Nadal Fed quarter (?)

First topic message reminder :

Im hoping this wont get too heated, and i ask for respect soo here we go

The quarters are scheduling a Rafa Fed re re re match on grass. Discuss...
Who will win and how? Whos got the advantage? Will they both even make it?Are people gonna over hype it due to 2008?
Its been quite a while since weve had a real chance of these 2 meeting in a GS soo id like to hear your views, but be nice

For me I think theyll both make it, maybe Nadal a little harder than Fed, and I reckon Nadl will do it in 4 or 5, Fed has a court advantage, but has never really combatted that single handed disadvantage.

Hawkeye fair enough if he wants to tell the truth. But tell the guy at the net or in the locker room. Don't let him believe something different for 6 months and then pull the rug from under him after that, taking the gloss of it.

Rosol's 5th set was awesome. Djokovic or Murray or Federer would probably have equally struggled in that 5th set for me.

Will we  still be talking about that match with Rosol after this year´s Wimbledon or will we still be resurrecting it when Rafa retires.?? Just asking out of interest you understand.
Similarly lets keep talking about how Soderling beat Rafa at the FO .. he has won two more since then. 8 in all isn´t it.
Im sure both Rosol and Soderling will be writing their autobiographies and making their retirement pensions from them  
"Nadal and my part in his downfall "

I wonder - if Rafa had won the 5th set against Rosol, would he have then withdrawn from Wimbledon?

Yes Julius are you suggesting he did not have the injury because to think otherwise would be accusing him of that. He has repeatedly said that he would never have won that fifth set.. put what connotation on that you will. He would hardly have spent 7mths sidelined and also missed being flag bearer at the Olympics would he ???

Just watched the 5th set highlights and the commentator has to think back to a Safin-Sampras match at the US Open to compare it with for quality of hitting, and says he hasn't seen such sustained hitting in 39 years at Wimbledon. Rafa was worse in the 2011 Wimbledon final (no fitness issues) than in the 5th set against Rosol. Rafa serves well in the set. He just makes one mistake on the break point of going straight at Rosol instead of to a corner, and gets punished.

The other impressive thing for Rosol is to come back from losing the first set 7-6. I bet everyone watching thought right this is going to be 7-6 6-3 6-2.

Anyway I thought it was awesome.  I don't know why I bothered watching the Youtube clips. We'll probably see it again on play back this year when they are closing the roof.

How did a Fedal discussion turn into a Nadol discussion?

Haddie-nuff wrote:Yes Julius are you suggesting he did not have the injury because to think otherwise would be accusing him of that. He has repeatedly said that he would never have won that fifth set.. put what connotation on that you will. He would hardly have spent 7mths sidelined and also missed being flag bearer at the Olympics would he ???

It's just an idle thought. What if Rosol, like so many before against a top player, had mentally folded in the 5th and thrown it away? Rafa, knowing by then that his participation was a mistake and his knees were shot, would presumably have withdrawn.

I remember watching the match and thinking that whilst Rafa was playing only ok, he was actually moving extremely well. It amazed me to hear he was injured later on.

But then even nowadays he says that he feels pain in the knee. Maybe it was the same then, pain but nothing impairing his movement.

The bottom line is Rafa's high spinning shots that usually put people on the back foot went straight into the hitting zone of a very tall powerful player who just thought "I'm gonna blast everything and see what happens" and he kept on finding lines. Fair play.

For me it will always be a case of if you're on the court the result counts. No exceptions.

Just watching the 2nd set right now and Nadal's movement is a bit suspect to be honest.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Will we  still be talking about that match with Rosol after this year´s Wimbledon or will we still be resurrecting it when Rafa retires.??

In fairness, you brought it up. Once you post an article about Rafa's last year's Wimbledon, Rosol discussion is a fair game.

Also, it will be a very long time before it goes away. It is one of those shock results that will be mentioned for years to come. Doohan's upset of Becker is now over 25 years old yet every year before Wimbledon you can find an article somewhere mentioning it. But you should note that nobody (WUMs excepted) is suggesting Rosol is better than Rafa, or even that - if they met here again - Rosol would be likely to win. Of course not. It is just one of those fluke results that happen very rarely. But sometimes they do happen, and last year's match was one of those occasions. It is the rarity of results like this that etches them firmly into the tennis lore, and that is why this one will be mentioned for a long long time.

Exactly SB - it was a memorable sporting moment, and whatever happened afterwards and whether or not Rosol ever plays for half a match as he played for the majority of five sets last year, it was a performance of derring-do and excellence - it is not likely to be forgotten; after all that is sport - our enjoyment is often about the moment and the brilliance of it, not just about a body of work.

Just watched the third set and Rafa's stats show he made 1 unforced error in that whole set! I think the second set was Rafa's worse set, that was poor. Rosol just served so well that one early break in each of the 3 sets Rafa lost was enough.

First time Rosol won a set (set 2) - strange break of serve to love. Double faulted on break point.
Second time Rosol won a set (set 3) - dumped a routine forehand into the net on break point.
Third time Rosol won a set (set 5) - had the advantage but hit a shot too straight.

Thx for reminding me the match, Just saw the 5th set again, what ever version of Rafa would have turned up would have stood no chance against that Rosol on that given day. Its just a bad match up.

If Rosol Nadal play again, the question mark is how much of that Rosol would turn up? may be 10%, if that Rosol turns up again I won't be surprised if he wins another one against Rafa given how well his game matches up with Rafa.

Nadal after that match was more mentally and emotionally injured than physically injured, you could even sense that during the handshake. He kinda felt pretty embarrassed after the match, he was certainly very much upset and no wonder we call these matches upsets. Bottom line Rosol did upset Rafa mentally, emotionally and physically, very similar to FO 2008 match what he inflicted to Roger.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Yes Julius are you suggesting he did not have the injury because to think otherwise would be accusing him of that. He has repeatedly said that he would never have won that fifth set.. put what connotation on that you will. He would hardly have spent 7mths sidelined and also missed being flag bearer at the Olympics would he ???

It's just an idle thought. What if Rosol, like so many before against a top player, had mentally folded in the 5th and thrown it away? Rafa, knowing by then that his participation was a mistake and his knees were shot, would presumably have withdrawn.

I have to say I was surprised by some of Nadal's interviews just after he came back on tour on how bad the knees were in that match. I didn't watch all of the match, but the bits I saw I would agree that Nadal was not at his best, however he definitely didn't look like a player who was resigned to his tournament being about to end through injury. The whole irritation at the Rosol's return stance, asking for an ace to be discounted etc - it all looked like a player who desperately wanted to win to me. Quite different from how he behaved at that AO in 2011 for example when he looked resigned to going out against Ferrer. I'm not suggesting he faked this or anything like - just that his subsequent account of how he felt doesn't seem consistent with what I saw in the match.

You summed it up very well Yvonne.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Thx for reminding me the match, Just saw the 5th set again, what ever version of Rafa would have turned up would have stood no chance against that Rosol on that given day. Its just a bad match up.

If Rosol Nadal play again, the question mark is how much of that Rosol would turn up? may be 10%, if that Rosol turns up again I won't be surprised if he wins another one against Rafa given how well his game matches up with Rafa.

Nadal after that match was more mentally and emotionally injured than physically injured, you could even sense that during the handshake. He kinda felt pretty embarrassed after the match, he was certainly very much upset and no wonder we call these matches upsets. Bottom line Rosol did upset Rafa mentally, emotionally and physically, very similar to FO 2008 match what he inflicted to Roger.

HE HAS already said that he would never have won the fifth set.. what the devil do you want him to say.
Keep dwelling on all the negatives of his career and wipe out all his achievements and what he has done since his return. One lousey match. Why would he choose to keep talking about it.  Move on its history as is the Roger´s disaster at the FO

JuliusHMarx wrote:I wonder - if Rafa had won the 5th set against Rosol, would he have then withdrawn from Wimbledon?

I doubt it. After all Rafa confesses he had the injury going in to Wimbledon so you could ask why he never pulled out after winning his First Round match. He won that and carried on so feel it is clear he would have done the same had he beaten Rosol.

So what's the inference here, that his 8 months off afterwards were a screen? Of course he'd have carried on in that event, he had been playing through knee pain for so long under Toni's mantra "you must endure..." but that doesnt make the injury any less valid or that the hammer wouldn't have still fallen eventually.


Maybe the size/shock of that loss simply and finally gave Nadal the reality check he needed, that he couldn't carry on playing through increasing pain anymore. Maybe the loss was the best thing that happened to him for the longevity of his career. Otherwise he might have struggled on until his career was in even bigger jeopardy. We don't know.


However, I do know I've never seen one match raked over so much for nuance and counter-nuance in the history of tennis. It shows you just how big a figure Nadal really is in tennis terms. Even after a few months away his staunchest critics on here/elsewhere admitted missing having the guy around. Tennis, and its forums, would sure be a duller place without Nadal, even if its to just discuss 1 match out of his 800 whilst other players entire careers go unnoticed!

JHM asked a question and the answer is a clear one. Rafa felt he could soldier on through Wimbledon no doubt but that proved to be a big mistake as the injury sidelined him for so long. The fact that Rosol has now climbed so high up in the rankings kind of negates the myth that he was a no-hoper.

lydian wrote:So what's the inference here, that his 8 months off afterwards were a screen? Of course he'd have carried on in that event, he had been playing through knee pain for so long under Toni's mantra "you must endure..." but that doesnt make the injury any less valid.

Maybe it was simply the size/shock of the loss finally gave him the reality check he needed that he couldn't carry in playing through increasing pain anymore. Maybe the loss was the best thing that happened to him for the longevity of his career.

I've never seen one match raked over so much for nuance and counter-nuance in the history of tennis. It shows you just how big a figure Nadal really is in tennis terms. Even after a few months away his staunchest critics on here/elsewhere admitted missing having the guy around. Tennis, and its forums, would sure be a duller place without Nadal.

Well its "let us get the knife in now" time isn´t it... forget all the success that Nadal has had on his return, forget him beating Novak at the RG forget him lifting the 8th trophy... THAT is history... however what is still current news is the Rosol match... so lets have a dig at him whilst we can in case he should win Wimbledon then we will have missed our chance :picard:Then we will have to jump the bandwagon

Well I cannot see now that the Rosol match was any huge surprise as it was painted as Rosol now stands on the verge of breaking into the top 30 ranked players in the world. I recall Murray getting the same stick when lost to a youngster in the First Round at the Australian Open a few years ago and that player is now established as one of the top players in the world - Jo Tsonga.

Besides Haddie-nuff, like I said on another thread yesterday, whoever wins the Wimbledon title it will be well-deserved.

CC, then why do I get the feeling there is more inference behind JHM's question, and some follow up responses, than that...? If people feel his 8 months off tour was fake in terms of knee injury then just come out with it and nail their colour to the mast rather than prevaricate around the issue.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I cannot see now that the Rosol match was any huge surprise as it was painted as Rosol now stands on the verge of breaking into the top 30 ranked players in the world. I recall Murray getting the same stick when lost to a youngster in the First Round at the Australian Open a few years ago and that player is now established as one of the top players in the world - Jo Tsonga.

Besides Haddie-nuff, like I said on another thread yesterday, whoever wins the Wimbledon title it will be well-deserved.

This response is not necessarily aimed at you Craig so lets get that clear. But Rosol has done so well for himself, he is so brilliant, good old Rosol... how come he never ever gets mentioned unless its in relation to his defeat of Nadal. I never see any of his fans on here (labled only as the man who beat Nadal).. thats where the true nitty gritty lies isn´t it. No one gives a toss about Rosol really  and something to give the knife another twist.  This is another day, another Wimbledon another tournament. Rosol plays his matches along with all the other lower ranked players... lets see if it was a fluke or he can pull it off again. In the meantime that match is history as is the one that Andy lost. Rafa has a new mountain to climb and I think it somewhat unfair to keep regurgitating something that happened a year ago when he is still basking in the glory of having won RG 8 times a record that will doubtless never be beaten.

I cannot honestly see how anyone can see it was anything other than an injury but there again we do still get meat-heads still thinking Murray is anti-English even though that myth has been dispelled. In short people will 'believe' or wish to think what they want if it suits their agenda.

Every time the Rosol match is mentioned I just see it as a testament to how great a player Rafa is. He doesn't lose much so those that enjoy seeing him lose haven't much to get excited about. So when a player gets a win over him whatever the circumstances they become a hero, are granted legendary status and are said to have shown the rest of the tour how to beat him. Ha ha! I might write an article entitled "Rafa's Rare Defeats" to celebrate just how good a player he is...

It's how people express that wish or belief. Like Haddie says, no one gives a toss about Rosol but many seemingly hate Nadal under veiled, finger-pointing inference for his inelegance, muscles, lack of talent, knee  injury faking, career changing 2005 toe injury, MTOs, tics, Federer H2H and temerity to rack up 12+ slams that only true greats of the game are allowed to do.

CaladonianCraig. Who are you kidding? Murray's losses are forgotten the next day. No one can become a legend by beating Murray. He is not in the same league as Rafa in terms of rarity of losing...

Sadly, lydian, by my experience that will always be the way of how some people conduct themselves on forums and nothing will change that.

hawkeye wrote:Every time the Rosol match is mentioned I just see it as a testament to how great a player Rafa is. He doesn't lose much so those that enjoy seeing him lose haven't much to get excited about. So when a player gets a win over him whatever the circumstances they become a hero, are granted legendary status and are said to have shown the rest of the tour how to beat him. Ha ha! I might write an article entitled "Rafa's Rare Defeats" to celebrate just how good a player he is...

I think you should write an article "Rosol´s Greatest Achievements ( Aside From Beating Rafa Nadal)"
Please include all his Career Titles.

lydian wrote:It's how people express that wish or belief. Sometimes it easier for some to snipe away under veiled, finger-pointing inference than just firmly come out with their inner belief. Like Haddie says, no one gives a toss about Rosol but many do - openly or more quietly - hate Nadal for all his perceived inelegance, muscles, lack of talent, injury faking, MTOs, tics, Federer H2H and temerity to rack up 12+ slams that only true greats of the game are allowed to do.

Don't forget the way he neatly lines up his water bottles and only speaks 3 languages...

hawkeye forgive me but you are in no position to be preaching here considering your dubious posting history with regards to Andy Murray.

Well if Rosol can get through to 3rd round he'll have good opportunity to make another name for himself of course. Not that lightening strikes the same place twice in reality.

HE, and time wasting that only started after his loss to Federer at Miami 2005 

lydian wrote:Well if Rosol can get through to 3rd round he'll have good opportunity to make another name for himself of course. Not that lightening strikes the same place twice in reality.

HE, and time wasting that only started after his loss to Federer at Miami 2005 

And being coached from the stands by Uncle T (Not that Novak doesn´t you understand:)

CaladonianCraig. I wasn't preaching! Just making a fair point. Was I correct? Or do you reckon everyone's opinion that differs from yours is "dubious"?

I suppose I could write another article entitled "Rafa Is Annoying - His Slam Count Should Be Halved" and list his deficiencies...

Correct on this matter and I have agreed with you before. But when you consider your own posting history and countless tirades wrapped in others newspaper articles to have more digs at Murray than any anti-Nadal poster does on here then I see that as a tad in fact a great deal hypocritical.

^ I've agreed with you too  But just because I don't always doesn't make me hypocritical.

hawkeye wrote:^ I've agreed with you too  But just because I don't always doesn't make me hypocritical.

No the hypocritical part is that you are on here protesting about others having digs at Nadal unfairly you feel. However, you have been on an eight year crusade against Andy Murray to a far greater degree than any one poster on here has been against Nadal. Therefore it is hypocritical of you to get on your high horse about your favourite player getting criticised unfairly when you are the champion of the art and see no wrong when you do it about Andy Murray.

8 years? I didn't know who Murray was 8 years ago... If you think I criticize Andy unfairly you can always defend him. If I make critical or positive comments about anything I do so because that's my opinion. If someone can convince me otherwise I might change my mind.

Well if that is your stance then those with negative Nadal thoughts are in the same position as you then. And you, positive comments and Andy Murray don't go together - you can't even bring yourself to say well done to him for donating all of his winnings at Queen's to charity without lacing it into a snide dig. And no you will never change your mind hawkeye on the subject - you have displayed that before even when you have been categorically blown out you still cling to your single-minded beliefs and to hell with whatever the experts say.

I'm fairly convinced Rafa would have played on at Wimbledon had he not lost to Rosol. I'd go as far as to say he might well have played the Olympics as well. That's not to say that he didn't have an underlying issue but he'd clearly been able to manage it well enough to beat Djokovic in Paris and he was moving great against Rosol.

Born Slippy wrote:I'm fairly convinced Rafa would have played on at Wimbledon had he not lost to Rosol. I'd go as far as to say he might well have played the Olympics as well. That's not to say that he didn't have an underlying issue but he'd clearly been able to manage it well enough to beat Djokovic in Paris and he was moving great against Rosol.

And you think he gave up the opportunity and honour to be flag bearer for his Country at the Olympics simply because he LOST to Rosol.. are you kidding me. You dont know the Spanish mindset very well.. particularly Rafa
"underlying issue" that took him out of the game for 8mths When he and Toni thought it would have to be surgery.

CC. But you stick to your single minded beliefs about Murray too. IMO some of your views are wrong but I'm not going to call you names. Or imply that because your IMO biased about Murray you have no valid views on anything else.

lydian wrote:So what's the inference here, that his 8 months off afterwards were a screen? Of course he'd have carried on in that event, he had been playing through knee pain for so long under Toni's mantra "you must endure..." but that doesnt make the injury any less valid or that the hammer wouldn't have still fallen eventually.

Lydian, for my part, the inference is simply that in interviews, Nadal has assigned a bit more inevitability about losing early at Wimbledon than he appeared to me to be feeling at time. It feel akin to me to the type of interview he gives where he denies being favourite for a match or tournament. It may well be how he feels, but the reader is certainly allowed to take it with a pinch of salt.

It'd also add to the reasonable comments of time please and summerblues who are obviously not fan's of Nadal but don't seem to be "haters", that too many comments about Rosol are taken to heart by Nadal fans. We're experiencing a time in tennis in the men's game where the multiple slam champs of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are so consistent and just don't lose early at slams. So even if Wawrinka had beaten Djokovic at the AO, or Benneteau had beaten Fed at Wimbledon, it would be quite an upset even though they were seeded players. So this guy ranked 100 and barely having won a match on grass plays like he did, didn't lose his nerve and gets his big win, of course it's going to be memorable for years to come and a big talking point. I thought it was mesmerising performance.

Has it ever come to light when he was carrying the injury from? I mean I know it has been an underlying problem for some time but at what point did it become unmanagable? Pre-Wimbledon and post-French Open I am guessing. If that were the case would a withdrawal from Wimbledon and rest/treatment have prevented him having to take 8 months out?

Born Slippy wrote:I'm fairly convinced Rafa would have played on at Wimbledon had he not lost to Rosol. I'd go as far as to say he might well have played the Olympics as well. That's not to say that he didn't have an underlying issue but he'd clearly been able to manage it well enough to beat Djokovic in Paris and he was moving great against Rosol.

If he had got through that match he would have won Wimbledon, the Olympics, the US Open and probably the WTF (as long as he didn't run into Federer...) He was moving great and had just beaten Djokovic in Paris. Rosol put a stop to that. Is that what your saying? It's not is it? So what are you saying?

YvonneT wrote:

lydian wrote:So what's the inference here, that his 8 months off afterwards were a screen? Of course he'd have carried on in that event, he had been playing through knee pain for so long under Toni's mantra "you must endure..." but that doesnt make the injury any less valid or that the hammer wouldn't have still fallen eventually.

Lydian, for my part, the inference is simply that in interviews, Nadal has assigned a bit more inevitability about losing early at Wimbledon than he appeared to me to be feeling at time. It feel akin to me to the type of interview he gives where he denies being favourite for a match or tournament. It may well be how he feels, but the reader is certainly allowed to take it with a pinch of salt.

It'd also add to the reasonable comments of time please and summerblues who are obviously not fan's of Nadal but don't seem to be "haters", that too many comments about Rosol are taken to heart by Nadal fans. We're experiencing a time in tennis in the men's game where the multiple slam champs of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are so consistent and just don't lose early at slams. So even if Wawrinka had beaten Djokovic at the AO, or Benneteau had beaten Fed at Wimbledon, it would be quite an upset even though they were seeded players. So this guy ranked 100 and barely having won a match on grass plays like he did, didn't lose his nerve and gets his big win, of course it's going to be memorable for years to come and a big talking point. I thought it was mesmerising performance.

Quite a mesmerising performance not performances... so then every time a thread comes up about Nadal we have to be subjected to that one performance.  Then I would suggest that you write a thread about that one mesmerising performance and everyone can chip in their little bit in praise of Rosol.. I think that a far better idea than it being introduced to this particular thread which is supposed to be about the Nadal FEDERER  quarter finals not the Nadal ROSOL. I think that fair comment dont you.??  Or on the other hand perhaps we can have a thread purely about the qualities, talents and achievements of Rosol.  Then everyone would be happy

hawkeye wrote:CC. But you stick to your single minded beliefs about Murray too. IMO some of your views are wrong but I'm not going to call you names. Or imply that because your IMO biased about Murray you have no valid views on anything else.

A big difference though hawkeye. My views are far more across the board. I have posting history that shows I have been critical and praiseworthy of Murray. I will tell it as I see it - either positive or negative. However, hawkeye we all know that is not the case with you - it is negative, negative, negative.