Rafa's mind games or Reality?

First topic message reminder :

We know Rafa is one of the best when it comes to mind games, I am shocked at one of Rafa's statement in which he claims the current Cincinnati court is slower than what he played in Montreal, traditionally Montreal prepares some of the slowest hard courts and to what ever I saw Montreal was way slower that current Cincy and in Cincy the ball seems much more heavier and hence the pace at which it travels is faster as well.

So a quick question do anybody else feel Cincy is slower than Montreal? is Rafa playing mind games to put more pressure on his rivals? is he playing on Fed's mind indirectly that the court is playing slow and are you sure you wanna play me here?  

What ever little I saw in Dimitrov vs Nadal, the court was playing lightening quick and Nadal won coz he played attacking tennis, Nadal is playing like 2004-2005 very attacking and less passive, Dimitrov came back from 2-4 down in the 2nd set to win at 7-5 coz of two reasons, the first one the court played quicker and 2nd one Nadal decides to play aggressive at the expense of errors.

Even grandpa Fed will fancy his chances on fast courts, so is Nadal playing mind games already? this title is for Fed and Murray to lose, I would be real surprised if either of Nadal or Djoko win this.

kingraf wrote:I dont know how you know Nadal wouldnt have won a USO by now if it was every four years... but I understand your point. The key is the fact that you have so few chances at an Olympic makes it worth its weight in gold (and silver)

The fact is Luck doesn't play a role in describing someone's elite status, Olympic is more of luck than Slams , WTF and masters and hence less weightage.  

I dont underatand how luck plays a larger role in winning an Olympic.Youre guaranteed at least two in your physical peak. There is no Third set breaker. Best of Five final. Haas rates his Silver medal (doubles) above his MS1000 singles victory. Fed has gone on record that he wants to be at Rio 2016, hasnt shown similar excitement about Shanghai 2015. Olympics mean more to players now. Djokovic was pretty upset after a Bronze medal match in London. Seemed pretty happy with his lot after every MS1000 defeat since then, and prior to.

kingraf wrote:I dont underatand how luck plays a larger role in winning an Olympic.Youre guaranteed at least two in your physical peak. There is no Third set breaker. Best of Five final. Haas rates his Silver medal (doubles) above his MS1000 singles victory. Fed has gone on record that he wants to be at Rio 2016, hasnt shown similar excitement about Shanghai 2015. Olympics mean more to players now. Djokovic was pretty upset after a Bronze medal match in London. Seemed pretty happy with his lot after every MS1000 defeat since then, and prior to.

If Rafa would have had just 2 chances to win USO he would not have won USO for sure, for that sake not even Wimbledon. 

Again... How do you know that? He won the Olympics on the same surface as the one played on the USO.

kingraf wrote:Again... How do you know that? He won the Olympics on the same surface as the one played on the USO.

SImple how many attempts did it take for Rafa to win USO? , had it been just 2 attempts Rafa would not have won AO, Wimbledon for sure let alone USO and that would have been real shame, and thats why Slams with time possible if one has talent , skill and hardwork, and thats not the case with Olympics, you need more of a luck to play great , remain injury free, luck of the draw etc,.. on that given opportunity.

By that logic, no one in the current big 4 would have a Slam. Hell, Murray would be about forty years away from winning a Slam

invisiblecoolers wrote:

kingraf wrote:Again... How do you know that? He won the Olympics on the same surface as the one played on the USO.

SImple how many attempts did it take for Rafa to win USO? , had it been just 2 attempts Rafa would not have won AO, Wimbledon for sure let alone USO and that would have been real shame, and thats why Slams with time possible if one has talent , skill and hardwork, and thats not the case with Olympics, you need more of a luck to play great , remain injury free, luck of the draw etc,.. on that given opportunity.

You do understand this isn't really logic right? I'm assuming you're being ironic or looking for a rise?

ChequeredJersey wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

kingraf wrote:Again... How do you know that? He won the Olympics on the same surface as the one played on the USO.

SImple how many attempts did it take for Rafa to win USO? , had it been just 2 attempts Rafa would not have won AO, Wimbledon for sure let alone USO and that would have been real shame, and thats why Slams with time possible if one has talent , skill and hardwork, and thats not the case with Olympics, you need more of a luck to play great , remain injury free, luck of the draw etc,.. on that given opportunity.

You do understand this isn't really logic right? I'm assuming you're being ironic or looking for a rise?

Thats clearly a logic and I have put forward clearly, you don't wanna understand the logic coz its against your argument. 

kingraf wrote:By that logic, no one in the current big 4 would have a Slam. Hell, Murray would be about forty years away from winning a Slam

Exactly and thats why Slams, WTF, Masters are rated above Olympic and yes Olympic do has its significance than 500's  

@ King Raf, if the situation boils to both winning equal slams, then Rafa rightfully will earn the GOAT status, so till then I am sorry to say it lies with his current opponent. 

Jeah - Thats why Federer has skipped three Masters already to try make it to the Olympics in 2016 - because it has less significance

But those attempts would have been over a longer period of time and thus improvement still would have occurred- assuming that number of attempts at a Slam takes priority over general experience and improvements is based on precisely no evidence whatsoever, and his rivals would have been affected in exactly the same way, Roger Federer was a pro on tour 5 years before winning a slam, Djoko and Murray even more. And as soon as you change the dynamic like that all events occurring within that dynamic are unpredictable, you can't extrapolate real life incidences onto a fantasy situation with any confidence whatsoever. Well, you can. But it's inappropriate confidence

Wow great play means Roger breaks Rafa's serve to serve for the set, can he hold serve to claim the set?  

kingraf wrote:Jeah - Thats why Federer has skipped three Masters already to try make it to the Olympics in 2016 - because it has less significance

Fed wants to win a medal for his nation, that his individual passion, but that does mean he would have traded a Wimbledon for an Olympic, too much is made out of his passion. 

ChequeredJersey wrote:But those attempts would have been over a longer period of time and thus improvement still would have occurred- assuming that number of attempts at a Slam takes priority over general experience and improvements is based on precisely no evidence whatsoever, and his rivals would have been affected in exactly the same way, Roger Federer was a pro on tour 5 years before winning a slam, Djoko and Murray even more. And as soon as you change the dynamic like that all events occurring within that dynamic are unpredictable, you can't extrapolate real life incidences onto a fantasy situation with any confidence whatsoever. Well, you can. But it's inappropriate confidence

Your statement confirms you are more than confused. 

What a backhand to win the set.  

invisiblecoolers wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

kingraf wrote:Again... How do you know that? He won the Olympics on the same surface as the one played on the USO.

SImple how many attempts did it take for Rafa to win USO? , had it been just 2 attempts Rafa would not have won AO, Wimbledon for sure let alone USO and that would have been real shame, and thats why Slams with time possible if one has talent , skill and hardwork, and thats not the case with Olympics, you need more of a luck to play great , remain injury free, luck of the draw etc,.. on that given opportunity.

You do understand this isn't really logic right? I'm assuming you're being ironic or looking for a rise?

Thats clearly a logic and I have put forward clearly, you don't wanna understand the logic coz its against your argument. 

I'm not putting forward any argument except saying that your paragraph above is ridiculous

ChequeredJersey wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

kingraf wrote:Again... How do you know that? He won the Olympics on the same surface as the one played on the USO.

SImple how many attempts did it take for Rafa to win USO? , had it been just 2 attempts Rafa would not have won AO, Wimbledon for sure let alone USO and that would have been real shame, and thats why Slams with time possible if one has talent , skill and hardwork, and thats not the case with Olympics, you need more of a luck to play great , remain injury free, luck of the draw etc,.. on that given opportunity.

You do understand this isn't really logic right? I'm assuming you're being ironic or looking for a rise?

Thats clearly a logic and I have put forward clearly, you don't wanna understand the logic coz its against your argument. 

I'm not putting forward any argument except saying that your paragraph above is ridiculous

That was an argument to explain how elevating Olympic status was ridiculous . 

Ah. Sorry. Olympics are important but should be measured on a completely different yardstick to Pro Tennis anyway. The players are representing their countries and as part of a larger event and thus I count it on a separate score sheet if you like alongside Davis Cups. A Gold in any Olympic Sport is inherently a huge achievement but of a completely different nature to any Major or the general tennis year and should be kept separately and not compared

Well said CJ - That is what I failed to articulate when i said: " I think the way
media generally describe Nadal's achievements is
how I view it. "Twelve Slams and Olympic Gold".
The Olympic medal is an awesome footnote. Far
more important in the sporting world than a
solitary MS1000."

ChequeredJersey wrote:Ah. Sorry. Olympics are important but should be measured on a completely different yardstick to Pro Tennis anyway. The players are representing their countries and as part of a larger event and thus I count it on a separate score sheet if you like alongside Davis Cups. A Gold in any Olympic Sport is inherently a huge achievement but of a completely different nature to any Major or the general tennis year and should be kept separately and not compared

Yup agreed, perfect statement.