Nothing Much Has Changed Thinks Rafa

First topic message reminder :

So much talk that the tennis landscape has changed and in particular it has changed because of Murray's win in the US. Nice to hear that someone agrees with me in that they see little change.

Via conference call, Nadal told a group of us on Tuesday that he doesn’t put much stock in the notion that the articles of tennis war have changed with Andy Murray’s recent, long-deferred transformation from major also-ran into Grand Slam champion.

“I don’t see a big difference now,” Nadal said

“Even if Murray didn’t win a Grand Slam before, the level was not different from before,” Nadal continued. “Now he won a Grand Slam. But that is not going to change my thought on this. Even if he was or even if he was not (a Grand Slam winner) he’s a fantastic player and that’s how I see him.”

Nadal also indicated that he will not be changing his schedule too much. (Sadly for Federer and Djokovic who must have had their fingers crossed he would just stick to having gentle work outs playing challengers on clay in South America...)

But he outright rejected the option of drastically reducing his participation in courts that are least friendly to his legs.

“My feeling is that the hard courts is more aggressive (harmful) for my knees and ankles. But today, it’s one of the most important surfaces. I don’t have a lot of chance to change my schedule. If I want to stay at the top level, I have to accept this.”

http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/10/bodo-rafa-bites-bullet/39721/#.UHUR4K5Bat8

bogbrush wrote:

lydian wrote:Surely if it was racial abuse as stated that poster would now be banned.

You'd think so wouldn't you?

Given socal's emphasis on criticising me I think it appropriate he makes it clear it was not me. It's disappointing that he hasn't one that but perhaps he has left for now and will do so when he returns. Certainly I've never done anything that could even be interpreted that way, but to many members his post could easily cause them to think otherwise. It's very important he sets that record straight.

Well I can vouch it's not you who said those comments.

It Must Be Love wrote:

lydian wrote:
do you not see the potential for ambiguity in the original statement...and why BB, for one, picked up on this?

I understood what Socal was saying, but I can type of understand why it may have been ambiguous for some.
In future I think if the comments are cleared up (before anyone debunks/supports it) then that would avoid any misunderstanding.

If I'm sarcastic on forum I throw in a smiley to that effect. The format just doesn't lend itself to clarity on sarcasm, of all things, otherwise. Especially if you rely on implying Gilbert was a great to make it work!

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

lydian wrote:
do you not see the potential for ambiguity in the original statement...and why BB, for one, picked up on this?

I understood what Socal was saying, but I can type of understand why it may have been ambiguous for some.
In future I think if the comments are cleared up (before anyone debunks/supports it) then that would avoid any misunderstanding.

If I'm sarcastic on forum I throw in a smiley to that effect. The format just doesn't lend itself to clarity on sarcasm, of all things, otherwise. Especially if you rely on implying Gilbert was a great to make it work!

Well you still could have cleared it up imo.
I understood it, but can see why some may find it ambiguous.

Anyway... moving on.

A bit more of the interview transcript:

Q: Did you watch any of the US Open at all, and how hard was it not to be there considering it's the first one you've missed since you played your first one back in 2003?

Nadal: I watched a few matches. Sure, it was tough to take a position like them playing in one of the most important tournaments of the year to know I played in the finals the last three years it's something bad … It's hard…I had success the first part of the season … I have to work hard every day to be back as soon as possible on the tennis court and back to competition …

Q: Novak said after Andy Murray won the US Open that tennis would be more interesting in 2013 because now you have four guys who won majors. Do you agree with that and how much more interesting can it get with all four of you having won a major?

Nadal: I really don't see a big difference. Even if Andy doesn't win a Grand Slam before this US Open Andy was ready to win a Grand Slam … The level was no difference. Now that he won a Grand Slam that is not going to change my thoughts…when I go on a tennis court with Andy Murray … hopefully I will have the feeling that I can win.. Even he doesn't win the Grand Slam I think he is a fantastic player and his chances to win Grand Slams … are always high..

If you got why Gilbert worked as sarcasm about the 80's could you explain it to me? I still don't get it.

Fair enough IMBL re: the "you" comment.

I can see all sides on this one and don't think it's frankly worth the big fall out.

The issue was in choosing Gilbert as an example player to lump in with McEnroe - did Socal mean Gilbert was on a par with Macca or not?

Most if us would think not...which was the basis of the issue that followed.

It's also good to clear up the racial abuse comment so it's not perceived to be directed at posters present on this thread.

bogbrush wrote:If you got why Gilbert worked on that could you explain it to me? I still not get it.

Gilbert wasn't a great player- his records in slams weren't great.
The discussion was on Haas, and how him getting so high in the rankings at this age, shows the era is not as good as it seems.
Socal was arguing that we can't rely on people who aren't a threat in slams to judge an era, instead we should look more at the people who make a difference in slams.
Gilbert didn't have a big impact in slams, but yet appeared in the top 10 in the latter stages of the 80s/early 90s when he was approaching 30 years old. Socal sarcastically was saying that the same logic used to denounce this era using Haas, could be used to say the 80's stank- which wasn't true.
Hence he was arguing we can't use Haas to denounce/debunk this era.

More from Rafa:

Q: Do you have thoughts on the debate about prize money, and do you expect the players to be united as this moves forward next of course with the French Open?

Nadal: Well, the last couple of months I have been out of the competition, so I really have no idea about all of these discussions about the rights of the players…Today they have more information than me…In anything, the prize money, anything that can improve hours for the players

Q: Do you think the players deserve more of the money from the grand slams?

Nadal: You know the thing is not what I think. What I think is nothing because I'm one player that… what is best for the Grand Slams, what is best for the players …It has nothing to do…we have a great and powerful ATP…I think they are doing the job for us…they are working hard to create a better tour…Improve the relationship with the Grand Slams…It would work with the support of the players I really have no right to say it's…it's not fair, who's upset, how much they have to put…I can say that they're happy about our sport and they continue moving in a very good direction I am happy to be part of this sport …Things that can improve? Always things can improve…

Yes IMBL, but this present discussion hinges around the use of Gilbert as the fulcrum for sarcasm. Socal said "I think 80s stank, never mind Connors and mcenroe how the hell did brad gilbert make the top ten". The implication here is that Gilbert must be on same quality level to make that statement work as sarcasm. But he wasn't. So if he wasn't as good it makes the statement ambiguous and open to misinterpretation...or taken at face value, i.e. the poster indeed thought the 80s stank. See the issue?

Anyway, it's not worth disappearing down much further. Perhaps socal can simply inform if he meant Gilbert to be on the same level as McEnroe and Connors.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:If you got why Gilbert worked on that could you explain it to me? I still not get it.

Gilbert wasn't a great player- his records in slams weren't great.
The discussion was on Haas, and how him getting so high in the rankings at this age, shows the era is not as good as it seems.
Socal was arguing that we can't rely on people who aren't a threat in slams to judge an era, instead we should look more at the people who make a difference in slams.
Gilbert didn't have a big impact in slams, but yet appeared in the top 10 in the latter stages of the 80s/early 90s when he was approaching 30 years old. Socal sarcastically was saying that the same logic used to denounce this era using Haas, could be used to say the 80's stank- which wasn't true.
Hence he was arguing we can't use Haas to denounce/debunk this era.

Then his sarcasm was based on a misunderstanding of the point, so no wonder it was obscure. Haas wasn't being used to slag this era; I was using his slight (he's not actually doing that well) success at 35 today to contrast to his lack of much success when much younger in the so-called 'weak era'. Hence why I said he was a weak era relic, mocking the concept of the weak era (as I mock the idea of a Golden Era).

I have never made an argument that we are now in a weak era. There'd simply be no basis to make a sarcastic comment directed towards that.

lydian wrote:Yes IMBL, but this present discussion hinges around the use of Gilbert as the fulcrum for sarcasm. Socal said "I think 80s stank, never mind Connors and mcenroe how the hell did brad gilbert make the top ten". Perhaps socal can simply inform if he meant Gilbert to be on the same level as McEnroe and Connors.

As I've said I can see how it could be confusing, I agree with you to that extent. That's why I believe one should seek further clarification, before analysing the statement.
In this case, the comparison between the current situation and the 80's made it pretty clear:
ie, I think the 10's stank- never-mind Nadal, Federer and Djokovic how the hell did Haas get into the top 30.
The sarcasm was hinting that we should judge the era on the top players, rather than players such as Haas or Gilbert who have no impact on slams.

Anyway.... what did you think of Nadal's comments?

Oh no, not multiple misunderstandings. This could get ugly...lol.

But was Haas better than Gilbert, that's the burning question

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:If you got why Gilbert worked on that could you explain it to me? I still not get it.

Gilbert wasn't a great player- his records in slams weren't great.
The discussion was on Haas, and how him getting so high in the rankings at this age, shows the era is not as good as it seems.
Socal was arguing that we can't rely on people who aren't a threat in slams to judge an era, instead we should look more at the people who make a difference in slams.
Gilbert didn't have a big impact in slams, but yet appeared in the top 10 in the latter stages of the 80s/early 90s when he was approaching 30 years old. Socal sarcastically was saying that the same logic used to denounce this era using Haas, could be used to say the 80's stank- which wasn't true.
Hence he was arguing we can't use Haas to denounce/debunk this era.

Then his sarcasm was based on a misunderstanding of the point, so no wonder it was obscure. Haas wasn't being used to slag this era; I was using his slight (he's not actually doing that well) success at 35 today to contrast to his lack of much success when much younger in the so-called 'weak era'. Hence why I said he was a weak era relic, mocking the concept of the weak era (as I mock the idea of a Golden Era).

I have never made an argument that we are now in a weak era. There'd simply be no basis to make a sarcastic comment directed towards that.

I think Hawkeye made a point slagging this era.

But to be fair IMBL, sometimes the ambiguity only crops up after the response to the response. The original statement may seem clear and unnecessary to seek clarification before responding.

Sounded like Rafa was ducking the question to me.

I actually think Rafa was right; too much can be made by fans of these things and his comments smacked of perspective. Murray was a threat before, he still is now.

If you wanted to find one thing of true impact from the USO it was, to me, that Murray won the 5th because he ran the legs off Djokovic. Now that's never happened before, and it would be interesting to see whether Djokovic feels he has to push for a few faster points next time they meet.

...or spend more time in the oxygen capsule.

To be fair I think Novak burnt so much nervous energy clearly fighting the wind for 2-3 sets it left him spent for the 5th. I don't believe Murray is fundamentally fitter, or that Novak normally does more running than him - I think Djokovic dictates play more than Murray. Just an unusual set of circumstances those last 2-3 days with the high winds.

lydian wrote:...or spend more time in the oxygen capsule.

To be fair I think Novak burnt so much nervous energy clearly fighting the wind for 2-3 sets it left him spent for the 5th.

Maybe it was that. Murray was very comfortable in that environment.

Djokovic actually hit more winners in the final than Murray, I think the key difference was Murray held his nerve in the final set. Th early break in the 5th was crucial for momentum.

Djokovic probably felt he had to go for winners rather than rely on rallying in the wind. Do you not remember how the wind threw him against Ferrer (lost 1st set 6-2!) in the semis until they came back the next day? He's not good in the wind, his game is built around quite precise timing - he doesn't hit the ball as high over the net as Murray, it's a flatter shot. His ball toss on serve is also much higher...like Berdy's who also couldn't cope with the wind when he played Murray in the other semi.

As I said, I think fighting the conditions as much as Murray taxed Djokovic hugely. He had nothing left in the 5th to give...in contrast to their earlier encounter 5 setter at AO12.