Should Nadal be mad?

[BHud]

Yes he should be mad, but everyone else put on their big boy pants when they went on the court. Nads just seemed to pout...unprofessional no matter what the excuse! His opponent had to play under the same conditions and is now up 3-0...good for him!

 

[cc0509]

Come on guy, nobody is saying RAfa sucks off clay, but statistically speaking, Rafa by now should have lucked up and defended one title outside of clay.

I will give him a half credit for Wimbledon because of 09, but it is curious tha he has never defended a non clay title. For a guy of his calibur.

THAT is my main point. This guy who is supposed to be one of the greatest, and, by his achievements he obviously is one of the greatest, should have been able to defend at least one non-clay title. The fact that he has not, just adds to the theory that he is great no doubt but most of that greatness has come on clay. People who can't see that are in denial.

 

[cc0509]

Yes he should be mad, but everyone else put on their big boy pants when they went on the court. Nads just seemed to pout...unprofessional no matter what the excuse! His opponent had to play under the same conditions and is now up 3-0...good for him!

But the difference is who is going to listen to a guy like Muller if he complains? Only the top guns will be listened to such as Nadal, Murray, Federer, etc.

 

[cc0509]

Yea to be honest this defending stuff only comes into picture since Federer stats are pretty much over 9000 everywhere. It would be interesting to see how much Sampras or Borg or Laver defended their titles on all 3 surfaces.

Oh oh, that is a mating call for Mustard!

 

[namelessone]

Come on guy, nobody is saying RAfa sucks off clay, but statistically speaking, Rafa by now should have lucked up and defended one title outside of clay.

I will give him a half credit for Wimbledon because of 09, but it is curious tha he has never defended a non clay title. For a guy of his calibur.

It's curios because you are not looking at the likelyhood of it happening, which is actually quite small.

Think about it. Nadal wins ONE or TWO(usually) non-clay titles per year, right? Usually WB and a HC MS/HC smaller tourney. In order to mount a proper defense, he needs to be physically fit + have his game on + be willing to win THOSE EXACT SAME TOURNIES. Not another 2 or 3(which would be nice as well), but those exact same tournaments.

If Nadal won more couple of non-clay tournies per year(say a nr larger than two) and didn't defend any for a couple of years than that would be weird. Not to mention that you aren't taking into account preferred surface. Nadal want so defend his CLAY titles first, and then go on to get points(not necessarily titles) from HC and grass. His perspective is to defend clay first so he doesn't have a lot of focus(compared to clay) on winning, much less defending non-clay titles. I mean, Rafa was in the top 2(or something like that) of HC points at the end of 2009(horrible year) and he won just ONE non-clay tournament, AO, in January.

 

[OddJack]

The actual weakness would be winning so few of them in 7 years, not failing to defending them.

The likelyhood is far smaller than you think. If you win 1-2 titles PER YEAR(if that), what are the odds that you will defend EXACTLY those 1-2 next year?

Now if Rafa has something close to 20-25 titles off clay and never defended a single one, that would be freaking weird.

Hehe...Nameless, you are making it about odds? Comon buddy, you know better than that and can do better.

 

[namelessone]

THAT is my main point. This guy who is supposed to be one of the greatest, and, by his achievements he obviously is one of the greatest, should have been able to defend at least one non-clay title. The fact that he has not, just adds to the theory that he is great no doubt but most of that greatness has come on clay. People who can't see that are in denial.

Sampras in the top tier of GOATS and I doubt he defended a single clay title(sorry, can't be bothered to look it up, I gotta go).

 

[cc0509]

Tell that to David Nalbandian.

Seriously, this isnt a tour title where you never know if a guy is giving his best or just tweaking his game. Presumably in a slam players are going all out and the intensity of the matches is cranked up. So, again, its not the same as a master series event.

Second, I dont want to see two guys who can barely move slugging it out, I want top quality tennis. I dont wanna some guy on the court dead tired take a pounding. Yes fitness is a part of tennis but again, this is a slam where every match is life and death, not the same intensity as a regular tour event.

That said, we may as well hand the title to Djokovic. I dont even think Nadal, at this stage in his career could recover so well.

When a player is "hot" and one of the best in the world he will find a way to win the title during a slam. Yes it is a bummer that the men will have to play their last matches on back to back days, but these guys have physiotherapists, trainers, you name it at their disposal. I just don't buy that having to play a few days in a row is going to be the difference in who wins the title.

 

[SLD76]

Sampras in the top tier of GOATS and I doubt he defended a single clay title(sorry, can't be bothered to look it up, I gotta go).

yeah, I already addressed that. The one thing that cloaked his failure on clay was he won 14 slams. If he had won say 7, much more would have been made about it.

If rafa only had 6 slams, all at the FO . No one would make a big deal about his prowess outside of clay. But for a guy with 2 HC majors and 2 wimbly (who some would put in the goat discussion) it raises eyebrows a bit that he hasnt defended a single title that was grass or HC .

 

[cc0509]

Sampras in the top tier of GOATS and I doubt he defended a single clay title(sorry, can't be bothered to look it up, I gotta go).

I don't think Sampras ever did defend a clay title but that is a check for me and my argument. Sampras, as great as he was, had that one glaring weakness on his resume--i.e. never winning a clay slam and defending a clay title.

 

[SLD76]

When a player is "hot" and one of the best in the world he will find a way to win the title during a slam. Yes it is a bummer that the men will have to play their last matches on back to back days, but these guys have physiotherapists, trainers, you name it at their disposal. I just don't buy that having to play a few days in a row is going to be the difference in who wins the title.

best of 5 back to back is completely different to best of 3.

 

[SLD76]

I don't think Sampras ever did defend a clay title but that is a check for me and my argument. Sampras, as great as he was, had that one glaring weakness on his resume--i.e. never winning a clay slam and defending a clay title.

pete barely won a clay title, much less defend it.

Again, you remember the thread, Pete and Rafa are two sides of the same coin. Dominant on one( or two) surfaces, and then enfeebled on their kryptonite surface. Though Rafa is way better on HC than Pete ever was on clay. Rafa blows pete out of the water in terms of accomplishments on their off surface.

 

[cc0509]

best of 5 back to back is completely different to best of 3.

I completely agree with you but I still stand by my opinion that at the end of the day the best player in that final match will win the trophy even if one player may be a little more disadvantaged due to any extraneous factors. That is the way it goes in tennis sometimes. These are still pro tennis players and the best guy goes out there to win.

 

[El Diablo]

Yes, Rafa, it'a all about the money for those terrible people. And I'm sure your coach/uncle wears an Iberostar hat because of all the fine work that hotel chain does for the indiginous poor, rather than for money. Players who festoon themselves with endorsement labels and who would likely endorse a switchblade company if the offer were high enough (HOW much does Nike pay those Indonesians, Rafa?) should not be castigating others for their desire to make money.

 

[cc0509]

pete barely won a clay title, much less defend it.

Again, you remember the thread, Pete and Rafa are two sides of the same coin. Dominant on one( or two) surfaces, and then enfeebled on their kryptonite surface. Though Rafa is way better on HC than Pete ever was on clay. Rafa blows pete out of the water in terms of accomplishments on their off surface.

I agree, however even though Sampras was a lot weaker on his weakest surface than Rafa is on his weakest, Sampras still has 4 more slams plus the weeks at number 1 record, so he is above Rafa at this point.

 

[cc0509]

Yes, Rafa, it'a all about the money for those terrible people. And I'm sure your coach/uncle wears an Iberostar hat because of all the fine work that hotel chain does for the indiginous poor, rather than for money. Players who festoon themselves with endorsement labels and who would likely endorse a switchblade company if the offer were high enough (HOW much does Nike pay those Indonesians, Rafa?) should not be castigating others for their desire to make money.

 

[SLD76]

I agree, however even though Sampras was a lot weaker on his weakest surface than Rafa is on his weakest, Sampras still has 4 more slams plus the weeks at number 1 record, so he is above Rafa at this point.

true. which is why I say nobody made an issue out of pete's weakness on clay because of the slams he won. and yes, the week's at number 1 as well.

but lets say he had the week's at number one but say only 7 slams...4 wimbly, 2 uso, 1 AO....would it have been up for debate?

 

[marcub]

I agree, however even though Sampras was a lot weaker on his weakest surface than Rafa is on his weakest, Sampras still has 4 more slams plus the weeks at number 1 record, so he is above Rafa at this point.

I'm no Ralph fan and was rooting for Pete in the 90s, but Ralph is a way more complete player, I would even say simply better. The single one aspect that put Sampras where he is at was his serve.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

In order to do their job they need a (mostly) dry court to play on. The USTA didn't provide that for them and yet they expected them to go out and play, risking injury in the process, not to mention that the tennis would have been of low quality.

Nadal,Roddick,Murray,Ferrer(all the major players still in 4th round) said that the courts were wet(danger of slipping) and Murray even said that the balls had soaked up water.

Read up on the situation. Everybody is siding with the players on this one and blaming the USTA for its incompetence in organizing this slam.

what the frack do i care what the flock of seaguls thinks?

 

[SLD76]

I'm no Ralph fan and was rooting for Pete in the 90s, but Ralph is a way more complete player, I would even say simply better. The single one aspect that put Sampras where he is at was his serve.

I dunno, I give Pete more credit for the weeks at number 1 record..especially as it was in the "strong" 90's

but seriously, that level of consistency is worth something.

 

[marcub]

I dunno, I give Pete more credit for the number 1 record..especially as it was in the "strong" 90's

but seriously, that level of consistency consistency is worth something.

Yes, speaking of consistency - Pete was above Ralph. After all I had just said above that Ralph is not that consistent.

Of course, now the gold standard in terms of consistency is Fed.

 

[marcub]

I dunno, I give Pete more credit for the number 1 record..especially as it was in the "strong" 90's

but seriously, that level of consistency consistency is worth something.

Also, the strong 90s is very relative. Murray and Roddick would have each at least a couple of Slams had they been born a decade earlier. Courier would be anonymous nowadays. Same for Chang, korda, Rafter or Krajicek.

 

[SLD76]

Guga won 3 titles in RG, yet only 2 consecutive. He is considered by many as the second best claycourter after Rafa in the last 20 years(due to his RG titles) yet he has, on all surfaces, ONE, just ONE title defense, RG 2000-2001.

Guga couldn't defend a title on his fav surface except RG yet he is considered one of the greats.

And Rafa can't defend titles except on his fave surface and yet he is considered one of the greats. Your point?

Actually, you make my pt for me. Rafa's achievments blow Guga, who is considered a clay great, out of the water.

Therefore, if he is so much better, why can't he defend a title outside of clay?

 

[cc0509]

=marcub;5974310]I'm no Ralph fan and was rooting for Pete in the 90s, but Ralph is a way more complete player, I would even say simply better. The single one aspect that put Sampras where he is at was his serve.[/

Don't know if I agree with you there and I am not a big Sampras lover. Sampras had his serve, both first and second serve, and he could volley and he had a great forehand, especially running forehand. Nadal is the better athlete and has better defense and agility. Also has a great forehand with that killer topspin. I would say it is a wash between the two or it would be close.

To me Federer is a more complete player than both Sampras and Nadal.

 

[cc0509]

true. which is why I say nobody made an issue out of pete's weakness on clay because of the slams he won. and yes, the week's at number 1 as well.

but lets say he had the week's at number one but say only 7 slams...4 wimbly, 2 uso, 1 AO....would it have been up for debate?

Nope........

 

[marcub]

Don't know if I agree with you there and I am not a big Sampras lover. Sampras had his serve, both first and second serve, and he could volley and he had a great forehand, especially running forehand. Nadal is the better athlete and has better defense and agility. Also has a great forehand with that killer topspin. I would say it is a wash between the two or it would be close.

To me Federer is a more complete player than both Sampras and Nadal.

Agree about the Fed part, no doubt.
Of Samapras - don't forget that his great volleys and running forehands were set up by the serve. That was always the key. An off day on serve and the volleys ain't that great no more.

 

[SLD76]

Agree about the Fed part, no doubt.
Of Samapras - don't forget that his great volleys and running forehands were set up by the serve. That was always the key. An off day on serve and the volleys ain't that great no more.

he volleyed pretty well off the return game too.

 

[marcub]

he volleyed pretty well off the return game too.

Can't agree with that. You would rarely see a Sampras set with a score other than 7-6. Not that great a return game.

 

[SwissTennisBall]

He can't do that playing 4 days in a row.

If Nadal has to play 4 days in a row, wouldn't his opponents have to do that as well? That's pretty fair isn't it? Besides, tennis is a sport and should ultimately be a competition of not only skill but fitness, endurance and mental strength as well.

I think its fine even if USTA wants to squeeze 2 matches in a day, just as long as each player does not have an unfair advantage relating to how the matches are scheduled.

 

[SLD76]

Can't agree with that. You would rarely see a Sampras set with a score other than 7-6. Not that great a return game.

Umm...that is patently false.

 

[zagor]

I don't want him to be put in this situation. If he has to play 4 best of five matches in 4 days I'd rather see him losing to Muller and go home.

No player (or his fans) wants to be put in this situation but **** happens, USO should have roof over Armstrong(if Wimbledon/AO can invest in that so can USO no doubt) but that's the way things are at the moment. Things went Nadal's way last year( I think almost every player he faced was coming off a 5 setter) but this time around he got unlucky which doesn't mean he can't or won't overcome it(I'm sure he still believes he can prevail as he should).

He won't lose to Muller either way so that's an irrelevant point. Roddick/Ferrer and potentially Murray could be tough.

I don't care how many times this has happened in the past or if he's capable of winning like this or not. Precisely because it happened so many times he needs to stand up and say something about this. If he could moan about the slippery courts yesterday then surely he can say something about the stupid scheduling.

Well it didn't happen that many times (it's not that often that rain completely wrecks a slam, it happens but it's not a norm), so far it only happened once for Nadal(at Wimbledon in 2007 I think he played 4 days in a row)and we still don't know if he'll have to play 4 days in a row here, last 2 final were on Monday because it rained on Sunday.

He can say something about it but it won't change a thing, it's not some personal conspiracy thing against him in particular, it's just the way USO has always worked. Heck arguably the nicest guy in tennis ever and a crowd favourite whenever he went Edberg had to play 4 days in a row to win 1992 USO and on 3 of those days he played 5 setters.

 

[SwissTennisBall]

Nadal is not the problem. I am not a Rafa freak (great player though) but he should recieve a giant wave of graditude by both the players and the fans. He has taken a tough stand against the machine that is killing the sport. He basically called it out...."its always about the money isnt it". He gained nothing from this stance and by bringing it to public awareness he puts himself in a tough position with the all powerful in the machine. It takes a lot of guts to call out the USTA and ATP to a public audience.

THANK YOU Rafeal Nadal for making a stand and making an effort to protect the sport. You showed me a lot this tournament. Things more important than just winning another title.

True on this one

 

[namelessone]

And Rafa can't defend titles except on his fave surface and yet he is considered one of the greats. Your point?

Actually, you make my pt for me. Rafa's achievments blow Guga, who is considered a clay great, out of the water.

Therefore, if he is so much better, why can't he defend a title outside of clay?

My point is that you and "can't defend titles off clay" crew are making a invalid point, because you are taking it one step too far. In essence we are saying the same thing, only I am stoping at the winning part. Why?

Because Rafa should be able to win non-clay titles CONSISTENTLY before we can analyze if he can defend his non-clay titles or not. Winning first, defending later as it were.

Right now, Rafa is winning 1-2 non-clay titles per year out of the 18-20 tourneys he enters each year. Defending would require him to win EXACTLY THOSE next year. The odds are actually very small. Look at guys who are far better on HC than Rafa. Murray has defended only twice on his best surface, HC, even though something like 90% of his titles are on hard. I don't have to tell you how many times Rafa has defended on clay.

The real question is why Rafa didn't WIN more HC titles, not why didn't he defend his measly 1-2 per year. If he won more, he would have more shots to defend, know what I'm saying?

Take years like 2006 or 2007.

In 2006, Rafa wins his only non-clay title for the year in Dubai. Next year, in 2007, he has ONE SHOT to defend a non-clay title, Dubai or bust basically. He goes out in Dubai 2007 QF so he failed to defend his off-clay title for the whole year of 2007.

In 2007, Rafa wins his only non-clay title in IW. In 2008, again, he has ONE SHOT to defend a non-clay title. If he doesn't(he didn't), he fails non-clay title defence for the whole year.

It's ridiculous to analyze Rafa non-clay title defenses when the guy won so few of them over the years. He had few shots at defenses so its only natural that he missed them.

You should analyze defenses when we have a large enough sample of non-clay title wins for Rafa in a year. I mean, if he won 4-5 clay titles in a year, it would be weird if he didn't defend any, right? It would be the same if it were so for non-clay titles as well, only Rafa's nr. is 1-2 non-clay per year(if that) so his shots are few to begin with.

Rafa's yearly non clay count(just HC since grass doesn't basically have a season) since 2005:

2005 - 3
2006 - 1
2007 - 1
2008 - 2
2009 - 2
2010 - 2
2011 - 0 so far.

And remember these are 1-2 per year when Rafa plays about 5-6 HC MS, 2 HC slams, WTF, and a couple of 250 and 500 events. So somethere in the area of 10-11 HC tourneys. Out of 10-11 HC tourney, wins basically 2(actually 1,57 so far) every year. To defend he needs one of those EXACT TWO(or worse, that exact ONE). Odds are quite small for a repeat, considering Rafa's yearly nr of titles.

 

[marcub]

Umm...that is patently false.

Now let's not take that literally...
I think it's fair to say many of his sets ended up with that score. Way more than other guys who were better returners/ worse servers than him.

 

[srinrajesh]

Typical nadal complaining about everything. He should realize its not only effecting him.

Two days of rained out tennis and a sh1t storm erupts on TW. Everyone should chill out, no one can control the weather, and there isn't a roof so you can't do anything about it.

Of course the USTA can.. they have to postpone the semis to sunday and play final on monday so it gives a slightly better chance to bottom half .. they would still have to play 4 (best of 5 set ) matches in 5 days even if they get day off on saturday. Otherwise it is a sham and top half player more likely to win & end up an undeserving champion

 

[zagor]

Of course the USTA can.. they have to postpone the semis to sunday and play final on monday so it gives a slightly better chance to bottom half .. they would still have to play 4 (best of 5 set ) matches in 5 days even if they get day off on saturday. Otherwise it is a sham and top half player more likely to win & end up an undeserving champion

LOL! Hilarious stuff.

Sorry but whomever wins will be a deserving champion.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

I found these quotes related to Possum being mad

 

[cc0509]

Of course the USTA can.. they have to postpone the semis to sunday and play final on monday so it gives a slightly better chance to bottom half .. they would still have to play 4 (best of 5 set ) matches in 5 days even if they get day off on saturday. Otherwise it is a sham and top half player more likely to win & end up an undeserving champion

The men are playing the finals on Monday now. It is all fair and good now.
Whoever wins this championship will be the deserving winner, end of story.
People are always looking for excuses when a player loses. It is really stupid. They are pro tennis players and their only job is to be fit and play tennis matches. The top players have many things at their disposal to make them heal faster between matches--i.e. trainers, physiotherapists ,etc. When two players step on the court, all is fair and square and the only thing that matters is the win. History books don't have asterisks beside winners names saying player A did not have enough rest so really this win was tainted, only people on tennis boards come up with this stuff.