scholar can very easily fall prey to unproven conspiracy theories!

So moonballs invalidate a missed overhead?

No you idiot, lol. I only mentioned the moonballs because they were terribly obvious in that rally - which was being dictated by Medvedev and which Nadal was staying in by lofting moonball after moonball.

As for the overhead, you characterized it as some kind of inexcusable 1 out of 1,000 style of miss, when it wasn't. It was an attempt from the baseline after a long rally off a defensive shot from Medvedev. It wasn't an easy put-away overhead. There's a big difference.

Also, the overhead coming after a "brutally long rally" (described by the same person who argued with MikeOne for 4 pages that the Nadal-Thiem first set at Roland Garros was NOT brutal) is different to Medvedev's fifth set break points coming after a brutally long match how?

Lol.....did you seriously just ask that question? Seriously?

The easy answer (which you evidently don't see) is that the points in question were much different in length. Nadal missed his overhead after a much longer rally than the one which preceded Medvedev missing his forehand. And Medvedev had enough energy to come back from 5-2 in the 5th but he didn't have enough energy to move slightly quicker on breakpoint to his forehand at 1-0 earlier in the 5th?

Wow, that really makes sense.

And by any definition, that overhead should have been made. Clean winner or not, it should have been made. Period. If you're telling me this is a guy a professional tennis player with Nadal's abilities, particularly off an overhead, is expected to miss, then there's no point to this conversation.

Perhaps not, because you're an idiot. That overhead was a much more difficult shot than you are making it out to be. It was not an easy miss inside the service box, no matter how much you insist otherwise. It was the kind of deep overhead that is missed all the time off of deep defensive shots.

So again, why not focus on that part of the match? Where Nadal blew break points?

Sure, go ahead. Bring them up.

Again, this thread is by the same guy who argued Roger Federer's Wimbledon loss was not a collapse.

When the f**k did I not say it was a collapse? Lol. What I said is that what Djokovic did on match points was phenomenal. That is different.

 

[calitennis127]

When Kyrgios is hot he can beat anyone so don't downplay that loss. He beat Djokovic it doesn't matter in what fashion, he beat him. And he avoided Federer? Lesser players like Rublev and Dimitrov took care of Federer so I'd say it's Federer who avoided Medvedev. Stop being a baby, please.

Okay, thanks for your input.

 

[calitennis127]

Does it take a brain surgeon to understand that was a critical game? I think we all know that. You just choose to portray it as all Medvedev for failing to convert, which has been debunked, even, now, by you...saying that Nadal treated those points like "match points." (And anyway, I don't know why you say it as if it were a knock on Nadal.) Well, anyway, he took them seriously and played hard to win that game, and did, mostly through his own winners, not because Medvedev choked.

Lol.....nothing was debunked, least of all by you, since you refuse to talk about any details. Why don't you go ahead and try to explain how and why Medvedev put his best foot forward on those three breakpoints?

If Medvedev were Federer or Nadal, I'd have been less surprised, then, if he'd won. When they won their first ones, though, they played Phillpippousis and Puerto, respectively. Daniil was playing Rafa. Big difference.

Some difference but not a huge difference. Nadal has never won at Shanghai, Paris, Miami, or World Tour Finals. And he was lucky to win at Cincinnati the only year he did that. What Nadal does at the US Open is cobble together a gadget-style approach to winning matches over 5 sets (something that is completely over the heads of B-Shitty and jimmy-jim-jim). But his overall hardcourt record shows that he is very vulnerable.

With Medvedev being on a role, having just gone to two MS finals (and winning one), and having recent experience playing Nadal, it was entirely possible for him to win this match. Unfortunately he failed to play up to his potential and seize the moment.

But props to Nadal for taking advantage and maximizing his own potential. Nadal does a truly admirable job of overachieving.

Actually, this is you underrating Nadal, as usual. He was up two sets to love on the rook, a guy he'd crushed in a final only a few weeks prior. A leap in form that quick and that huge isn't common, you have to admit.

Why was Medvedev just a "rook"? He had just played in two MS finals in the past month and a half.

This is factually incorrect. Thiem won the first game of the 5th and nearly broke in the 2nd. Then he held and broke and was up 4-1. It was actually Thiem who nearly collapsed. If you have trouble remembering, you can review the match here: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/l...c-v-dominic-thiem-french-open-semi-final-live

Lol.....did you not even read your own link?

Fifth set: Djokovic 2-6, 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 1-2 Thiem* (*denotes server): Thiem’s hunting the lines again but at 30-30 he gets a punchy effort wrong and hands his rival an opening but a poor effort from Djokovic gets the world No 4 off the hook.

Fifth set: *Djokovic 2-6, 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 1-3 Thiem (*denotes server): Thiem makes it five points in a row since facing a break point to go 0-30 up on Djokovic’s serve. The Serb’s drifts a backhand wide and Thiem has three chances to go ahead. He takes the second as Djokovic sees his backhand volley clip the net cord and bounce back on his own side.


So Djokovic had a breakpoint to go up 2-1. And if I recall the point, he missed a very easy shot to win the breakpoint.

I'm not sure why, just because you put it in your OP that "failing to convert breakpoints" is the main indicator of a collapse. I don't think either match you cite here qualifies as a "collapse."

Of course not. You're just looking at the scoreboard in an emotionally stale manner that doesn't take into account the emotions of the game.

You're trying to make a case for why the loser might have otherwise won either match, but it's a weak one, particularly in the Nadal match. In the case of the Wimbledon final, basically everyone, including Djokovic fans, agree that Federer was the better player over the course of the match. Credit to Djokovic for keeping him close and making the most of the big points and TBs, but Federer having CPs is much more of a collapse than anything in those other two matches, in terms of the loser.

The fact that Federer collapsed does not mean Djokovic and Medvedev didn't. The two aren't mutually exclusive. And my point about Djokovic and Medvedev specifically is they they collapsed primarily by not converting BREAKPOINTS. Of course Federer collapsed in an overt sense by not converting match points, but I am talking on a more sophisticated level that is clearly over the heads of you, B-Shitty, and jimmyjimjim.

Given how much it was Thiem running away with the set, until Djokovic fought back, and given Thiem's ranking and clay chops, I'm not sure you can be so sure about this particular claim. Especially as it was still a windy day, and Novak is not a great wind player.

Lol.....how the hell was Thiem running away with the set? The breakpoint I was referring to was at 30-40 on Thiem's serve when the score was 1-1.

You're just showing your anti-Nadal bias here. Rafa has a much better HC resume than the vast majority of players, including the Top 5, especially a newly-minted one.

Only because of the terrible losses of Djokovic to Nadal at the US Open, as well as Federer's underachieving at that event. If you take away the US Open gadget play of Nadal, his resume on hardcourts is pretty weak - as you know, because you watched so many of the matches he lost.

I'm just saying what most people can see for themselves. However, long experience tells us that dissuading you from your opinions, however divorced from reality, is a losing game.

Yes, I have been very divorced from reality as Djokovic has managed to reach 28 wins and a winning record over Nadal despite Nadal's massive head start with early clay wins. Did you enjoy all those times that Djokovic pummeled him on hardcourts?

 

[calitennis127]

And, with that, I think I addressed everyone. There were some lingering posts that needed addressed and I finally had a free hour to get to them.

Enjoy, everyone! Read and absorb - especially you Moxie. Engaging my arguments is good mental calisthenics for that stiffness-prone mind of yours.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Lol.....well Nadal certainly is a moonballer.

Here's how this typically goes: Cali makes a genuinely insane claim like the above and feints confidence while stating it to try to come off slightly less clueless, when he gets called out for being factually incorrect (imagine actually believing Nadal is a moonballer), he'll claim you take his statement way too literally.

As for "choking," you of course have to define things in the most standard, cheesy way possible. For you, a choke has to be a player who is officially favored and in the lead becoming visibly nervous and losing to everyone's surprise. That is because you are a whore to official status and don't recognize any specific psychological dynamics.

Annnnnnnnnnd there it is... see my point above. Cali defines something in a way that literally nobody else does then calls others names for calling him out on his bullshit.

In part, yes, dumbass. On points like that you have to raise your level, especially when dealing with Nadal who brings out his best in the most practically significant moments. You can't treat them like just any other point - look at Nadal and how he approaches them.

And the "collapse" refers not only to those points but to the inevitable consequences of not converting them.

HAHAHAHAHAH here he is literally redefining what a "collapse" is. So in 3 consecutive paragraphs, he's redefined moonballs, choke and a collapse.

Lol.....it would constitute a collapse if you are looking at it only in terms of statistics.

If a guy being up 2 sets and a break is a statistic...then yeah, I guess? Is the score a statistic now? In any case, yes, a guy being up 2 sets and a break should win the match...and if he doesn't, it's a collapse.

If opponents don't match it, he pummels them. If they do match it, it becomes competitive. If they exceed it, there is nothing Nadal can do about it.

Nadal is literally the player who wins the most matches while being "outplayed." So maybe there is something he can do? Just a thought. Doing something about it doesn't necessarily mean outhitting. Hanging in there, defending, changing strategies, and picking your spots is also doing something about it. But you watch tennis simply for ballstriking.

Solid proof that the self-proclaimed scholar can very easily fall prey to unproven conspiracy theories!

And solid proof that you have no sense of humor.

No you idiot, lol. I only mentioned the moonballs because they were terribly obvious in that rally - which was being dictated by Medvedev and which Nadal was staying in by lofting moonball after moonball.

Ah yes, Medvedev dictated the rally...until Nadal did, and forced him to hit a defensive lob, which prompted the missed overhead. Thanks for sharing half the story.

As for the overhead, you characterized it as some kind of inexcusable 1 out of 1,000 style of miss, when it wasn't.

No, I didn't. I said he should have put that overhead in. Period. He's got maybe the best overhead on tour. He shouldn't miss it. Not on such a key point. Is it too much to expect Nadal to make it? It's a simple question.

When the f**k did I not say it was a collapse? Lol. What I said is that what Djokovic did on match points was phenomenal. That is different.

He hit a routine forehand pass. The circumstances make it more impressive, but the shot is pretty routine for these guys. I understand that by virtue of watching Nalbandian, you're unable to grasp the concept of guys not missing but these guys rarely miss these shots, since they're miles better than he ever was.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Except, the whole point is, you fucking moron, that the match should have never gone to five sets to begin with, yet you fail to bring that up.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.



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.



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.



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!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahahaha

Oh boyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

I really needed this. Man, that meltdown was really worth it. Almost as sweet as #19.

 

[Moxie]

Only because of the terrible losses of Djokovic to Nadal at the US Open, as well as Federer's underachieving at that event. If you take away the US Open gadget play of Nadal, his resume on hardcourts is pretty weak - as you know, because you watched so many of the matches he lost.

You don't get to take away the US Open wins. Or any of them, frankly. Losses by Djokovic were terrible? Even @Darth doesn't think that Djokovic would have beaten Nadal in '10. And in '13, Djokovic could have played better, so bad on him. But he lost in 4, and only played well in 1 and 3/4's of that match. That was not a "near-miss." Additionally, you're singing the Fed fans tune on how he's underperformed at the USO since '08. But let's face it...that was 11 years ago. It's starts to get hard to call of that "underperforming." I'd call it "losing."

I'm not sure what you mean by your new trope of "gadget-play," but I'm sure we'll be bored with it, for the next while.

 

[brokenshoelace]

"If you take away those FOUR majors, his resume on hards is weak."

These people are allowed to vote, and thus....America.

 

[Moxie]

Ahem, and just to point out he has FIVE Majors on Hard courts.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ahem, and just to point out he has FIVE Majors on Hard courts.

Well yes but he said take out his US Open titles, which are 4.

 

[Moxie]

Well yes but he said take out his US Open titles, which are 4.

Just basically rubbing in Cali's notion that Rafa has "fallen into" a few good HC wins. He mentioned that he "lucked out" Cincy, as well. Sure, if that's how you think you get 5 Majors, at all. Much less not on your best surface.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The guy has won 5 majors on hards in addition to 10 Masters 1000 events. He's also reached countless finals. I mean, come on, that's a bulletproof resume. This puts him up there with some of the best hard court players in history, so what on earth are we even discussing here?

 

[the AntiPusher]

One thing I NEVER understood about Cali's hatred of Nadal. Nalbandian was Cali first and only love, we all know this to be written in stone but David's style of play wasnt conventional like Roger's or Novak's game. David was a better pure ball striker than Rafa but isn't the style of play similar..Isn't Rafa everything that Cali hoped that Nalbandian could ever be..

 

[Moxie]

One thing I NEVER understood about Cali's hatred of Nadal. Nalbandian was Cali first and only love, we all know this to be written in stone but David's style of play wasnt conventional like Roger's or Novak's game. David was a better pure ball striker than Rafa but isn't the style of play similar..Isn't Rafa everything that Cali hoped that Nalbandian could ever be..

Nobody completely understands Cali and his motivations, (other than being one of the greatest Nalbandian fans ever,) but I sincerely hope he responds to your post.

I don't agree that Nalbandian is that unconventional, or that he shares much in common with Nadal, other than a weak serve, relative to their game, and a 2-hander. I actually think of Cali as the only person who can claim, without bias, to purely hate Nadal's style of play. (Fed fans swear that's why they hated him, originally, as the chicken/egg, but I don't buy it. First, it was Rafa beating up on Roger, then came the myriad objections.) For sure Cali resents Rafa's success, when King David had so little. That's why he's forever proclaiming him "lucky" to have won any number of tournaments, esp. Majors, and that's the reason for this thread. But for a missed break opportunity, Medvedev might have denied Rafa the USO, and Djokovic might have made the final at RG to be a better chance that Rafa might have missed out on that one, too, since Thiem couldn't get it done. It's a more than a bit of a stretch, but Cali lives for the alternate universe.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Cali is a Nadal hater and there are countless of posts that prove this so please let's not make excuses for him... If Nadal wasn't going for these all-time records Cali would not even mention him or say that he hates his game, in fact he might have actually liked him. All the hate and drama that Cali is creating is because Nadal is about to pass Federer and Cali can't stand it because he fantasizes about Federer every day and believes he is his lover. :heart:

 

[Moxie]

Cali is a Nadal hater and there are countless of posts that prove this so please let's not make excuses for him... If Nadal wasn't going for these all-time records Cali would not even mention him or say that he hates his game, in fact he might have actually liked him. All the hate and drama that Cali is creating is because Nadal is about to pass Federer and Cali can't stand it because he fantasizes about Federer every day and believes he is his lover.

I make no excuses for Cali, and he can speak for himself. There is no chance Cali would ever have liked Nadal, and it has nothing to do with Federer. His hatred of Nadal is untethered to the Fedal wars, which makes him both an anomaly and a mystery. I'm hoping he'll illuminate.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I make no excuses for Cali, and he can speak for himself. There is no chance Cali would ever have liked Nadal, and it has nothing to do with Federer. His hatred of Nadal is untethered to the Fedal wars, which makes him both an anomaly and a mystery. I'm hoping he'll illuminate.

Maybe every time Nadal picks his butt Cali feels a huge sexual attraction but he is not comfortable with his sexuality so he lashes out on him instead.