Moya: For Rafael Nadal, ATP Finals loss was tougher to accept than Australian Open loss

[zagor]

Yeah, it's the manner in which he lost which made Moya/Nadal say this. WTF/YEC is important (no matter how much certain fan group insists otherwise) but slem is a slem.

 

[octobrina10]

You hear that @NADALalot ?

Hmm. You quoted your comrade's comment.
Neither Moya nor Rafa used the word 'important'.

@Phoenix1983

 

[Drob]

I was the opposite. I knew Nadal would benefit from losers like Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev winning the ATP Finals.
The more they win it, the more meaningless the event becomes.
Whereas if Nadal won it, people would keep saying how "Nadal only won it once, while Djokovic and Federer won it 5 times each".
It doesn't matter how many times Djokovic/Federer won the ATP Finals, because losers keep winning it every year.

It disrespects the game to call these guys "losers" and "scrubs".

Since the inception of the tournament, 38 of 51 competitions were won by a player who had already won a Slam. In another six instances the winner became a Slam champion - Smith, Nastase, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi. Were these six players "losers"
and "scrubs"? Were they "losers" and "scrubs" when they won the YEC? If so, you better inform history about this.

I think the 2017 tournament was odd and a bit weak. For that matter the 2017 USO was the same or worse. Dimitrov was the weakest YEC winner ever. But:

Zv beat Federer and Djokovic back-to-back at 2018 WTF.
Tsi beat Federer and Thiem.
Mdv beat Djoker, Nadal and Thiem.

As for poor Thiem - a "loser" and "scrub" also? - in last two years at the tournament he beat Djokovic twice, Federer and Nadal.

Mdv will be a Slam champ in the coming year, assuming a "normal" year under COVID cloud.

Tsi could be also in 2021, but certainly w/in next two years.

Zv will be, although it seems his life took a tumble after his triumph at London in 2018 and he has to get back on the straight and narrow.


Some YEC champions:

Connors - 3 year-end World No. 1, one YEC
Borg - 3 No. 1; two YEC
McEnroe - 3 No. 1; three YEC (1 runner-up)
Lendl - 3 No. 1 (+ 1 split decision) - five YEC (3 runner-up)
Becker - one split decision; 3 YEC (5 runner-up)
Edberg - 2 No. 1 (1 true); 1 YEC (1 runner-up)
Sampras - 6 No. 1; five YEC
Agassi - 1 No. 1; one YEC (two runner-ups)
Kuerten - 1 No.1; one YEC
Hewitt - 2 No. 1; two YEC (1 runner-up)
Federer - 5 No. 1; six YEC (4 runner-ups)
Djokovic - 6 No. 1; five YEC (two runner-ups)
Murray - 1 No. 1; one YEC

Others who had won a Slam: Orantes, Stich

Other finalists with a Slam or more: Ashe, Wilander, Courier, Chang, Kafelnikov, Moya, Ferrero.

Notwithstanding the last few years, the correlation between Slam winners and YEC titlists is high, and between year-end No. 1 and YEC champ.

Maybe that is why it upsets Nadal so much - because the big Slam winners and world No. 1's win this title. Because it is BIG. Because it is important.

 

[PilotPete]

Hmm. Rafa always wants to win, no matter where or what he plays.

Merely wanting to win is very different from it being so tough to accept such a devastating loss.

 

[octobrina10]

It disrespects the game to call these guys "losers" and "scrubs".

Since the inception of the tournament, 38 of 51 competitions were won by a player who had already won a Slam. In another six instances the winner became a Slam champion - Smith, Nastase, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi. Were these six players "losers"
and "scrubs"? Were they "losers" and "scrubs" when they won the YEC? If so, you better inform history about this.

I think the 2017 tournament was odd and a bit weak. For that matter the 2017 USO was the same or worse. Dimitrov was the weakest YEC winner ever. But:

Zv beat Federer and Djokovic back-to-back at 2018 WTF.
Tsi beat Federer and Thiem.
Mdv beat Djoker, Nadal and Thiem.

As for poor Thiem - a "loser" and "scrub" also? - in last two years at the tournament he beat Djokovic twice, Federer and Nadal.

Mdv will be a Slam champ in the coming year, assuming a "normal" year under COVID cloud.

Tsi could be also in 2021, but certainly w/in next two years.

Zv will be, although it seems his life took a tumble after his triumph at London in 2018 and he has to get back on the straight and narrow.


Some YEC champions:

Connors - 3 year-end World No. 1, one YEC
Borg - 3 No. 1; two YEC
McEnroe - 3 No. 1; three YEC (1 runner-up)
Lendl - 3 No. 1 (+ 1 split decision) - five YEC (3 runner-up)
Becker - one split decision; 3 YEC (5 runner-up)
Edberg - 2 No. 1 (1 true); 1 YEC (1 runner-up)
Sampras - 6 No. 1; five YEC
Agassi - 1 No. 1; one YEC (two runner-ups)
Kuerten - 1 No.1; one YEC
Hewitt - 2 No. 1; two YEC (1 runner-up)
Federer - 5 No. 1; six YEC (4 runner-ups)
Djokovic - 6 No. 1; five YEC (two runner-ups)
Murray - 1 No. 1; one YEC

Others who had won a Slam: Orantes, Stich

Other finalists with a Slam or more: Ashe, Wilander, Courier, Chang, Kafelnikov, Moya, Ferrero.

Notwithstanding the last few years, the correlation between Slam winners and YEC titlists is high, and between year-end No. 1 and YEC champ.

Maybe that is why it upsets Nadal so much - because the big Slam winners and world No. 1's win this title. Because it is BIG. Because it is important.

You created an imaginary story that doesn't match the article.

 

[Drob]

You created an imaginary story that doesn't match the article.

Wasn't trying to match the article. What would be the purpose of that? I was trying to address the misguided notion that ATP Finals is not a big deal. It is a Big Deal. I was trying to say that calling Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev "losers" is extremely
disrepectful to the game.

The article speaks for itself. I neither matched it nor contradicted it.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Yeah, it's the only missing piece to the collection.

Frankly, winning a second AO really puts him at a rare level by winning every slam twice.

Not sure which is "better" as a fan.

Gotta say if I had to choose one or the other, without hesitation I would much prefer he win a second Australian Open rather than WTF, even if he never gets a WTF.

That's not to say the WTF is not a huge title, but as you mention a double career grand slam is something very special.

 

[dropshotlikeitshot]

I was the opposite. I knew Nadal would benefit from losers like Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev winning the ATP Finals.
The more they win it, the more meaningless the event becomes.
Whereas if Nadal won it, people would keep saying how "Nadal only won it once, while Djokovic and Federer won it 5 times each".
It doesn't matter how many times Djokovic/Federer won the ATP Finals, because losers keep winning it every year.

Let’s say, over the next 5 years, Querrey, RBA, Raonic, Isner, and Coric win Wimbledon. During this same 5 year period, Djokovic wins ATP finals twice, and the remaining three are won by Thiem, Nadal, and Zverev. Does this mean that winning the ATP finals is a more meaningful accomplishment than winning Wimbledon?

 

[PrinceMoron]

I was the opposite. I knew Nadal would benefit from losers like Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev winning the ATP Finals.
The more they win it, the more meaningless the event becomes.
Whereas if Nadal won it, people would keep saying how "Nadal only won it once, while Djokovic and Federer won it 5 times each".
It doesn't matter how many times Djokovic/Federer won the ATP Finals, because losers keep winning it every year.

Talking of getting more meaningless

 

[blablavla]

Carlos needs to stop cheating the readers.

I think Carlos might be a Fed devotee

 

[octobrina10]

I think Carlos might be a Fed devotee

Your wishful thinking.

 

[D.Nalby12]

He basically conceded WTF is biggest hole in his resume.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Some posters have taken the position that for Nadal, not winning the ATP Finals would be better than him winning it just once. That argument never made any sense to me, and probably would make no sense to Rafa or anyone on his team.

On the other hand, let's not pretend as if any player has a perfect resume.Not winning the ATP Finals is not disqualifying of mythical GOAThood to most reasonable voices. Sampras, to most, was considered GOAT without even making a final at RG. (Until Roger, Rafa and Novak each surpassed him.)

So, I'm sure the loss really stung Rafa. He came there to win the tourney, and if he holds serve once more, he wins in straights and has more fuel left in the final (revenge) match v Thiem. By letting Med come back, he also lost 400...possibly 900...points.

As a fan, and if a choice, I'd rather see Rafa win at AO than WTF (another shlem and the DCGS) but both/either would be nice.

 

[alexio]

Some posters have taken the position that for Nadal, not winning the ATP Finals would be better than him winning it just once.

i wouldn't call it some but just one amazingly wonderful poster, or maybe i've missed something though

 

[octobrina10]

He basically conceded WTF is biggest hole in his resume.

It's just your interpretation.

 

[blablavla]

It's just your interpretation.

welcome to reality Nadal devotee.
He was serving for the match vs Daniil in case if you forgot.

 

[blablavla]

Some posters have taken the position that for Nadal, not winning the ATP Finals would be better than him winning it just once. That argument never made any sense to me, and probably would make no sense to Rafa or anyone on his team.

welcome to a mythical tennis forum, where losing in R1 is better than losing in SF or F
welcome to a mythical tennis forum, where if one player didn't defeat a Big 3 member in the final of a tournament, it is a Mickey Mouse tournament by definition

 

[octobrina10]

welcome to reality Nadal devotee.
He was serving for the match vs Daniil in case if you forgot.

Your reply has no connection with my comment you quoted.

 

[RaulRamirez]

welcome to a mythical tennis forum, where losing in R1 is better than losing in SF or F
welcome to a mythical tennis forum, where if one player didn't defeat a Big 3 member in the final of a tournament, it is a Mickey Mouse tournament by definition

Oh, I've been welcomed here steadily for more than two years by all sorts of ludicrous assertions by fans and detractors of all players.

 

[D.Nalby12]

It's just your interpretation.

Not just mine it's a logical interpretation.