If The Monte Carlo Final Was Over 5 Sets Rafa Would Have Won!

That's what Andrew Castle said yesterday whilst commenting on the 2nd Nadal match of the day in Barcelona. Ha ha! I bet he'd be too scared to come and say it here though... I feel quite happy saying it because I am just quoting him

I dont think so!! I mean, how? Sure if every set went like the second, I suppose there was a chance. But Nadal simply wasnt beating Djoko on Sunday

Yes I think we should petition the ATP to asterisk this victory. This is getting really daft, one group of Nadal fans say he lost the match because he lacked match fitness and got tired. Another group as the milli vinilli song goes "blame it on the rain". I mean because it isn't like Djokovic has ever beaten Nadal over 5 sets now is it? The man lost 11 of the last 12 points of the match, and djokovic had two set points for a 6-0 love set. Andrew Castle is obviously a Nadal jock sniffer, an idiot, or both. If this match was over five sets, at sea level, on dry clay, against Nadal of 08 he would definetly win. Whatever helps you get over the fact that Djokovic 2.0 has got the upper hand.

Isn't he Djokovic 3.0? Or was it Super-Saiyan 3?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/djokovic-nadal-conditions-dictate-title-2013-french-open-153600106.html

This just in Novak to hire a native American shaman and add him to his team, prior to any match with Nadal said shaman will do a rain dance followed by an African witch doctor who will cut the heads off a few chickens in order to induce the all important rain. Apparently, it never rained in Europe during the clay court seasons of 05-12.

PS who the freaking F is Super-Saiyan 3 it sounds like a bad Japanese monster movie from the 60s, did Godzilla ever fight Super-Saiyan 3?

Yes Lydian I read the same article except idiot boy doesn't mention the fact that there was a light rain throughout the start of the match. He claims conditions were sunny and dry at the beginning of the match, a moron who claims to report on a match and just makes up the fact that it was dry at the start when in actuality early in the match they stopped play because of the rain. When Nadal wins two sets in a drizzle it is because he is the king of clay, when Novak wins 8 games in a row in the rain it is because of the rain. Ok keep telling yourselves this, I hope it is sunny as hell in the RG final between the two and if Novak wins I want to see the excuse pretzel that will be concocted. Apparently Nadal went from the king of clay to the king of dry clay at sea level.

You watched that match was it sunny and dry at the start of the match?

Socal
I have already said on another thread it was nothing to do with wet or dry clay... Rafa is 26yrs old and has played on wet and dry clay during his career without mention (was not the FO last year on wet clay or is my memory failing me). forget the fecking clay. It wasn´t match fitness either it was that Rafa was not match prepared. He had just spent another five weeks on his jollies and had admitted that he did not practise in that time and left any training or practice until he got to Monte Carlo. THAT was why he never won.. and it was his own damn fault. I as a fan was quite shocked that he would even admit it.
Ambivilence is not the thing one should be accused of when taking on the No.1. He was not prepared and it showed. He played two matches in one day yesterday.. fitness is not Rafa´s problem.. mental preparation was his problem in Monte Carlo. But not yesterday.

Super saiyan is a compliment to Djokovic and given the crisis in tennis he single handedly helped to avert and his services to the tennis world, the comparison is apt.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Socal
I have already said on another thread it was nothing to do with wet or dry clay... Rafa is 26yrs old and has played on wet and dry clay during his career without mention (was not the FO last year on wet clay or is my memory failing me). forget the fecking clay. It wasn´t match fitness either it was that Rafa was not match prepared. He had just spent another five weeks on his jollies and had admitted that he did not practise in that time and left any training or practice until he got to Monte Carlo. THAT was why he never won.. and it was his own damn fault. I as a fan was quite shocked that he would even admit it.
Ambivilence is not the thing one should be accused of when taking on the No.1. He was not prepared and it showed. He played two matches in one day yesterday.. fitness is not Rafa´s problem.. mental preparation was his problem in Monte Carlo. But not yesterday.

Well Haddie, I am not directing my comments at you, I just find it funny people are citing articles from a wall street trader pretending to know anything about tennis and who can't even get the facts straight on the principal thesis of the article. They stopped the match early on because it was raining. Henman bill was there and said there was a light drizzle during the whole match. And this moron quoted by Lydian claims that the conditions at the start of the final were dry and sunny. What? I watched that final and the commentators were talking about the rain when Nadal jumped out to a two set lead. If you can't get the basic, material facts of your own argument correct, then you have no business commentating about tennis. And frankly I am glad that this article was posted online and not in a paper, because it isn't fit to line the inside of bird cage and have a parrot sheet on it.

I don't doubt Nadal will be better come RG, and I think Novak will be as well. If the two play in the final it is not a forgone conclusion one way or the other. But I do believe that in recent years Novak has had the upper hand the rivalry and that has been supported by the actual facts, maybe not by the lame excuses and historically rewriting of reality that takes place online in some corners.

I don't know who super saiyan is so I don't know whether it is a complement or not that was the point of my post.

Yesterday Rafa looked the best Ive seen him play. His shot making was far superior. Two matches in the same day did him no harm .. He was sharp and mentally back to where Rafa normally is. Against Nole in Monte Carlo he looked like he had just woken up and gone on court.. no game plan, and mentally lying on the beach in Manacor.
Are you surprised to learn Socal I turned the tv off and couldn´t be bothered to watch... ME????
No Ill admit with hand on heart he never deserved to win that match...But he COULD have won it if Rafa had turned up.

socal1976 wrote:This just in Novak to hire a native American shaman and add him to his team, prior to any match with Nadal said shaman will do a rain dance followed by an African witch doctor who will cut the heads off a few chickens in order to induce the all important rain. Apparently, it never rained in Europe during the clay court seasons of 05-12.

PS who the freaking F is Super-Saiyan 3 it sounds like a bad Japanese monster movie from the 60s, did Godzilla ever fight Super-Saiyan 3?

He he

Yes certainly some revisionist writing going on. I remember quite clearly that it was damp and wet right from the start of the FO final. Maybe Novak only wins in rivers of mud.



emancipator

socal1976 wrote:This just in Novak to hire a native American shaman and add him to his team, prior to any match with Nadal said shaman will do a rain dance followed by an African witch doctor who will cut the heads off a few chickens in order to induce the all important rain. Apparently, it never rained in Europe during the clay court seasons of 05-12.

PS who the freaking F is Super-Saiyan 3 it sounds like a bad Japanese monster movie from the 60s, did Godzilla ever fight Super-Saiyan 3?

He he

Yes certainly some revisionist writing going on. I remember quite clearly that it was damp and wet right from the start of the FO final. Maybe Novak only wins in rivers of mud.



emancipator

No argument there Haddie, he could win but didn't, although I still feel that in reent years Novak has troubled him more than vice versa, it doesn't mean he can't or won't win future matchups but the patterns don't seem to favor him in the matchup at this point. Lets see if Nadal proves me wrong.

I find this business of wet/dry clay totally ludicrous.. the man has been playing on clay since he was 4 years old... and don't believe for a minute that "the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain" its been bucketing down here for the past two days.

I watched the match, and I think there was one really key factor that affected the result more than anything. That factor was not the rain, the altitude, a lack of physical preparation, a lack of mental preparation, a lack of a 5 set final or anything like that...

.... I think, as controversial as it may sound, that on the day Novak played better than Rafa. It's not terminal for Rafa, nor can Novak stop worrying about Rsfa forever. It was just one match that the world number 1 deservedly won. Each reason does sound a bit like sour grapes I must say. Just say well done Novak and move on.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Yesterday Rafa looked the best Ive seen him play. His shot making was far superior. Two matches in the same day did him no harm .. He was sharp and mentally back to where Rafa normally is. Against Nole in Monte Carlo he looked like he had just woken up and gone on court.. no game plan, and mentally lying on the beach in Manacor.
Are you surprised to learn Socal I turned the tv off and couldn´t be bothered to watch... ME????
No Ill admit with hand on heart he never deserved to win that match...But he COULD have won it if Rafa had turned up.

Lol....

It's one thing beating those scrubs and bunnies but another thing altogether taking on the Screechinator

Danny you have missed the point. I for one have not disputed that Nole deserved to win.. but how can any player (whether it be Rafa or anyone else) expect to take on the No.1. in his form.. without practicing or training for 5 weeks.. that is the issue with me.. Not that Rafa didn´t beat him MORE TO the point is why. That is the point of this thread methinks. It leaves more questions than answers as to what Rafa could have possibly been thinking

emancipator wrote:

socal1976 wrote:This just in Novak to hire a native American shaman and add him to his team, prior to any match with Nadal said shaman will do a rain dance followed by an African witch doctor who will cut the heads off a few chickens in order to induce the all important rain. Apparently, it never rained in Europe during the clay court seasons of 05-12.

PS who the freaking F is Super-Saiyan 3 it sounds like a bad Japanese monster movie from the 60s, did Godzilla ever fight Super-Saiyan 3?

He he

Yes certainly some revisionist writing going on. I remember quite clearly that it was damp and wet right from the start of the FO final. Maybe Novak only wins in rivers of mud.



emancipator

Bizarre really emancipator, look I don't doubt there are factors one way or the other cutting favor of a player. I don't mind fans of any player discussing them. But really at least make it logically consistent and don't rewrite the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to make up your own facts. It was not dry at the start of the match when Nadal went up two sets, it simply wasn't. They stopped the match early in the match because of the rain for a short spell because of rain when Nadal was winning. Henman bill was at the match and stated that the rain was a constant light drizzle that didn't even require and umbrella and that it was pretty consistent throughout. The commentators were talking about the rain as Nadal ran out to a two set lead.

You said it best when you said this is hogwash, I am sorry Nadal fans have a tough time getting their heads around the concept that someone can and will beat their favorite play on clay. 7 straight victories on grass, on clay, on hardcourt in all different conditions over 5 sets over 3 sets etc. Now cut it however you like.

emancipator wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Yesterday Rafa looked the best Ive seen him play. His shot making was far superior. Two matches in the same day did him no harm .. He was sharp and mentally back to where Rafa normally is. Against Nole in Monte Carlo he looked like he had just woken up and gone on court.. no game plan, and mentally lying on the beach in Manacor.
Are you surprised to learn Socal I turned the tv off and couldn´t be bothered to watch... ME????
No Ill admit with hand on heart he never deserved to win that match...But he COULD have won it if Rafa had turned up.

Lol....

It's one thing beating those scrubs and bunnies but another thing altogether taking on the Screechinator

That's not the point either is em... Rafa didn´t spend the match pounding their backhands because he had no other game plan.. and mentally on another planet.

Haddie - that wasn't directed at you so much, more at all the other 'bad luck' comments that have been swirling around since the match.

Your point is a fair one and you give credit to Novak so that's fair enough.

Nadal was way better against Novak than he was in either of his two matches yesterday. I've never seen him hit so many poor shots as in the first set of the Ramos match. He played a decent match last Sunday, he just lost to a player who is a bad match-up and who on that day was playing somewhere close to the peak of his powers.

and lol at the idea that Nadal would have won in 5. I suspect, if anything, Novak's level would have returned to first set levels and it would have been 6/2 in the third. No way would Rafa have come back from 2 sets down. Indeed, I don't recall even Castle saying that he would have done - and I was watching when he was talking about this point.

Born Slippy wrote:Nadal was way better against Novak than he was in either of his two matches yesterday. I've never seen him hit so many poor shots as in the first set of the Ramos match. He played a decent match last Sunday, he just lost to a player who is a bad match-up and who on that day was playing somewhere close to the peak of his powers.

Yeah!!!! well we don't all have to agree with than analysis do we ?.. that is what is so good about this forum we are all allowed an opinion.

Andrew Castle just gets a bit over-excited about whoever of the top 4 happens to be playing in the match he is watching.

If it were Novak playing, he'd say that it will be hard for Nadal to even take a set off him.

Shame really, because in some ways he's quite a good commentator. I think for the casual fan who only tunes in occasionally, he does quite a good job of explaining the game.

He just suffers from a case of the McEnroes where he thinks that whatever he has just seen may be the best ever.

hawkeye wrote:That's what Andrew Castle said yesterday whilst commenting on the 2nd Nadal match of the day in Barcelona. Ha ha! I bet he'd be too scared to come and say it here though... I feel quite happy saying it because I am just quoting him

It would have been a repeat of Wimbledon 2008, Djoko winning the 1st two sets and Nadal doing a Fed winning the next 2 and 6-6 in the final set only to collapse and hand the win to Djoko

Born Slippy wrote:and lol at the idea that Nadal would have won in 5. I suspect, if anything, Novak's level would have returned to first set levels and it would have been 6/2 in the third. No way would Rafa have come back from 2 sets down. Indeed, I don't recall even Castle saying that he would have done - and I was watching when he was talking about this point.

I think if it went a third set BS that Novak would have won the third set decisevly. If you watched the ebb and flow of that match I think Nadal shot his wad in the second set and Novak simultaneously dropped half a notch in his level. With two sets in hand after losing 11 of the last 12 points. The demoralizing manner Nadal lost the second set after being twice up a break and twice having Novak break his serve late in the set and the collapse in the tiebreaker the odds were better for a third set Novak romp than anything else. Most likely 6-2 in the third for djokovic. Novak was trending up late the second dramatically and Nadal's play was trending down from the start of the second.

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:and lol at the idea that Nadal would have won in 5. I suspect, if anything, Novak's level would have returned to first set levels and it would have been 6/2 in the third. No way would Rafa have come back from 2 sets down. Indeed, I don't recall even Castle saying that he would have done - and I was watching when he was talking about this point.

I think if it went a third set BS that Novak would have won the third set decisevly. If you watched the ebb and flow of that match I think Nadal shot his wad in the second set and Novak simultaneously dropped half a notch in his level. With two sets in hand after losing 11 of the last 12 points. The demoralizing manner Nadal lost the second set after being twice up a break and twice having Novak break his serve late in the set and the collapse in the tiebreaker the odds were better for a third set Novak romp than anything else. Most likely 6-2 in the third for djokovic. Novak was trending up late the second dramatically and Nadal's play was trending down from the start of the second.

If it had been over 5 sets maybe Nadal wouldn't have messed up in the third set.

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:and lol at the idea that Nadal would have won in 5. I suspect, if anything, Novak's level would have returned to first set levels and it would have been 6/2 in the third. No way would Rafa have come back from 2 sets down. Indeed, I don't recall even Castle saying that he would have done - and I was watching when he was talking about this point.

I think if it went a third set BS that Novak would have won the third set decisevly. If you watched the ebb and flow of that match I think Nadal shot his wad in the second set and Novak simultaneously dropped half a notch in his level. With two sets in hand after losing 11 of the last 12 points. The demoralizing manner Nadal lost the second set after being twice up a break and twice having Novak break his serve late in the set and the collapse in the tiebreaker the odds were better for a third set Novak romp than anything else. Most likely 6-2 in the third for djokovic. Novak was trending up late the second dramatically and Nadal's play was trending down from the start of the second.

If it had been over 5 sets maybe Nadal wouldn't have messed up in the third set.

If my auntie had a pair of b0ll0cks she'd be my uncle!

This 'discussion' has brought me much amusement though. I'm assuming that this is just a wind up tbh and not serious?

Sadly Johny, I think some people are actually being serious.

Sometimes guys I don't know how serious Hawkeye really is, does she really believe the things she writes? I mean the guy loses 11 of the last 12 points of set two, and got whitewashed in the first set, so the logical call is that he will win the next three sets on the trot.

IN Nadal's 15-5 five-set record, he has played three five-set matches on Clay, Rome 2005(Coria), 2006(Federer) and RG 2011(Isner) with a 3-0 record.

In Djokovic's 17-5 five-set record, he has played RG 2012 (Tsonga, Seppi), 2010 (Melzer), DC 2010 (Isner), RG 2007 (Patience), RG 2006 (Gonzalez), DC 2005 (Rochus) with a 5-2 record on Clay with loses to Rochus and Melzer.

Pretty sure, Castle was half-inebriated to make such an asinine comment.

laverfan wrote:IN Nadal's 15-5 five-set record, he has played three five-set matches on Clay, Rome 2005(Coria), 2006(Federer) and RG 2011(Isner) with a 3-0 record.

In Djokovic's 17-5 five-set record, he has played RG 2012 (Tsonga, Seppi), 2010 (Melzer), DC 2010 (Isner), RG 2007 (Patience), RG 2006 (Gonzalez), DC 2005 (Rochus) with a 5-2 record on Clay with loses to Rochus and Melzer.

Pretty sure, Castle was half-inebriated to make such an asinine comment.

Well laverfan if he was inebriated as a member of the macallan fan club I must forgive him. There was certainly more of a chance of Djokovic winning a hypothetical 3rd set with the way the players were playing at the end of that match.

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:and lol at the idea that Nadal would have won in 5. I suspect, if anything, Novak's level would have returned to first set levels and it would have been 6/2 in the third. No way would Rafa have come back from 2 sets down. Indeed, I don't recall even Castle saying that he would have done - and I was watching when he was talking about this point.

I think if it went a third set BS that Novak would have won the third set decisevly. If you watched the ebb and flow of that match I think Nadal shot his wad in the second set and Novak simultaneously dropped half a notch in his level. With two sets in hand after losing 11 of the last 12 points. The demoralizing manner Nadal lost the second set after being twice up a break and twice having Novak break his serve late in the set and the collapse in the tiebreaker the odds were better for a third set Novak romp than anything else. Most likely 6-2 in the third for djokovic. Novak was trending up late the second dramatically and Nadal's play was trending down from the start of the second.

If it had been over 5 sets maybe Nadal wouldn't have messed up in the third set.

Ooops! What I meant to say was if the final was over 5 sets maybe Nadal wouldn't have messed up in the SECOND set...

laverfan. Andrew Castle was definitely not "inebriated"! Oh and he also said I bet if they played the final again the same day then Nadal would probably have won. He was just giving his expert opinion.

Andrew Castle... "expert"?

hawkeye wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:and lol at the idea that Nadal would have won in 5. I suspect, if anything, Novak's level would have returned to first set levels and it would have been 6/2 in the third. No way would Rafa have come back from 2 sets down. Indeed, I don't recall even Castle saying that he would have done - and I was watching when he was talking about this point.

I think if it went a third set BS that Novak would have won the third set decisevly. If you watched the ebb and flow of that match I think Nadal shot his wad in the second set and Novak simultaneously dropped half a notch in his level. With two sets in hand after losing 11 of the last 12 points. The demoralizing manner Nadal lost the second set after being twice up a break and twice having Novak break his serve late in the set and the collapse in the tiebreaker the odds were better for a third set Novak romp than anything else. Most likely 6-2 in the third for djokovic. Novak was trending up late the second dramatically and Nadal's play was trending down from the start of the second.

If it had been over 5 sets maybe Nadal wouldn't have messed up in the third set.

Ooops! What I meant to say was if the final was over 5 sets maybe Nadal wouldn't have messed up in the SECOND set...

laverfan. Andrew Castle was definitely not "inebriated"! Oh and he also said I bet if they played the final again the same day then Nadal would probably have won. He was just giving his expert opinion.

Castle didn't say that. He said Rafa would have liked the opportunity to try and get revenge immediately. There was no indication that he thought Nadal would have won.

hawkeye wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:and lol at the idea that Nadal would have won in 5. I suspect, if anything, Novak's level would have returned to first set levels and it would have been 6/2 in the third. No way would Rafa have come back from 2 sets down. Indeed, I don't recall even Castle saying that he would have done - and I was watching when he was talking about this point.

I think if it went a third set BS that Novak would have won the third set decisevly. If you watched the ebb and flow of that match I think Nadal shot his wad in the second set and Novak simultaneously dropped half a notch in his level. With two sets in hand after losing 11 of the last 12 points. The demoralizing manner Nadal lost the second set after being twice up a break and twice having Novak break his serve late in the set and the collapse in the tiebreaker the odds were better for a third set Novak romp than anything else. Most likely 6-2 in the third for djokovic. Novak was trending up late the second dramatically and Nadal's play was trending down from the start of the second.

If it had been over 5 sets maybe Nadal wouldn't have messed up in the third set.

Ooops! What I meant to say was if the final was over 5 sets maybe Nadal wouldn't have messed up in the SECOND set...

laverfan. Andrew Castle was definitely not "inebriated"! Oh and he also said I bet if they played the final again the same day then Nadal would probably have won. He was just giving his expert opinion.

hahaha this is comedy gold. I don’t even know how to interpret this?

Nadal never really loses…he just doesn’t win first time? That tennis matches must be decided in the form of a ‘series’ like Baseball - that they should have three, three set matches to determine the winner? Failing that, if he still loses, we should just build him a time machine?

Hawkeye, do you understand the absurdity of this comment? Why have you regurgitated it? This is a case of favouritism clouding your judgement I fear.

I didn’t hear the quote but not for one second do I think that any person would have said this. Especially a professional sports commentator..no matter how incompetent he may be. So I’m inclined to go with Born Slippy here.

Maybe you’ve got your sports mixed up? Mulligans (except for 2nd serves of course), do not exist in tennis!

Johnyjeep wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:and lol at the idea that Nadal would have won in 5. I suspect, if anything, Novak's level would have returned to first set levels and it would have been 6/2 in the third. No way would Rafa have come back from 2 sets down. Indeed, I don't recall even Castle saying that he would have done - and I was watching when he was talking about this point.

I think if it went a third set BS that Novak would have won the third set decisevly. If you watched the ebb and flow of that match I think Nadal shot his wad in the second set and Novak simultaneously dropped half a notch in his level. With two sets in hand after losing 11 of the last 12 points. The demoralizing manner Nadal lost the second set after being twice up a break and twice having Novak break his serve late in the set and the collapse in the tiebreaker the odds were better for a third set Novak romp than anything else. Most likely 6-2 in the third for djokovic. Novak was trending up late the second dramatically and Nadal's play was trending down from the start of the second.

If it had been over 5 sets maybe Nadal wouldn't have messed up in the third set.

Ooops! What I meant to say was if the final was over 5 sets maybe Nadal wouldn't have messed up in the SECOND set...

laverfan. Andrew Castle was definitely not "inebriated"! Oh and he also said I bet if they played the final again the same day then Nadal would probably have won. He was just giving his expert opinion.

hahaha this is comedy gold. I don’t even know how to interpret this?

Nadal never really loses…he just doesn’t win first time? That tennis matches must be decided in the form of a ‘series’ like Baseball - that they should have three, three set matches to determine the winner? Failing that, if he still loses, we should just build him a time machine?

Hawkeye, do you understand the absurdity of this comment? Why have you regurgitated it? This is a case of favouritism clouding your judgement I fear.

I didn’t hear the quote but not for one second do I think that any person would have said this. Especially a professional sports commentator..no matter how incompetent he may be. So I’m inclined to go with Born Slippy here.

Maybe you’ve got your sports mixed up? Mulligans (except for 2nd serves of course), do not exist in tennis!

I think your accusing me of making things up! But I wasn't. Andrew Castle did speculate about this. He had every right to as it's his job to do so. Anyway I don't think it's speculation that bothers you it's just the conclusion he came to isn't it? I'm sure if Castle had said something like "Djokovic has got Nadal sussed if they played the MC final again he would win again" and "even if they played another three sets there is no way Nadal would win two of them" you would think Castle was doing a good job and was very perceptive?

Given Nadal had gone from losing 1st set 6-2 to losing 2nd set 7-6 (having served for it), it doesn't take Einstein to work out the match was getting much closer. It will be nice to see matches where wind, rain, ankles or knees aren't a factor

Or strings, balls, surface and fitness

I heard Djokovic won because he has an egg chamber in monte carlo, apparently the egg chamber and rain together caused this victory.

Lydian, when the match ended Nadal lost 11 of the last 12 points, if anything Djokovic was trending up and Nadal was trending down with his play. Nadal played great in the second set till the very end and then he got mauled. So if you want to go by the trend the trend for Nadal wasn't good. He didn't lose a tight tiebreaker. He had his serve broken at love and then lost the TB 1-7

TBH Hawkeye, it is 100% the speculation that annoyes me.

He (and you are following suit) is creating an alternate reality to somehow come to a different conclusion to the one that actually happened. What is the need to do this? Why didn't you come on here and say: 'Look at the garbage that Andrew Castle comes out with?'

Sport has no script and is lived in the moment. To just come out and say..ahh but if he had another crack at it he would have won. What was the basis of his hypothesis?

If it was a 5 set match? Well, it wasn't and it never was. Why unilatry change this parameter? I'd like to say that if it was a game of chess and Nadal was playing Gary Kasparov, Nadal would have proabably lost (only if the chess board was wet mind).

With regards the score in sets representing the fact the match was getting closer. Since when does this suggest it would have been a five setter? I would wager a significant amount of money that in tennis, more matches have been won three love when one player has won the first 2 sets, than the other player mounting a stirring comeback to win in 5. Yes, it happens obviously. But in what way does this show Nadal would win in 5? Especially as an oft used reason for his loss is that he is still ring rusty from his lay-off!! Those two reasons contradict each other massively!

As for 'Oh and he also said I bet if they played the final again the same day then Nadal would probably have won'.

If you think this is expert opinion you are struggling. Key words in that sentence are: 'Bet', 'If' and 'Probably'.

I bet that if I was 6ft 2inches and had received coaching from when I was 5 years old I probably would have won wimbledon multiple times.

Plus in no way am I accusing you of making it up. Another member of this board said that he didn't say what you are accusing him of saying. I am using all my years of experience of watching and listening to sport to side with the other member of this forum.

Why? Because Born Slippy's way is far more plausible. If a professional sports commentator really said something which is contrary to everything he knows is possible in terms of the known universe (playing someone again just because he lost - and I have never heard that before: just re-running the event) that is not really analysis at all is it? That's just making idle conversation. Yes, that is his paid view. But when does that make it correct? Or even a quality observation? Listen to it again (without your bias towards Nadal) and think if it sounds right?

What we do know is that Djokovic played him and beat him. Fair and square. No 'ifs' and no 'buts'. All this nonsense just sounds desperately like sour grapes. And Rafael Nadal deserves much much better. To quote a phrase I learnt from Snooker:

Play like a man, lose like a Gentleman.

And to be fair, Nadal generally does. Lets follow suit and give a little respect to his opponents shall we.

socal, I just said it was closer than the 1st that's all. Don't get all defensive on me where Djokovic is always concerned!

Johnyjeep wrote:Play like a man, lose like a Gentleman.

And to be fair, Nadal generally does. Lets follow suit and give a little respect to his opponents shall we.

@Born Slippy. Thanks for some sanity.

@HE... This was NOT Nadal's last Tennis match. He will have plenty of opportunities, for example RG 2013.

Anyway...how many Bo3 matches could be stated to have been reversed if over 5 sets! Loads but that's not relevant - players go into the matches knowing its Bo3 so they have to get out of the blocks quickly, something Nadal seems incapable of so far! Djokovic won that match fair and square.

lydian wrote:socal, I just said it was closer than the 1st that's all. Don't get all defensive on me where Djokovic is always concerned!

I am not defensive did not mean any offense it was a lot closer in the second set that is certainly true

lydian wrote:Anyway...how many Bo3 matches could be stated to have been reversed if over 5 sets! Loads but that's not relevant - players go into the matches knowing its Bo3 so they have to get out of the blocks quickly, something Nadal seems incapable of so far! Djokovic won that match fair and square.

It's actually remarkable how consistently badly Rafa starts. I first noticed it years ago how often he would be 0-3 down at the first change of ends. It's bad enough when he serves second (as he always appears to choose if he wins the coin toss). But against Raonic and Almagro he was made to serve first and went down a double break. It's obviously difficult to recover from this position. Did he loose the coin toss at MC and IW in the final? I can't remember. I know he won IW's but he came back from a set and a break down. 3 set matches can be over so quickly if you start slow.

Ha ha! socal. Don't worry I'm not suggesting Rafa lost MC because he may have lost the coin toss...

For sure socal. That match has been analysed a lot now...Nadal played an awful game at 6-5 up, Djokovic played it great but IMO was helped by some woeful play...I listed out the 0-15, 0-30, 0-40 points elsewhere...Nadal basically dropped nothing balls at service line length each point, and barely got a 1st serve in. The shock of losing that game so quickly I think ruined his TB effort as well. But fair play to Novak for turning it around. For me it showed that Nadal is still not mentally all there yet, he's been having problems serving out sets and matches since his return - he's a lot tighter and more anxious than he used to be and a guy like Djokovic will pounce on that straight away.

Yes HE, the issue Rafa has always had is anxiety at the start of matches (remember his OCD tendencies are a form of anxiety). He get tights at the start and end of matches. In this regard, there's still something from Rafa's current game IMO. I cant quite put my finger on it but the hunger just doesn't seem the same somehow. Its like he's going through the motions a little bit, or perhaps that's a mask for over-anxiety he's feeling. 8 months is a long time out to get into other aspects of life...I wonder how much he started to imagine life away in that time given he's rich beyond his wildest dreams and there's not an awful lot else he can win on a tennis court any more. We'll see...I don't think he'll do a Wilander any time soon but you know I'm of a mind that it wouldn't surprise me either. Is he prepared to climb Mount Everest again...? Perhaps, but even in 3rd/4th gear he's still good enough to beat most on clay. However, with Novak 3rd/4th just wont cut it.