Why is no Nadal fan ready to accept that even without injury Rafael would have had an extremely difficult match with Wawrinka?

[Mivic]

Federer and Nadal are clearly playing worse than in their primes. I don't really see a difference in Djokovic's game. He is still moving like he did in 25.

I don’t think you watch Djokovic if you can’t see areas of his game in which he’s declined. His movement is still very good, though I don’t think it’s quite at peak level. It’s the weight of shot and general year around consistency though (I still think Djokovic is capable of delivering the occasional near peak level performance even now), as other posters have noted, which have taken the biggest hit. Considering Djokovic’s weight of shot at AO19 vs Nadal, which is heralded as one of his best displays by many, the difference off the forehand side in particular is pretty noticeable to my eye even compared to the semi vs Federer three years earlier, where he was rifling forehands from behind the baseline at times with very solid depth and power (that may be the best I’ve ever seen Djokovic hit his forehand on a hardcourt). If you want go back to 2011, then the difference in pace and explosiveness off the ground is even starker.

 

[The Blond Blur]

It would have been a very tight match, but I don't see Stan winning without RAFA's back injury. Also, I don't think I've ever seen any RAFAN say it wouldn't have been a tough match. It's just that the outcome would most likely have been different.

 

[LETitBE]

no sign of any injury at all from nadal in the first eleven games and he could only win three of them
would have been a routine straight setter for stanimal,nadal was getting mugged out there

 

[weakera]

Nadal would have won in straights. He is a nightmare matchup for Stan, especially then as the numbers confirm.

 

[JoelSandwich]

Think Stan still wins because he was crushing the ball and was the more in form player
However Rafa won a set while injured so I could see this going 5

 

[StrongRule]

No it's not. His best match was actually a match he lost which was 2013 AO. Find me another performance where he played like that. I never said he played better at WTF anyway since I just said he served poorly. I said that was the only time I saw him play at that level again that year like he played in that AO final.

Ok, I should have said "the best match he WON".

 

[I Am Finnish]

Does it? Or maybe he is referring to the match up advantage Nadal has over Wawrinka.

My question to you is, do you think had Nadal made the RG 2015, that Wawrinka would have beat him there?

I do say yes

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

2013 and 2017 RG are a perfect explanation of how their Slam matches would look like when both are at their best.

Stan was not at his best in either.
Played gruelling 5 setters

 

[Deleted member 744633]

For the exact same reasons the Federer fans are unable to admit that Nadal beat Federer fair and square in the Wimbledon 2008 final ... fanboy/fanaticism or whatever you want to call it.

Wawrinka was a joy to watch in the AO 2014 final and much as it hurt to be on the receiving end as a Djokovic fan, add the '15 FO and '16 USO finals to that list. Stan deserved to win all of those finals!

 

[ForehandCross]

You wouldn't know - if we are to trust Rafa and that he injured himself during practice, it is highly possible that he had popped in a pain killer, the effect started wearing off after a set and you could evidently see his form deteriorating in the second set or it could be adrenaline pumping him for a set. If you don't want to trust his words, well look at the h2h between the two. Rafa would take it to fifth giving a fight. Could he have won? Perhaps. I would tend to say yes considering their history. But of course we never know.

My point is that ,set 1 was as good as Nadal was playing that tournament. Still got lost the set fair and square. Whether he was on painkillers or not doesn't matter, I meant to say he played without much effect of the injury in set 1.

 

[Azure]

My point is that ,set 1 was as good as Nadal was playing that tournament. Still got lost the set fair and square. Whether he was on painkillers or not doesn't matter, I meant to say he played without much effect of the injury in set 1.

Yes he did. He played very well and still lost the first set to Wawrinka. Whether Nadal wouldn't win other sets and whether Wawrinka could keep his sustained high level over five sets is something we can never know because Nadal was clearly hampered. Winning the first set alone is no guarantee of a win against a giant like Rafa. Remember that years later, Thiem would beat him 6-0 first set in the USO only to lose in five. We can never know what would have happened that day had Rafa brought on his better version.

 

[Backspin1183]

Stan was on fire that day. With no injury it could have been a 5 set classic that could either way. Wawrinka was definitely better in the first set.

 

[Lew II]

Nadal in his career hardly ever retired on clay or when he was winning...

 

[ForehandCross]

Yes he did. He played very well and still lost the first set to Wawrinka. Whether Nadal wouldn't win other sets and whether Wawrinka could keep his sustained high level over five sets is something we can never know because Nadal was clearly hampered. Winning the first set alone is no guarantee of a win against a giant like Rafa. Remember that years later, Thiem would beat him 6-0 first set in the USO only to lose in five. We can never know what would have happened that day had Rafa brought on his better version.

The entire thing about the first set is to give a basis to the thought that it could have been a close match despite Nadal not being injured. Not that Nadal would lose. He may very well end up winning.


The entire thread is about how many consider it a given that the match was going to be a straight forward Rafael victory.

 

[Lew II]

Slams skipped or lost by retirement since 2005:

On clay 1/15 (6.7%)
Off clay 9/61 (14.8%)

 

[Azure]

The entire thing about the first set is to give a basis to the thought that it could have been a close match despite Nadal not being injured. Not that Nadal would lose. He may very well end up winning.

Certainly. We have been robbed of what could have been a classic. He was injured or for the naysayers, at least not at his best which allowed a demolition of sorts despite the four sets.

The entire thread is about how many consider it a given that the match was going to be a straight forward Rafael victory.

I really don't know much about this bit. I was not around on these forums at that point in time and neither do I believe that any victory is a guarantee. They wouldn't be playing any matches if the results were a foregone conclusion. The posters here were probably carried away by the lopsided h2h between the two wonderful players. Besides, not all fans of the same player are the same

 

[The Blond Blur]

Slams skipped or lost by retirement since 2005:

On clay 1/15 (6.7%)
Off clay 9/61 (14.8%)

Conveniently left out RG 2003-2004

Including them it would actually come out to be 3/17 = 17.6%.

Also, lol the "off clay" events is literally 4x the amount of "on clay" events. Of course he's going to miss out on more off clay events when there are more opportunities to do so.

 

[Lew II]

Conveniently left out RG 2003-2004

Including them it would actually come out to be 3/17 = 17.6%.

Also, lol the "off clay" events is literally 4x the amount of "on clay" events. Of course he's going to miss out on more off clay events when there are more opportunities to do so.

I'm talking of percentages.

Before 2005 he was 17 years old.

He also skipped lots of yec/masters off clay while he only missed hamburg in 2005 and 2006 on clay.

 

[ADuck]

Nadal in his career hardly ever retired on clay or when he was winning...

People are hardly ever winning when playing injured. Dumb statement.

 

[The Blond Blur]

I'm talking of percentages.

Before 2005 he was 17 years old.

And? His percentage of missed clay events goes up and is higher than his non clay events missed when they are included.

He was 19 during AO 06, the point is he missed them. The longer he played the more injuries piled up and became more frequent.

 

[yokied]

Fed hasn’t had many problems with Cilic outside of USO14 but nobody seriously believes Fed had some issue.

The issue for Fed and the Nadal is the same: they played a goating opponent and just got blasted off the court.

 

[Lew II]

And? His percentage of missed clay events goes up and is higher than his non clay events missed when they are included.

He was 19 during AO 06, the point is he missed them. The longer he played the more injuries piled up and became more frequent.

Nadal skipped or withdrew from just 1 slam and 2 masters on his favourite surface in 15 years.

Does it look like a player damaged by injuries? I don't buy this narrative.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Nadal skipped or withdrew from just 1 slam and 2 masters on his favourite surface in 15 years.

Does it look like a player damaged by injuries? I don't buy this narrative.

He plans his season around the clay season, so of course his body is going to be primed/ in better condition for that time of the year. It's like Joker planning his season around the AO.

You're intentionally leaving out 2003-2004 when he missed several clay events when he still played more non clay events. He missed the entire spring CC season in 04, but that doesn't fit your agenda, so you just leave it out.

And I find it ironic that you don't buy the injury "narrative". Considering that out of the Big 3, your boy has retired from the most matches

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal skipped or withdrew from just 1 slam and 2 masters on his favourite surface in 15 years.

Does it look like a player damaged by injuries? I don't buy this narrative.

He had to show up and keep your boy from winning

 

[Gazelle]

Stan beat Djokovic at that AO. Wake me up when Nadal beats Djokovic at AO.

Until then, Stan beating Nadal (in any state) at the AO is the expected result, and requires no further explanation.

 

[Gazelle]

.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

He plans his season around the clay season, so of course his body is going to be primed/ in better condition for that time of the year. It's like Joker planning his season around the AO.

You're intentionally leaving out 2003-2004 when he missed several clay events when he still played more non clay events. He missed the entire spring CC season in 04, but that doesn't fit your agenda, so you just leave it out.

And I find it ironic that you don't buy the injury "narrative". Considering that out of the Big 3, your boy has retired from the most matches

In 2003 Nadal was playing tournaments like Barletta, Aix En Provence, Umag, Segovia, and St. Jean De Luz. To talk about Nadal's schedule at the time in the same breath as when he established himself as a force on clay is laugh-inducing, so accusing someone of "intentionally" missing or adding is a massive failure to look at the mirror (even if you would see only a blond blur there).

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Nadal skipped or withdrew from just 1 slam and 2 masters on his favourite surface in 15 years.

Does it look like a player damaged by injuries? I don't buy this narrative.

What’s your problem? Think a little.

Rafa is the best clay player ever existed on this planet. Probably no one will ever win as much as him on clay.... ever. He loves clay, of course. So he makes sure his health and fitness is at its best for clay season. He will do what takes so he can play clay every year. Federer is doing the same with grass.
There is only one “king” in tennis, and that’s Rafa on clay.

what is wrong with that? You only live once!
Do what you enjoy!

 

[StrongRule]

What’s your problem? Think a little.

Rafa is the best clay player ever existed on this planet. Probably no one will ever win as much as him on clay.... ever. He loves clay, of course. So he makes sure his health and fitness is at its best for clay season. He will do what takes so he can play clay every year. Federer is doing the same with grass.
There is only one “king” in tennis, and that’s Rafa on clay.

what is wrong with that? You only live once!
Do what you enjoy!

I think you are asking way too much from this person.

 

[weakera]

Slams skipped or lost by retirement since 2005:

On clay 1/15 (6.7%)
Off clay 9/61 (14.8%)

Nadal's knees have a much harder time with non-clay surfaces, especially very low bouncing ones when he needs to bend to retrieve balls. The rest of his body often suffers as a result of his attempts to compensate for this issue.

Additionally, Nadal can win RG at far less than 100%, giving him no reason to drop out even when hampered for it.

Additionally, as has already been pointed out, Nadal builds his entire schedule around the clay season and will always attempt to build his schedule to peak physically in May.

If not for his body failing him, Nadal would have won the AO in 2010 and 2014 easily for starters, and potentially other years as well.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

I think you are asking way too much from this person.

I know. Novak is the sun in his life.

 

[StrongRule]

Stan beat Djokovic at that AO. Wake me up when Nadal beats Djokovic at AO.

Until then, Stan beating Nadal (in any state) at the AO is the expected result, and requires no further explanation.

Using your logic Millman should have destroyed Nadal in the first round of USO 2019. After all, he beat Federer there, something Nadal never did.

 

[40L0VE]

Nothing for Nadal fans to be worried about as the winning percentages of the big 3 against Stan show

88% - Federer (23-3 h2h)
86% - Nadal (19- 3 h2h)
84% - <blank>
82% - <blank>
80% - <blank>
78% - <blank>
76% - Djokovic (19 -6 h2h)

 

[ForehandCross]

Nothing for Nadal fans to be worried about as the winning percentages of the big 3 against Stan show

88% - Federer (23-3 h2h)
86% - Nadal (19- 3 h2h)
84% - <blank>
82% - <blank>
80% - <blank>
78% - <blank>
76% - Djokovic (19 -6 h2h)

Yep that's exactly why Stan was blowing Federer off the court in Wimbledon 2014 and then made him retire in WTF 2014,and had beaten him at MC 2014 . He also beat him in straights at RG and then almost did it again at AO 2017.

So apart from USO 2015 not many easy matches for Federer against Wawrinka after 2013.

And this was AO HC, Wawrinka's favourite surface and a neutral one for Nadal.

 

[40L0VE]

Yep that's exactly why Stan was blowing Federer off the court in Wimbledon 2014 and then made him retire in WTF 2014,and had beaten him at MC 2014 . He also beat him in straights at RG and then almost did it again at AO 2017.

So apart from USO 2015 not many easy matches for Federer against Wawrinka after 2013.

And this was AO HC, Wawrinka's favourite surface and a neutral one for Nadal.

Still 88%, 86%,..........................76%.

 

[clayqueen]

Using your logic Millman should have destroyed Nadal in the first round of USO 2019. After all, he beat Federer there, something Nadal never did.

Nadal has never played Federer at the USO so it doesn't apply. You could say Federer lost in straight sets (76 62 64) to Robredo in R16 at the 2013 USO and Rafa beat Robredo in the QF in straight sets for the loss of 4 games (60 62 62); but I don't think it follows that Federer cannot possibly beat Rafa at the USO.

 

[junior74]

Delete

 

[weakera]

2015 RG Wawrinka was a very different player than 2017 RG Wawrinka (as was Nadal). No way Nadal wins in straights, when he lost in straights to Novak (who could easily have lost in straights in the final).

Wawrinka beat Nadal in straights in Rome a week prior to RG.

I don't know what you're talking about. You have the wrong tournament and year.

 

[junior74]

I don't know what you're talking about. You have the wrong tournament and year.

Sorry, I mixed two threads Deleted the post.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Very well said. Fed fans use the mono excuse, Nadal fans use his fake injury as an excuse, Djokovic fans still use his grandpa as an excuse for losing to Nadal on clay in 2012 (never mind that this was one of the best ever Nadals on clay, and that outside of one fluke year in 2011 Djokovic does nothing but lose to Nadal on clay, even much weaker versions) and on and on we go.

Thank you Machan! Yes, I agree. There's so much material, we can compile a book using the excuses some people come up with. They can cry themselves to sleep on that book

 

[The Blond Blur]

In 2003 Nadal was playing tournaments like Barletta, Aix En Provence, Umag, Segovia, and St. Jean De Luz. To talk about Nadal's schedule at the time in the same breath as when he established himself as a force on clay is laugh-inducing, so accusing someone of "intentionally" missing or adding is a massive failure to look at the mirror (even if you would see only a blond blur there).

What's laugh inducing is leaving out tournaments he had to miss due to injury to suit an argument. In 2003 he was also already playing MS1000s like Monte Carlo and Hamburg where in the former, he beat reigning RG champion Costa and, in the latter, he beat 98 champion and still top 5 CC Moya. Both of those wins were in straight sets to boot. He wasn't going to win any big titles that year, but the groundwork was already being laid down.

I love how you also completely leave out 2004 when he missed the entire CC swing when a year later in his first full CC season, he went on to practically sweep the European clay season.

But then again, I'm talking to Tennis_Foot In Mouth

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Yes he did. He played very well and still lost the first set to Wawrinka. Whether Nadal wouldn't win other sets and whether Wawrinka could keep his sustained high level over five sets is something we can never know because Nadal was clearly hampered. Winning the first set alone is no guarantee of a win against a giant like Rafa. Remember that years later, Thiem would beat him 6-0 first set in the USO only to lose in five. We can never know what would have happened that day had Rafa brought on his better version.

As for your highlighted point, that's a very good point. For the answer, we only have to turn to a couple of his matches against Djokovic ('15 FO final or '16 USO final). Those matches provide a clear answer ... yes, Stan could very well sustain a high level throughout a match when required.

 

[JaoSousa]

Yep that's exactly why Stan was blowing Federer off the court in Wimbledon 2014 and then made him retire in WTF 2014,and had beaten him at MC 2014 . He also beat him in straights at RG and then almost did it again at AO 2017.

So apart from USO 2015 not many easy matches for Federer against Wawrinka after 2013.

And this was AO HC, Wawrinka's favourite surface and a neutral one for Nadal.

Great point. Although a positive head to head rivalry can tell you about how close a match is going to be, it rarely tells the whole story.

 

[Azure]

As for your highlighted point, that's a very good point. For the answer, we only have to turn to a couple of his matches against Djokovic ('15 FO final or '16 USO final). Those matches provide a clear answer ... yes, Stan could very well sustain a high level throughout a match when required.

Yes my friend. As I mentioned earlier, we lost a potential classic.

 

[Ray Mercer]

Wawrinka was crushing the ball off both sides in that tournament. Unlike on clay Nadal couldn’t just topspin his backhand to death and ball retrieve. Slow hardcourt is the perfect surface for Stan. Djokovic always becomes a pusher when he meets Stan. He’s scared ****less to trade power shots.

 

[marc45]

just from their head to head I would see a win..maybe a tight one, but maybe not

 

[danglarND2010]

Going into this match I thought wawrinka was the favorite, he just beat djokovic in his domain and nadal was nothing special in this tournament. I think stan would have won anyway. Ever since nadals victory at the USO 2013 he wasn't quite the same player anymore, the physical decline was noticeable and his mental toughness softened, he did good to adapt though, that's why he is such a massive champion.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Yes my friend. As I mentioned earlier, we lost a potential classic.

Agreed

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Wawrinka was crushing the ball off both sides in that tournament. Unlike on clay Nadal couldn’t just topspin his backhand to death and ball retrieve. Slow hardcourt is the perfect surface for Stan. Djokovic always becomes a pusher when he meets Stan. He’s scared ****less to trade power shots.

I watched some highlights recently and was surprised by how often Djokovic was scrambling just to stay in the point while Stan was busy crushing the ball from every part of the court

 

[Ray Mercer]

I watched some highlights recently and was surprised by how often Djokovic was scrambling just to stay in the point while Stan was busy crushing the ball from every part of the court

Its amazing to watch Stan when he’s on. It’s exactly how most club players wish they could play. I wish Federer could hit through the backhand like Stan can on slow surfaces. Federer does everything better than Stan except the backhand drive and this makes all the difference in the world against Djokovic. Djokovic gets a fair amount of cheap points from Federer by drawing the error or getting him to cough up a shorter ball on the backhand side. Wawrinka on the other hand can crush the backhand on a slower surface and get Djokovic scrambling.