It's such a bummer that Nadal and Djokovic were tired/injured when they met Wawrinka

[kandamrgam]

You sure put in alot of effort trying to say you disagreed with use of the word "highly" lol... Could have just said "highly questionable" wasn't fair lol.

You still didnt get it. My efforts were exposing your illogical claims. Lack of consistency was just one aspect. You didnt get it. I cant help it.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

8. Imo any top 20 player is winning that match against Nadal from being up a set.

What nonsense. Wawrinka had to earn the set and the break. It wasn't gifted to him. Why would you gift that lead to "any top 20 player"?

I think Nadal was the more probable victor considering: Nadal is the better player, the better big match player, has one of the best records in recovering after 1st set loss and a set lost by a whisker hardly tells anything

When was the last time Nadal won a Grand Slam final after being down a set and a break?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I will say Nadal got an easy match. Wont call him lucky considering Nadal is the heavy favourite and it would be like him extending his 26-0 set h2h.

In other words, regardless of the score or who got "injured", Wawrinka would be lucky, at best, and Nadal would have had it easy at worst. Very objective.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

- I think Nadal was the more probable victor considering: Nadal is the better player, the better big match player, has one of the best records in recovering after 1st set loss and a set lost by a whisker hardly tells anything (Nadal not only earned one more bp chance than Wawrinka, he blew them up by return errors off second serves, and you know the quality of Wawrinka second serves. I mean it wasn't like Nadal was blown away in first set).

So basically you think that Nadal's 2013-2014 level trumps GOAT-mode Stan. Not many people would agree with you. GOAT-Mode Stan dumped the AO GOAT (Djoker) in the prior match. He was going to stomp Nadal that day. Period.

 

[kandamrgam]

What nonsense. Wawrinka had to earn the set and the break. It wasn't gifted to him. Why would you gift that lead to "any top 20 player"?

When was the last time Nadal won a Grand Slam final after being down a set and a break?

1. You didnt get the context. One guy said Wawrinka showed great nerves to finish off the match after losing the third set. I meant any top 20 player at that stage would win against Nadal, not just Wawrinka, given how well Nadal was playing.

2. I do not know. Probably the time he got an opponent as unaccomplished as Wawrinka was in his Major final? On a serious note, why should it be a Major? Why should it be a final?

 

[kandamrgam]

In other words, regardless of the score or who got "injured", Wawrinka would be lucky, at best, and Nadal would have had it easy at worst. Very objective.

The 12-0 h2h and 13-0 Majors won shows at that point validates my objectivity. What's yours?

Here's a more extreme example to help you think rationally (without being caught up with Wawrinka's performance later on). If Almagro vs Federer was to play at Wimbledon final and if any of them could catch bird flu on the eve of the match, who gets luckier? There lies my answer too.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

1. You didnt get the context.

Yah, whats wrong with you guys that you can't understand this dude's brilliant debate skills. He's making killer points. Its just that they're all over our heads. :shock:

The guy's sig says it all. Not wasting more time here.

 

[kandamrgam]

So basically you think that Nadal's 2013-2014 level trumps GOAT-mode Stan. Not many people would agree with you. GOAT-Mode Stan dumped the AO GOAT (Djoker) in the prior match. He was going to stomp Nadal that day. Period.

I already agreed you are a behemoth of a logical genius. Surrendered. You're in my elite list.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. You didnt get the context. One guy said Wawrinka showed great nerves to finish off the match after losing the third set. I meant any top 20 player at that stage would win against Nadal, not just Wawrinka, given how well Nadal was playing.

If Nadal wasn't "injured", we don't know if Nadal would have won the third set in the first place. The "injury" certainly hurt Wawrinka's play in the third set.

2. I do not know. Probably the time he got an opponent as unaccomplished as Wawrinka was in his Major final?

He lost that one in 4 sets, after winning the third set primarily because of his "injury"

On a serious note, why should it be a Major? Why should it be a final?

1. It has to be a Slam because only Slams have 5-set finals. Being a set and a break up in a 3-set match is very different to being a set and a break up in a 5-set match. I'll allow 5-set Masters finals as well.

2. It has to be a final because the quality of the opponent is much higher in the final than in, say, the first round or the second round (which Nadal has been known to lose to far worse players).

 

[VexlanderPrime]

TIL: My eyes betrayed me when I saw Stanimal decimate Rafa. Rafa would have easily destroyed Stanimal because .... [reasons].

 

[The_18th_Slam]

The 12-0 h2h and 13-0 Majors won shows at that point validates my objectivity. What's yours?

Since 2014:

Wawrinka has won 2 Slams and 1 Masters
Nadal has won 1 Slam and 1 Masters

In other words, if we remove the result of the 2014 AO match out of the equation, Nadal and Wawrinka would be equal caliber players with 1 Slam and 1 Masters each. The difference is that Wawrinka was up a set and a break.

Here's a more extreme example to help you think rationally (without being caught up with Wawrinka's performance later on). If Almagro vs Federer was to play at Wimbledon final and if any of them could catch bird flu on the eve of the match, who get get luckier? There lies my answer too.

1. Almagro is not a 2-time Slam champion
2. Almagro has never even made a Slam final
3. Almagro has never even won a Masters
4. Grass is Almagro's worst surface
5. Almagro wasn't up by a set and a break
6. Nadal at the AO isn't Federer at Wimbledon

Laughable comparison.

 

[kandamrgam]

If Nadal wasn't "injured", we don't know if Nadal would have won the third set in the first place. The "injury" certainly hurt Wawrinka's play in the third set.

He lost that one in 4 sets, after winning the third set primarily because of his "injury"

1. It has to be a Slam because only Slams have 5-set finals. Being a set and a break up in a 3-set match is very different to being a set and a break up in a 5-set match. I'll allow 5-set Masters finals as well.

2. It has to be a final because the quality of the opponent is much higher in the final than in, say, the first round or the second round (which Nadal has been known to lose to far worse players).

Answering only what I feel is worth.

1. For a top player staging a comeback after losing a set in a Major is always easier than doing it in a Bo3.

2. Good point. Overlooked it. The bottom line is Nadal didn't have much opportunities in that regard there since he has only lost sets to the likes of Federer and Djokovic in Major finals. Anyway checked it up: http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=RafaelNadal&f=ACareerqqE0F8 The last time was just a year ago, RG 2014 against Djoker. Waw is easier, no? Previously, Nadal beat del Potro in IW 2013 final.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Answering only what I feel is worth.

1. For a top player staging a comeback after losing a set in a Major is always easier than doing it in a Bo3.

Perhaps, but it's still not as relevant as a 5-set match because of the dynamics at play.

2. Good point. Overlooked it. The bottom line is Nadal didn't have much opportunities in that regard there since he has only lost sets to the likes of Federer and Djokovic in Major finals. Anyway checked it up: http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=RafaelNadal&f=ACareerqqE0F8 The last time was just a year ago, RG 2014 against Djoker. Waw is easier, no? Previously, Nadal beat del Potro in IW 2013 final.

Djokovic was not up by a set and a break. So it doesn't count

And the IW match wasn't best-of-5.

 

[kandamrgam]

Since 2014:

Wawrinka has won 2 Slams and 1 Masters
Nadal has won 1 Slam and 1 Masters

In other words, if we remove the result of the 2014 AO match out of the equation, Nadal and Wawrinka would be equal caliber players with 1 Slam and 1 Masters each. The difference is that Wawrinka was up a set and a break.

1. Almagro is not a 2-time Slam champion
2. Almagro has never even made a Slam final
3. Almagro has never even won a Masters
4. Grass is Almagro's worst surface
5. Almagro wasn't up by a set and a break
6. Nadal at the AO isn't Federer at Wimbledon

Laughable comparison.

1. I see.. We are essentially talking two different points. I was talking from the time of frame Jan 2014. I thought my stats essentially showed it. The discussion I was having with Chanwan was which was a more probable victory given Nadal was injured midway of a match. The probable victor given the circumstances then. It doesnt matter to me who would really win. It matters to me how we reach the conclusion. Your question too involved asking me "if this had happened, then would you call that lucky". At that point I would.. Given Wawrinka has proved his record furthermore from there, I still pick Nadal the favourite, but I would use a more forgiving term. Like Stan was fortunate to not face a high quality opponent in full form.

2.

a. Time frame issue. Wawrinka was just the same at that point.

b. Time frame issue. Wawrinka was just the same at that point.

c. Time frame issue. Wawrinka was just the same at that point.

d. Doesn't matter, I have already taken an excuse by my premise "extreme example to convey a point".

e. Doesn't matter, I have already taken an excuse by my premise "extreme example to convey a point" **

f. Doesn't matter, I have already taken an excuse by my premise "extreme example to convey a point".

** Brother listen, (I think you're new here, I am lot more harsher usually I am trying my bit), that wasn't the analogy. You didnt get it. What I mean is if Almagro had to get a walkover over Federer in a Wimbledon final, we could call him lucky. Not Federer if Almagro was similarly ill-fated. Everything there applies to Nadal-Wawrinka equation too given Nadal is a superior (proven record in Majors finals, HC Majors, comeback after losing 1st set, h2h against Wawrinka etc) albeit in a lesser fashion. I told you I am taking an extreme example to convey a point. Federer would be just the favourite even if it was at RG, and had lost first set to Almagro.

 

[kandamrgam]

Perhaps, but it's still not as relevant as a 5-set match because of the dynamics at play.

Djokovic was not up by a set and a break. So it doesn't count

And the IW match wasn't best-of-5.

1. What dynamics?

2. It counts to me unless you tell me what dynamic is different. I mean which way is it more difficult to stage a comeback in Major than a Bo3 final "for a top player".

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. What dynamics?

You really don't understand the difference in dynamics between a 3-set match and a 5-set match?

2. It counts to me unless you tell me what dynamic is different. I mean which way is it more difficult to stage a comeback in Major than a Bo3 final "for a top player".

I don't know which way it's more difficult. All I know is that it's different. It would be like saying Federer would have beaten Nadal in the 2009 French Open because he beat him the same year in Madrid.

 

[kandamrgam]

You really don't understand the difference in dynamics between a 3-set match and a 5-set match?

I don't know which way it's more difficult. All I know is that it's different. It would be like saying Federer would have beaten Nadal in the 2009 French Open because he beat him the same year in Madrid.

1. I do not know the difference in dynamics "in the context of difficulty in winning after losing a set" except that Bo3 is harder "for a top player". You can explain it to me. May be I am a little dumb there.

2. You have a point there if either Nadal or Federer was a lesser player (a freakish player who could upset a top player in Bo3 but not Bo5), and also if in both cases there were a comeback after losing a set (not the case in Madrid anyway). Otherwise I dint claim anything like that.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. I see.. We are essentially talking two different points. I was talking from the time of frame Jan 2014. I thought my stats essentially showed it. The discussion I was having with Chanwan was which was a more probable victory given Nadal was injured midway of a match. The probable victor given the circumstances then. It doesnt matter to me who would really win. It matters to me how we reach the conclusion. Your question too involved asking me "if this had happened, then would you call that lucky". At that point I would.. Given Wawrinka has proved his record furthermore from there, I still pick Nadal the favourite, but I would use a more forgiving term. Like Stan was fortunate to not face a high quality opponent in full form.

But why that timeframe? Hasn't the past year and a half given us a lot more information to make a more knowledgable evaluation of the situation? Your logic is very poor here. You might as well say Agassi was the favorite against Federer in the 2004 US Open match. After all, Agassi was a 2-time USO Champion, and Federer was a 0-time USO Champion in that timeframe.

2.

a. Time frame issue. Wawrinka was just the same at that point.

b. Time frame issue. Wawrinka was just the same at that point.

c. Time frame issue. Wawrinka was just the same at that point.

I've already addressed this. You're ignoring all the information we now have from the past year and a half. At the time, Wawrinka may have seemed to have gotten lucky for some. But now, given everything he has done since and what Nadal has done since, one would need to revise that view. Your logic is tantamount to saying the Earth was flat millennia past because that was the belief in that timeframe. You're refusing to acknowledge what happened after. And what happened after is that Wawrinka became a 2-time Slam champion, and Nadal fell off a rock.

d. Doesn't matter, I have already taken an excuse by my premise "extreme example to convey a point".

e. Doesn't matter, I have already taken an excuse by my premise "extreme example to convey a point" **

f. Doesn't matter, I have already taken an excuse by my premise "extreme example to convey a point".

How can it be a good example when it isn't even relevant or analogous in any way?

** Brother listen, (I think you're new here, I am lot more harsher usually I am trying my bit), that wasn't the analogy. You didnt get it. What I mean is if Almagro had to get a walkover over Federer in a Wimbledon final, we could call him lucky. Not Federer if Almagro was similarly ill-fated. Everything there applies to Nadal-Wawrinka equation too given Nadal is a superior (proven record in Majors finals, HC Majors, comeback after losing 1st set, h2h against Wawrinka etc) albeit in a lesser fashion. I told you I am taking an extreme example to convey a point. Federer would be just the favourite even if it was at RG, and had lost first set to Almagro.

Since 2014, Nadal hasn't been superior to Wawrinka. It has been the other way around. Your analogy doesn't work. When Almagro becomes a 2-time Slam champion and outperforms Federer for a full year, let me know, and I'll accept your example as meaningful.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. I do not know the difference in dynamics "in the context of difficulty in winning after losing a set" except that Bo3 is harder "for a top player". You can explain it to me. May be I am a little dumb there.

In the IW match, Nadal was 2-1 up after 3 sets. If that were a Grand Slam final, he wouldn't have won the match yet.

That is not to mention the scheduling differences, where Del Potro or Nadal wouldn't have been playing matches every day of the week.

2. You have a point there if either Nadal or Federer was a lesser player (a freakish player who could upset a top player in Bo3 but not Bo5), and also if in both cases there were a comeback after losing a set (not the case in Madrid anyway). Otherwise I dint claim anything like that.

Wawrinka was up a set AND a break. Why do you keep ignoring the break of serve?

Either way, my point still stands. Even if Federer had replicated his result against Nadal at the French Open, he'd only be 2-0 up. He wouldn't have won the match yet.

 

[kandamrgam]

But why that timeframe? Hasn't the past year and a half given us a lot more information to make a more knowledgable evaluation of the situation? Your logic is very poor here. You might as well say Agassi was the favorite against Federer in the 2004 US Open match. After all, Agassi was a 2-time USO Champion, and Federer was a 0-time USO Champion in that timeframe.

I've already addressed this. You're ignoring all the information we now have from the past year and a half. At the time, Wawrinka may have seemed to have gotten lucky for some. But now, given everything he has done since and what Nadal has done since, one would need to revise that view. Your logic is tantamount to saying the Earth was flat millennia past because that was the belief in that timeframe. You're refusing to acknowledge what happened after. And what happened after is that Wawrinka became a 2-time Slam champion, and Nadal fell off a rock.

How can it be a good example when it isn't even relevant or analogous in any way?

Since 2014, Nadal hasn't been superior to Wawrinka. It has been the other way around. Your analogy doesn't work. When Almagro becomes a 2-time Slam champion and outperforms Federer for a full year, let me know, and I'll accept your example as meaningful.

1. Because that's from where the discussion evolved. At least it was my intention when I was having the original discussion.

2. Federer was on a rampage then winning 3/4 of the Slams. Poor example, but I get your point.

3. Exactly provided the discussion was what was the belief then. At least what I thought.

4. I am not refusing to, I have already conveyed the point with today's knowledge. Given the superior player Nadal is with the match-up advantage and still being reasonably good then at AO, my money is on Nadal still. It's only a very slender probability edge which I have stated before. Of course I have come to accept Wawrinka a lot more since then when it felt Nadal was outright unlucky. In other words if you ask me, what is the probability of Nadal of 2014 AO without the injury winning the match against Wawrinka then I would say it's the same as Djoker winning it against Wawrinka after losing a set, prolly a bit more. The rationale being Nadal was still in the 2013 mould at 2014 AO and it was from there his performance dropped drastically.

5. Time to leave the Almagro example for me. I wont dwell on things if the participants are not getting each others' views. I thought it was pretty easy. Will leave it service of other members here

 

[kandamrgam]

In the IW match, Nadal was 2-1 up after 3 sets. If that were a Grand Slam final, he wouldn't have won the match yet.

That is not to mention the scheduling differences, where Del Potro or Nadal wouldn't have been playing matches every day of the week.

Wawrinka was up a set AND a break. Why do you keep ignoring the break of serve?

Either way, my point still stands. Even if Federer had replicated his result against Nadal at the French Open, he'd only be 2-0 up. He wouldn't have won the match yet.

1. Funny. I didnt ask merely what are the differences. I asked, at least the intent was, how is it different for Nadal and del Potro given the potential of Nadal and del Potro? Potro has more work to do being 2-1 up in Bo5 than Nadal has to do in the same situation, where as in Bo3 the match is over. In other words staging a comeback for big match players in Bo5s is easier. The reason why you see more upsets in Bo3s.

2. Which is exactly my point too. Federer wouldnt have won the match. Isn't the case in Bo3. Hence coming back in Bo3 finals matter too. My original point.

3. I dont ignore it brother, I would have been a culprit there had there been a talk of Wawrinka. I thought we were talking of Fedal. Anyway, Nadal has started his shoddy display in the beginning of the second set itself. His serve speeds has started to go down. Regardless, a break of serve so early is not enough to convince me that Wawa is taking that set. Nadal already had more bp chances in first set than Wawrinka and Nadal missed them all to return errors off Wawrinka's second serves - you know how pathetic Wawa's second serves are.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. Because that's from where the discussion evolved. At least it was my intention when I was having the original discussion.

That is a very myopic way to evaluate the situation. It'd be like formulating a theory by ignoring a lot of relevant (and contradictory) evidence.

2. Federer was on a rampage then winning 3/4 of the Slams. Poor example, but I get your point.

Wawrinka was also on a rampage, winning the first set and being up a break in the second. Not to mention, he had beaten the AO GOAT. Something Nadal has never managed.

4. I am not refusing to, I have already conveyed the point with today's knowledge. Given the superior player Nadal is with the match-up advantage and still being reasonably good then at AO, my money is on Nadal still. It's only a very slender probability edge which I have stated before. Of course I have come to accept Wawrinka a lot more since then when it felt Nadal was outright unlucky. In other words if you ask me, what is the probability of Nadal of 2014 AO without the injury winning the match against Wawrinka then I would say it's the same as Djoker winning it against Wawrinka after losing a set, prolly a bit more.

It was a set and a break. It's funny how you keep ignoring the break of serve. The break of serve was crucial. It was that break of serve which broke the camel's back, so to speak.

The rationale being Nadal was still in the 2013 mould at 2014 AO and it was from there his performance dropped drastically.

Is that why he was being pounded into submission by Wawrinka for a set and a half? Wawrinka was up by a set and a break.

5. Time to leave the Almagro example for me. I wont dwell on things if the participants are not getting each others' views. I thought it was pretty easy. Will leave it service of other members here

Again, it was a poor example. Wawrinka has been a better AO player than Nadal since 2014.

Wawrinka:
2014: Final and up by a set and a break
2015: Semifinal

Nadal:
2014: Final and down by a set and a break
2015: Quarterfinal

Overall Slam performances since 2014:
Wawrinka: W, SF, QF, QF, 1R
Nadal: W, QF, QF, 4R, A

Almagro is and always was a much worse player than Federer. Wawrinka, since 2014, has proved himself to be a better player than Nadal in that timeframe.

 

[marc45]

Do not ask for logic. Day Tripper is not the only one there. I cant even understand if it is a case of genuine cognitive bias or stupidity being spread for the sake of it. Nothing was as apparent as effect complete debilitating back pain in Nadal's game. His movement and serve were reduced significantly since the start of second set in the 3rd game when serving. And serve speed and movement are the two aspects which are not influenced by the opponent. 5 to 10 years from now someone inspecting these threads will get the idea that Nadal either carried a minor injury not significant enough to affect his play or it's a contentious topic. You know given the number of trolls this thread has had. There is nothing contentious here - Nadal was crippled, and significantly. Either he was acting or it was genuine, but let's leave out mind reading for another time. Anyone with minimum understanding of psychology of athletes will tell you 4th set of GS final when you are two sets down is not the time for histrionics.

For some empirical data here are Nadal's average first and second speeds in various sets:

Avg serve speed, set 1 (pre injury reference point)
1st: 180 kph
2nd: 149 kph

Avg serve speed, set 2
1st: 150 kph (~30 kph short)
2nd: 127 kph (~20 kph short)

Avg serve speed, set 3
1st: 158 kph (~20 kph short)
2nd: 131 kph (~20 kph short)

Avg serve speed, set 4
1st: 166 kph (~15 kph short)
2nd: 136 kph (~13 kph short)

If only trolls understand what it is to serve 20 kph short on an average. I could similarly add distance covered but can't find info from the official site.

This would be my summary:

1. Yes Wawrinka deserved the title. Who else was more deserving player of the tournament? More so when he defeated AO's best earlier.

2. But Wawrinka was fortunate to have a final opponent in half his capacity. An easy pass in the final. Anyone in the top 20 would have defeated that Nadal. If it is called discrediting or being disrespectful to Wawrinka so be it.

3. Nadal was crippled to a point were that level of substandard performance can't be even considered average. Way below par. Trolls have a job of pointing out a similar level from Nadal in the past. Or from anyone in a Major final in the recent past. Having followed Nadal's career closely, I can't think of any. May be Rotterdam '09 final against Murray, may be vs Ferrer at AO '11, not sure.

4. Nadal was very good in the first set and Wawrinka fairly and squarely won it. The set was hardly a blow out. Nadal had his chances while Wawrinka capitalized better. Just one break of serve decided the set. Hardly any indicator of the outcome of the match given Nadal's mastery of Wawrinka till that point.

I'm not a fan of playing injury card in every case we know Nadal had some issue. I dont believe in generalizing based on injury or subsequent lay off. I do discredit the opponent if an injury from a player was so serious that it hampered his play in my eyes. It's a fine line to draw. Nadal was plain a** lucky in Madrid '14 against Nishikori so was he against Ljubicic in Shanghai '09 where he was getting bullied until the opponents' injury. The same way I dont count much how he lost at AO to Ferrer in '11 or Wawrinka in '14. I however fully credit Rosol's and Soderling's performances. Even though Nadal had taken long breaks from the game after those respective defeats and he might have genuinely played below his best, there were nothing significant to discredit the opponents. Those opponents were on fire still. It was nice effort from a bunch of trolls to generalize Wawrinka's superlative performance against Djoker and club it with an entirely different match against Nadal to lend more credence to their theories. Laughable. The real reason for butthurt is mostly 23-10

of course, Nadal and Toni both said they were extremely fortunate in the Nishikori match last year

forgetting the Del Potro semi in the U.S. Open too

speaking of whom, guy just had his 3rd wrist surgery the other day, out walking around Rochester, Minnesota the next day or so with a sling on his arm...no discredit to Minnesota, but he's got to get out of there, certainly by winter

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. Funny. I didnt ask merely what are the differences. I asked, at least the intent was, how is it different for Nadal and del Potro given the potential of Nadal and del Potro? Potro has more work to do being 2-1 up in Bo5 than Nadal has to do in the same situation, where as in Bo3 the match is over. In other words staging a comeback for big match players in Bo5s is easier. The reason why you see more upsets in Bo3s.

At 2-1, Del Potro wouldn't have lost yet if it was a 5-set match. So the example doesn't count. Because it's not a precedent for what you are saying Nadal would have done against Wawrinka in the 2014 AO final.

Can you give an example of a match where Nadal was down a set and a break in a final and went on to deliver a performance that would have won a 5-set match? Not just get a 2-1 lead, mind. Actually win a 5-set match.

2. Which is exactly my point too. Federer wouldnt have won the match. Isn't the case in Bo3. Hence coming back in Bo3 finals matter too. My original point.

No, it does not. Because being 2-1 up doesn't mean you have won the match in best-of-5. How do you know Nadal would have beaten Del Potro if the match was best-of-5? It's a bad example.

3. I dont ignore it brother, I would have been a culprit there had there been a talk of Wawrinka. I thought we were talking of Fedal. Anyway, Nadal has started his shoddy display in the beginning of the second set itself. His serve speeds has started to go down.

So you're changing your stance :lol:

Earlier, you said Nadal didn't show any noticeable signs of injury until the 3rd game of the 2nd set. But now he is injured starting with the 2nd set? Please be consistent.

Regardless, a break of serve so early is not enough to convince me that Wawa is taking that set. Nadal already had more bp chances in first set than Wawrinka and Nadal missed them all to return errors off Wawrinka's second serves - you know how pathetic Wawa's second serves are.

Despite Wawrinka's "pathetic second serve", he was up by a set and a break. That is a fact. I don't know if Wawrinka would have won that set. But I do know that he was more likely to have won that set, because he was up a break. Isn't it reasonable to think the guy who is up a break is more likely to win the set? At least more reasonable than to think the guy who is down a break would win the set, you'd have to admit.

 

[marc45]

^ Basically you don't like people being honest about thier harboring doubts as to the veracity of Rafa's injury. He PROBABLY was injured. But the injury happened after he got blown off the court in the first set of a GS final and at a perfect time to interrupt Stanimal's GOATing. Stan HIMSELF was questioning the injury on the court in a running argument with the officials. Doesn't prove anything but, like I said, questionable. Certainly not trolling to state a fact: It was questionable.

so he had one bad set and all the beatings against Stan just go away in his mind?...his 13 majors at the time don't give him any confidence he can come back from a set down?....the fact he'd won this tournament before with massive matches in the semis and finals doesn't help?...even the six hour loss to Djokovic doesn't help?....everything he had just accomplished in 2013 didn't matter?...

you know what's really scary is how deep this guy is in people's heads, for years now...he's known for being deep inside his own, but he's worse in others...here at least

 

[The_18th_Slam]

His movement and serve were reduced significantly since the start of second set in the 3rd game when serving.

At which point, Wawrinka was 6-3, 2-0 ahead.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

so he had one bad set and all the beatings against Stan just go away in his mind?...coming after everything he accomplished in 2013?

Why not? Didn't he become a non-factor at non-clay Slams ever since? What happened at Rome this year? Why didn't Nadal think of everything he's accomplished on clay and all the beatings he administered on Wawrinka?

 

[kandamrgam]

That is a very myopic way to evaluate the situation. It'd be like formulating a theory by ignoring a lot of relevant (and contradictory) evidence.

Wawrinka was also on a rampage, winning the first set and being up a break in the second. Not to mention, he had beaten the AO GOAT. Something Nadal has never managed.

It was a set and a break. It's funny how you keep ignoring the break of serve. The break of serve was crucial. It was that break of serve which broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Is that why he was being pounded into submission by Wawrinka for a set and a half? Wawrinka was up by a set and a break.

Again, it was a poor example. Wawrinka has been a better AO player than Nadal since 2014.

Wawrinka:
2014: Final and up by a set and a break
2015: Semifinal

Nadal:
2014: Final and down by a set and a break
2015: Quarterfinal

Overall Slam performances since 2014:
Wawrinka: W, SF, QF, QF, 1R
Nadal: W, QF, QF, 4R, A

Almagro is and always was a much worse player than Federer. Wawrinka, since 2014, has proved himself to be a better player than Nadal in that timeframe.

1. Nope, it wouldn't be if we were discussing what was the belief then. It's a valid study. I have stated this before.

2. Lol, at the rampage comparison.. Thanks, but let's leave it now.

3. I dont ignore it, I have covered it numerous times before. You are being pedantic without not seeing the larger picture of what I am trying to convey.

4. How did it break back of camel? Figurative or literal?

5. You talk rubbish, as if top players have never lost sets or got broken. This is heights man. Gotta gear my tone up a bit. Nadal just did something similar (inb4 somebody reminds me of a break in 2nd set) to mighty Djokovic few months later, and you talk about Wawrinka? :/

6. Analogy is not your forte I get it. This might help. Tried explaining it too much already. As a veteran in the debating business let me tell you I have stopped my long habit of trying my best to educate. These days I just move on after a point. I kind of have the knack to see if my partner would get it or not.

 

[marc45]

Yes yes I get it. Down two sets in GS final is the time for playacting. He was continuing to interrupt goat from milking further even in the dying moments too by serving slower. Stan on the other hand questioning his opponent leaving the court is the real deal. Of course it is the opponent who gets it. You know he is 70% more knowledgeable than us about Rafa's acting. Good good. Your ilk is growing stronger by the day on TTW. The creator of this thread must be proud. I think he got what he meant with his investment.

couldn't find the numbers but the set Rafa won I don't recall him doing much of anything except trying to stay out there and not embarrass himself or the sport...and then Stan, probably nervous to close, just starts drilling balls out

ah, from the folks at "Changeover"....6 and 8, winners and unforced errors from Rafa in the third...14 and 19 for Stan

 

[marc45]

probably should add actual quotes...from Sports Illustrated

"Playing his first major final, Wawrinka blew past Nadal in the first set behind a barrage of offense. Winning a set alone was a breakthrough for Wawrinka, who had been 0-for-26 in 12 previous meetings against the 13-time Grand Slam champion. The 28-year-old Swiss then held his nerve after Nadal struggled with a back injury early in the second set that led to an off-the-court medical timeout and additional treatment the rest of the match.

Nadal said he felt discomfort in his back during the warmup.

"I'm obviously disappointed and very sad about what happened," Nadal said. "But that's life, that's sport. I've really had a lot of great moments in my career. That's a tough one. Just accept it and try to keep working hard for what's coming."

Nadal, for all his quirks, almost always ends up sounding much saner than many folks here...go figure

 

[kandamrgam]

At 2-1, Del Potro wouldn't have lost yet if it was a 5-set match. So the example doesn't count. Because it's not a precedent for what you are saying Nadal would have done against Wawrinka in the 2014 AO final.

Can you give an example of a match where Nadal was down a set and a break in a final and went on to deliver a performance that would have won a 5-set match? Not just get a 2-1 lead, mind. Actually win a 5-set match.

No, it does not. Because being 2-1 up doesn't mean you have won the match in best-of-5. How do you know Nadal would have beaten Del Potro if the match was best-of-5? It's a bad example.

So you're changing your stance :lol:

Earlier, you said Nadal didn't show any noticeable signs of injury until the 3rd game of the 2nd set. But now he is injured starting with the 2nd set? Please be consistent.

Despite Wawrinka's "pathetic second serve", he was up by a set and a break. That is a fact. I don't know if Wawrinka would have won that set. But I do know that he was more likely to have won that set, because he was up a break. Isn't it reasonable to think the guy who is up a break is more likely to win the set? At least more reasonable than to think the guy who is down a break would win the set, you'd have to admit.

1. Time to leave the del Potro example too. You've officially entered the elite league of top notch logical kings here. You just broke the threshold, congrats The bolded parts.

2. There's no need of examples here. I do not have one, you do not have one. At any case it is proof by example, a sort of inductive reasoning. No point.

3. You can check my reply to Chanwan, the first initial post from where you picked this up. I was pretty consistent there. Time to wear glasses. If you cant I will post it for you.

In fact wasn't it me who always ignore about the second set?

4. It is as reasonable to think Wawrinka would win that set as it is to think he would win it against Djoker and Federer and likes. For Nadal it is extremely important to find his way back. He would try harder too. Secondly as I said Nadal's shoddy display has begun right from the 2nd set itself, it wasn't as apparent as in the 3rd game still.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. Nope, it wouldn't be if we were discussing what was the belief then. It's a valid study. I have stated this before.

We're not talking about what was believed then. I agree that the world was thought to be flat. We're discussing what would have happened if Nadal hadn't been "injured".

3. I dont ignore it, I have covered it numerous times before. You are being pedantic without not seeing the larger picture of what I am trying to convey.

I'm not being pedantic. How can a break of serve (and being 2-0 up in a set) in a Grand Slam final be anything less than highly significant?

4. How did it break back of camel? Figurative or literal?

Unless Nadal is a camel, it couldn't be literal, could it?

5. You talk rubbish, as if top players have never lost sets or got broken. This is heights man. Gotta gear my tone up a bit. Nadal just did something similar (inb4 somebody reminds me of a break in 2nd set) to mighty Djokovic few months later, and you talk about Wawrinka? :/

Djokovic was not up by a set and a break :lol: I find your desperation amusing.

6. Analogy is not your forte I get it. This might help.

This is self-ownage at its best. Let me quote the first line of that article for you:

A logical extreme is a useful, though often fallacious, rhetorical device for the disputation of propositions.

Tried explaining it too much already. As a veteran in the debating business let me tell you I have stopped my long habit of trying my best to educate. These days I just move on after a point. I kind of have the knack to see if my partner would get it or not.

There is nothing there to get. You're trying to convince people that the Earth is flat because that was what was believed millennia ago. You're ignoring everything that Wawrinka has proved since, including beating Nadal in straight sets on clay and coming back from a set down to beat Djokovic in 4 sets in the French Open final.

 

[kandamrgam]

At which point, Wawrinka was 6-3, 2-0 ahead.

Give more context please. Is misquoting your forte? I am sure that wasnt my full post.

 

[kandamrgam]

couldn't find the numbers but the set Rafa won I don't recall him doing much of anything except trying to stay out there and not embarrass himself or the sport...and then Stan, probably nervous to close, just starts drilling balls out

ah, from the folks at "Changeover"....6 and 8, winners and unforced errors from Rafa in the third...14 and 19 for Stan

Exactly. Some cretins here believe it was a great fight by Nadal and Wawrinka had to fight back to close out the match

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. Time to leave the del Potro example too. You've officially entered the elite league of top notch logical kings here. You just broke the threshold, congrats The bolded parts.

This is called ad hominem :lol:

2. There's no need of examples here. I do not have one, you do not have one. At any case it is proof by example, a sort of inductive reasoning. No point.

So you're saying Nadal has never done what you think he would have done against Wawrinka in the 2014 AO final if he hadn't gotten "injured"?

3. You can check my reply to Chanwan, the first initial post from where you picked this up. I was pretty consistent there. Time to wear glasses. If you cant I will post it for you.

I've already quoted it. You first said that Nadal was affected from the 3rd game of the 2nd set. You've now changed your stance to, "Nadal was injured from the beginning of the 2nd set." Very consistent indeed :lol:

4. It is as reasonable to think Wawrinka would win that set as it is to think he would win it against Djoker and Federer and likes.

Yes, and I'd have said he was likely to win that set no matter who he was up against.

For Nadal it is extremely important to find his way back. He would try harder too.

Yes, because he wasn't trying for the first 11 games of a Grand Slam final. Got it.

Secondly as I said Nadal's shoddy display has begun right from the 2nd set itself, it wasn't as apparent as in the 3rd game still.

Interesting. This contradicts what you said earlier:

His movement and serve were reduced significantly since the start of second set in the 3rd game when serving.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Give more context please. Is misquoting your forte? I am sure that wasnt my full post.

That was your quote, word for word. I didn't misquote you. Do you even know what the word means?

 

[kandamrgam]

We're not talking about what was believed then. I agree that the world was thought to be flat. We're discussing what would have happened if Nadal hadn't been "injured".

I'm not being pedantic. How can a break of serve (and being 2-0 up in a set) in a Grand Slam final be anything less than highly significant?

Unless Nadal is a camel, it couldn't be literal, could it?

Djokovic was not up by a set and a break :lol: I find your desperation amusing.

This is self-ownage at its best. Let me quote the first line of that article for you:


There is nothing there to get. You're trying to convince people that the Earth is flat because that was what was believed millennia ago. You're ignoring everything that Wawrinka has proved since, including beating Nadal in straight sets on clay and coming back from a set down to beat Djokovic in 4 sets in the French Open final.

1. I was. I told u this. Who is the we here? The discussion stemmed from my discussion with another reasonable poster here.

2. You're being pedantic because you are jumping at every instance I roughly put it as "one set" you remind me of the break in the second. Of course I have acknowledged that. Another time you dont get this, I will skip this.

3. Man what a logichead. This potential metaphor there is not whether Nadal can be a camel, but if the injury Nadal picked up being "because of the 2nd set break". I quote you:

It was that break of serve which broke the camel's back, so to speak.

4. Yes, being up a break in the second set is more significant than having a set advantage, good good.

5. You dont get to understand simply logical rule despite being detailed out it like that? Man you really pounce on that one word which you think I wouldnt have anyway seen? Goodness. Extreme examples are rhetorical and fallacious (often) indeed, but it's useful to convey the point. I have even given an explanation on how it fits in the Almagro case.

And for the rest of............. my elite club of ttw is fast and growing

 

[kandamrgam]

That was your quote, word for word. I didn't misquote you. Do you even know what the word means?

Are u totally nuts man? I asked for the context. Out of context quoting is indeed misquoting.

 

[kandamrgam]

This is called ad hominem :lol:

So you're saying Nadal has never done what you think he would have done against Wawrinka in the 2014 AO final if he hadn't gotten "injured"?

I've already quoted it. You first said that Nadal was affected from the 3rd game of the 2nd set. You've now changed your stance to, "Nadal was injured from the beginning of the 2nd set." Very consistent indeed :lol:

Yes, and I'd have said he was likely to win that set no matter who he was up against.

Yes, because he wasn't trying for the first 11 games of a Grand Slam final. Got it.

Interesting. This contradicts what you said earlier:

1. Lollll this guy.... Yes sir. If I say I dont know the serve speed of Nadal's match vs Troicki last week it means he didnt serve. Thanks..

2. There are degrees. Nadal was also hurt prematch during the warmup. It is more important to understand than talk. Nadal's serve speeds had gone down right from the beginning of second set. It accentuated in the 3rd game. It isnt a new theory I formed like you "claim". I am not sure if you understand my points given where you picked this up from

3. This cretin doesnt get it even after quoting it live. Hint: the keyword is "significant".

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. I was. I told u this. Who is the we here? The discussion stemmed from my discussion with another reasonable poster here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you still insisting Nadal would have likely won the match if it weren't for his "injury"?

2. You're being pedantic because you are jumping at every instance I roughly put it as "one set" you remind me of the break in the second. Of course I have acknowledged that. Another time you dont get this, I will skip this.

Leaving out a key piece of information is intellectual dishonesty. And your repeated attempts to bring up the 2014 French Open final as a model substantiates this.

3. Man what a logichead. This potential metaphor there is not whether Nadal can be a camel, but if the injury Nadal picked up being "because of the 2nd set break". I quote you:

I said I wasn't being literal. It doesn't take a genius to figure out I was being metaphorical (with a nice pun in there, for good measure).

4. Yes, being up a break in the second set is more significant than having a set advantage, good good.

Being up a set is highly significant. Being up a break in the 2nd set is also highly significant. You can't leave out a significant piece of the case just because it happens to be less significant than another piece. That's intellectual dishonesty again.

5. You dont get to understand simply logical rule despite being detailed out it like that? Man you really pounce on that one word which you think I wouldnt have anyway seen? Goodness. Extreme examples are rhetorical and fallacious (often) indeed, but it's useful to convey the point. I have even given an explanation on how it fits in the Almagro case.

So you're admitting your argument was fallacious but you're gonna persist with it anyway? :lol:

And for the rest of............. my elite club of ttw is fast and growing

Ad hominem.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Are u totally nuts man? I asked for the context.

The context is right there in the hyperlink next to your name. Anybody can click on it and get the "context" or lack thereof.

Out of context quoting is indeed misquoting.

False. Inaccurate quoting is misquoting. Cambridge agrees:

misquote
verb [T] US /mɪsˈkwoʊt/
› to repeat something someone has said or written in a way that is not accurate

I posted your quote accurately. Word for word.

 

[kandamrgam]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you still insisting Nadal would have likely won the match if it weren't for his "injury"?

Leaving out a key piece of information is intellectual dishonesty. And your repeated attempts to bring up the 2014 French Open final as a model substantiates this.

I said I wasn't being literal. It doesn't take a genius to figure out I was being metaphorical (with a nice pun in there, for good measure).

Being up a set is highly significant. Being up a break in the 2nd set is also highly significant. You can't leave out a significant piece of the case just because it happens to be less significant than another piece. That's intellectual dishonesty again.

So you're admitting your argument was fallacious but you're gonna persist with it anyway? :lol:

Ad hominem.

1. You said it wasnt literal because Nadal cant be a camel. That doesnt answer my question.

2. For the rest of the beating around the bushes, all I can say is your climbing the ladder up pretty quickly

 

[kandamrgam]

_

Oh well, right, I hope you can see the link for yourself Nice owning up of pedantry btw.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. Lollll this guy.... Yes sir. If I say I dont know the serve speed of Nadal's match vs Troicki last week it means he didnt serve. Thanks..

Straw man :lol:

2. There are degrees. Nadal was also hurt prematch during the warmup.

You've changed your stance midway through the argument, and you know it. Look:

4. Nadal was very good in the first set and Wawrinka fairly and squarely won it.

3. This cretin doesnt get it even after quoting it live. Hint: the keyword is "significant".

And yet you said Nadal was "very good" in the first set :lol:

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. You said it wasnt literal because Nadal cant be a camel. That doesnt answer my question.

You asked if it was literal or figurative. I said it wasn't literal. What else could it be, genius?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Oh well, right, I hope you can see the link for yourself Nice owning up of pedantry btw.

Pedantry? I thought we were talking about "misquoting"? Or did you just learn what that word means? :lol:

 

[kandamrgam]

Straw man :lol:

You've changed your stance midway through the argument, and you know it. Look:

And yet you said Nadal was "very good" in the first set :lol:

1. Prove the strawman. A challenge

2. Prove my stance change midway. The only thing was we had a difference of ideas as to what we were talking about initially. Since that is cleared up I dont see my stance being changed. All I see one guy accusing me of being inconsistent yet havent peaked enough to prove it

3. Right here

 

[kandamrgam]

Two consistent quotes from mr consistent who has peaked since last Jan:

Unless Nadal is a camel, it couldn't be literal, could it?

You asked if it was literal or figurative. I said it wasn't literal.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. Prove the strawman. A challenge

According to the analogy, I'm not asking you what the service speeds were. I'm asking you if Nadal served.

2. Prove my stance change midway. The only thing was we had a difference of ideas as to what we were talking about initially. Since that is cleared up I dont see my stance being changed. All I see one guy accusing me of being inconsistent yet havent peaked enough to prove it

Here is the proof:

His movement and serve were reduced significantly since the start of second set in the 3rd game when serving.

Anyway, Nadal has started his shoddy display in the beginning of the second set itself.

3. Right here

You missed the point, as usual. You gave Wawrinka full credit for the 1st set, initially, only to later take it away saying Nadal was injured during warmup :lol:

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Two consistent quotes from mr consistent who has peaked since last Jan:

What do you mean? They're consistent with each other. Saying something couldn't be literal is the same as saying it isn't literal. Is your comprehension really that bad? Actually, given your diction, I'm sure it is.