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.
Lol.....now we know why Broken does not talk about sports psychology.....it's because he is terrible at reading people. As for the tennis point, I am far from the only person who has called Nadal a moonballer. It has been a common description for him for quite a while. Let's just look at that point at 24:52 which you idiotically assessed:
After Medvedev's initial big forehand, Nadal hit 4 clear butt-ugly moonballs. As butt-ugly as American cities run by Democrats who think like you, or, frankly, as butt-ugly as many places in the world run by incompetent people who you somehow think are vastly smarter than Americans.
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.
Lol.....this shows how far removed you are from American black sports culture and the emotions of it. For all your talk about opposing racism, you have absolutely no similarity to or connection with the black musical/athletic culture in the United States that dominates in football and basketball. You are almost as bad as a white person in the all-white Bernie Sanders state of Vermont. You are as lily-white as they come.
So for you, a "choke" or "collapse" can only be based on status, rankings, and official recognition. It can never be based on wasting a golden opportunity while you're ahead. That is because we are operating off your restrictive white-boy definition. Even Kevin Durant in the playoffs has more alpha male in him than you do.
HAHAHAHAHAH here he is literally redefining what a "collapse" is. So in 3 consecutive paragraphs, he's redefined moonballs, choke and a collapse.
No, I haven't re-defined anything. I expanded the application of the concepts of "choking" and "collapsing" to more than just your basic, overly restrictive definitions. My definition is more all-encompassing and more in tune with the emotions of the moment.
If you had any familiarity with black sports culture in America, you would have no problem with me saying that. But you don't. You are basically a white person from Vermont.
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.
Lol.....more proof of how stale your mindset and analysis are. Answer this: what in Nadal's level dropped in sets 3 and 4? If you're honest, you will say nothing. The sets were long and close. Nadal did not fall behind 5-2 in the blink of an eye after going up 1-0 and having breakpoints for 2-0 like Medvedev did in the 5th. That would be a collapse.
Nadal played just fine in the 3rd and 4th sets......in some ways, he played better in those sets than he did in the first set (particularly serving-wise). The difference is that Medvedev raised his level. You can't point to anything Nadal did in the 3rd and 4th that amounted to self-destructing or imploding on the level of what happened to Federer in the 5th set against Dimitrov.
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.
Interesting.....is this an admission that Nadal weasels his way into big wins by forcing his opponents to come up with something that they're not producing on that day?
Proves my point exactly.....he wins the biggest matches because his opponents don't play to their potential, not because he is outright better than them.
Ah yes, Medvedev dictated the rally...until Nadal did,
Lmfao.....because of a BS moonball that clipped the line you moron. And you're telling me that I am omitting details? The ball that got Nadal the advantage in the rally was a) massively loopy and b) so close to being out that Medvedev almost stopped playing, which gave Nadal the opportunity to hit up the line.
and forced him to hit a defensive lob, which prompted the missed overhead. Thanks for sharing half the story.
Nadal did not dictate shit, lol. Medvedev was in control of it the entire time until Nadal's BS Skittles-rainbow forehand barely clipped the line and prompted Medvedev to stop for a split second because he thought it may have been out.
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.
Ridiculous question.....first of all, Nadal had just lucked out that a prior moonball barely clipped the line to give him the edge in the rally. Second, for you of all people as a Nadal fan to complain that someone missed a make-able shot after a long rally? Are you serious? That has been the story of Nadal's career.
What you are omitting is that Medvedev had just been ahead for most of the rally, hitting massive forehands, until one of Nadal's butt-ugly moonballs barely hit the line to give him the edge. Nadal had played defense to make the point much longer than it should have been, and after he was lucky to get ahead in the rally, Medvedev hit a great defensive shot deep. To make Nadal's subsequent overhead miss sound like a terrible error is downright stupid, which of course is why you are doing it. Nadal's error in that context made complete sense - except to you, because you don't know what you're talking about.
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.
Oh good one, are you becoming slightly less lame with your comebacks?
As for the substance, that is just stupid. Nalbandian took Nadal at his hardcourt peak in 2009 and made mincemeat of him at Indian Wells, while Nadal was #1. You can make the case that perhaps Djokovic or Federer were better (I would disagree), but Nadal is not even in the conversation with his gadget/contraption approach to hardcourt tennis.
