Don't Look, Don't Listen!

First topic message reminder :

If you like watching entertaining tennis featuring the best player in the world playing some excellent tennis then I can recommend that you watch a repeat of the much anticipated third round AO match between Nadal and Monfils   

The world No 1 produced a masterclass to reach the fourth round and a showdown with Kei Nishikori. Nadal was sublime in demolishing Monfils who, despite the scoreline, played some of his best tennis in Melbourne.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/10581267/Australian-Open-2014-Rafael-Nadal-v-Gael-Monfils-live.html

But if the thought of the number one player in the world playing well is a little scary

The demolition of Monfils will undoubtedly have been watched grimly by rivals Roger Federer and Andy Murray, with the Spaniard likely to be a huge roadblock to their title hopes in the semi-finals.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/australian-open-men-nadal-v-monfils-live-092022512--ten.html

I went court side for a few games Rafa was so impressive it was scary

https://twitter.com/bgtennisnation

Then maybe it will be better that you don't watch and don't listen?    Much easier if you don't see that devastating backhand. Take comfort in the error count given to Monfils  

 

hawkeye wrote:Yes this is true after winning in '09 Rafa's results at the AO have been Injured, Injured, Lost in 5th set after being a break up, didn't play because he was injured

I certainly remember him getting injured in 2010, but that was after been run ragged by Murray for two sets.

I mean you'd think that the greatest ever player at this event, could beat a 'pusher' like Murray on one leg wouldn't you??   

I'm also aware that Rafa was obviously injured last year, whcih is why he didn't take part and why I didn't mention it

hawkeye wrote:Yes this is true after winning in '09 Rafa's results at the AO have been Injured, Injured, Lost in 5th set after being a break up, didn't play because he was injured.

Beyond parody   

Yes Fed would have been pi55ed losing that match knowing either of them was always favourite to beat Puerta.

At the end of that 2005 RG match Nadal said the exchange at the net went:

"'I'm sorry for you" I said. "He said, 'No, no, you played very well. Good luck for the final. Good luck for the future'" ... I bet Federer didn't think the future would be 22-10 H2H... (at that very point it was 2-1)

HE, I saw the match and it was strange because it was later starting and neither were in amazing form. I think Federer if I'm honest played like he thought he was going to win from the outset (he had beat Nadal in 5 sets just a few weeks prior at Miami don't forget). He even said afterwards that he thought he had the keys to beating Nadal but it didn't happen. I actually think this loss told Federer he had a genuine contender/rival in Nadal.

The 'mistake' Fed made for me across those early Nadal years was to not keep up the physical work he put in 2000-2004, he seemed to rest on his talent thereafter and got smaller/slimmer with each passing year. Ok, it might not have helped on HC/grass much but I think it could have helped him be stronger on the BH where a very strong core is needed on clay. By 2008/2009 the physical difference between them really began to show and as we know Federer never beat Nadal in a slam match after 2007...

After the talk about the 2005 FO semi final so I am curious about what was thought about this match BEFORE it took place. I found this article written at the time. I hadn't made the connection that Nadal had already beaten Federer on hard court and run him very close in a second hard court match.

The trap is there for all to see, the two players in particular. There has been so much talk about today's semi-final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, and its importance to both of them, that the likelihood that the winner will go on and take the French Open title is regarded as a fait accompli .

"It's a tricky and possibly dangerous situation for both of us," said Federer, although for a man who has won his last 19 finals, and all four of his grand slam finals, he would not appear to have much to worry about.

What will be playing at the back of Federer's mind, however, is the Australian Open semi-final he lost to Russia's Marat Safin this year, the first really big match he has lost in recent times. It was Safin's birthday that day, and it is Nadal's, his 19th, today.

For the Spanish teenager everything is new. He had not played at Roland Garros before this year and, when he reached the quarter-finals, it was his best grand slam performance, beating the fourth round he reached in Melbourne this year where he lost to Lleyton Hewitt, the beaten finalist. In all Nadal has played in only six major championships, with 14 victories, including those here. Federer is playing in his 24th.

If it were not that the Swiss world No1 had previously failed to progress beyond the quarter-finals at Roland Garros, Federer would be the overwhelming favourite, for he has clearly established himself as the best player in the world on hard courts and grass. But such has been Nadal's progress this year, with Masters Series titles in Monte Carlo and Rome and a run of 22 matches on clay without defeat coming into Roland Garros, that an extremely tight semi-final is expected.

Moreover in the Nasdaq-100 final in Key Biscayne this year, played on a hard court, Nadal led Federer by two sets and 4-1 in the third, and was later two points away from victory in the tie-break. The youngster clearly relishes the big occasion and believes he can win this time, whereas Federer thinks he learned enough about Nadal's game in Miami to beat him again.

"At the beginning of that match I really didn't play very well at all and he took advantage of that. So I had to fight my way back and at the end I felt the fitter player. He looked extremely tired in the fifth and that kind of surprised me," said Federer.

"It is important to me that I have not expended too much energy and I'm through to my first French Open semi-final. That's the big thrill."

Much as everybody has warmed to Nadal's dynamic style, it would be a greater thrill for many tennis fans to see Federer go on to take the title and thereby become only the sixth player to win all four grand slam titles. The two-day break will have been tricky for both and they shared a somewhat awkward photo-shoot yesterday. They cannot wait to get started on the tennis and neither can anybody else.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2005/jun/03/tennis.frenchopen2005

The writer believed it would be more of a thrill for an established star to win yet another slam than an new break out player to win on his first attempt at the FO on his eighteenth birthaday? Was that the common view or just a biased opinion?

It would be sad if it was a common view. How exciting would it be today if an eighteen year old cut through the draw beating all these geriatric players clogging up the draw?

Ha ha! I would like to see the results of that "awkward photo" shoot. I feel nostalgic for something I didn't even see.

hawkeye wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:Feds was out of sorts, his execution was way off but Nadal played well. They have had better clay matches imo.

So you thought Fed would "right the ship" and the crazy teenager had had a good day? I wish I could watch that match fresh so I could judge it without knowing what happened next. I would like to know what I would think.

I think I made it pretty clear by that first remark no? Feds had an off day and Nadal played better. Simple.
No. I remembered Nadal had cleaned up all the clay events in the lead up to the event, Feds previous results here and the fact that Nadal had beaten and pushed him to5 sets on surfaces that feds had a lot of success on.

That's interesting Lydian. Thanks for that   They looked as if they had a long exchange at the net.

Luvsports. Sorry for misunderstanding but I'm still not sure if you were surprised by the result or if you saw it as a significant match in any way?

Silver wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Yes this is true after winning in '09 Rafa's results at the AO have been Injured, Injured, Lost in 5th set after being a break up, didn't play because he was injured.

Beyond parody   

How so? It's what happened.

hawkeye wrote
"That crazy teenager couldn't really be a match for a multi slam winning great?"

The Guardian wrote
"an extremely tight semi-final is expected"

I wrote
The result "was not really a great surprise"

No I wasn't surprised at the result at all...Nadal had won 5 clay titles that year already, and as we know should probably have been 2-0 H2H heading into that RG SF. Federer has simply never liked playing Nadal from the outset and on clay he was always going to be more vulnerable. He never had anyone attack his BH like Nadal did before...and to be honest he had little answer to it. He never did enough in my opinion to combat this, he stubbornly brought the same game plan to each of their matches in future, he never bulked up further to make his BH very strong and/or modify his BH grips. Whilst he was winning on HCs during that period I think he got a little complacent to clay. Like I say, if you compare his 2004 physique to 2008 there is a marked difference...he didn't keep it up when he should have. Not that he had a bad career of course....!

JuliusHMarx wrote:hawkeye wrote
"That crazy teenager couldn't really be a match for a multi slam winning great?"

The Guardian wrote
"an extremely tight semi-final is expected"

I wrote
The result "was not really a great surprise"

Julius. As I've said I don't know what was thought about that match because I didn't even know it was happening    In some ways it's more of a surprise if an 18 year old entering his first FO was expected to beat a player of Federer's standard.

So are you saying you watched the match yourself at the time and were not surprised by the result?

Lydian. Have just seen that you didn't see the result as a surprise either...

They were exciting times! sigh...

I don't recall if I watched it. I'd pretty much gone off clay court tennis at the time - it was only Rafa that got me watching it again. I wasn't really surprised by it.
 
For this part "The writer believed it would be more of a thrill for an established star to win yet another slam than an new break out player to win on his first attempt at the FO on his eighteenth birthaday? Was that the common view or just a biased opinion?" - again I don't recall. But in this AO, after my preference for Murray, I would rather see Djoko break the record with 5 AOs or see Rafa complete the double career slam, than see someone win their first slam. But maybe that's not the common view.

You have to remember HE he had already won 5 clay titles by May in 2005 inc. Monte Carlo, Rome, Acapulco and Barcelona (thats 2 x Masters and 2 x 500s!) beating some very good players on the way including clay wizard Coria twice, defending RG champ Gaudio 63 60, Canas twice...in the Acapulco final he beat Albert Montanes for the loss of just one game! So was it a surprise he beat Federer...no, not at all.

We have to remember what an absolute phenom this 18 year old 'kid' was. I remember watching him on Eurosport, it was an indoor carpet Challenger event in January 2003, Nadal would have been around 16y 6m and they were showing one of his matches because of the growing clamour around his ability...Bill Threlfall at the time was suggesting it was a kid with a very bright future and you could see he was some talent, it was simply obvious. His focus for a 16yr rookie was unreal. Anyway, it was his first challenger, fast indoors, and he got to the final. That took him into the top 200...by barely turning 17yo 6 months later he would be in the top 50.

So, like I say anything he did thereafter inc. beating Costa at MC 2003, then Fed at Miami 2004, wasn't a surprise. To those who say he's all about fitness and power, and endlessly go on about a lack of talent, they didn't see his meteoric rise in those early years...it's no wonder he'll end up as likely top 2 most successful tennis players of all time.

HM Murdoch wrote:Good shout, KR.

Can anyone think of a better AO performance than Federer v Roddick in 07? I'd struggle to think of a better that I've watched.

What about Fed - Del Po in AO 2009 , thats a hammering with a double bagel I don't even wanna watch again.  

lydian wrote:An interesting side debate is....just what were Rafa's best performances ever? In relative terms I can never look beyond the audacity of beating defending RG champ Albert Costa at Monte Carlo Masters 2003 as 16 year old in straights. Outrageous. Beating #1 Federer at Miami 2004 as a 17 year old was pretty ridiculous too. Lest we forget the talent of this guy...not the power or fitness, just the outrageous talent this guy showed at an age most boys are learning the fundamentals.

PS...for AO...Safin v Federer 05, Nadal v Verdasco 09, Roddick v El Aynaoui 03

FO '08 display is the most scariest one, Fed in my view didn't play bad at all [may not be close to his best but certainly not a bad level], it was just Rafa who played his best tennis ever on that day.

lydian wrote:Your wish is....well brief highlights.
Look at Nadal's first FH winner!
Tennis is not played any better today 9 years on....9 years!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgak8FGvNo0

What a match, thx for the share, I kep on advocating about this that Rafa on 05/06/07/08 was more deadly on clay than the current version but some Djoko worshippers boosted Nadal of current to boost their hero's image.

I thought Fed would have tanked against Gabashvilli in 3rd round, and now he has to beat Tsonga, Murray , Rafa and Nole to win the title at 33 years of age, horrible.   

Nobody ever tanks in a slam!
17 GS, you don't give him enough respect IC. He can beat Tsonga and has a chance against a returning Murray. He will relish the opportunity, after all he is only 32 not 33

I would suggest that Rafa's future opponent's won't be scared by todays match. So they can watch it if they want    The only player who shouldn't watch a reply is Nishikori... It would be likely to give him nightmares.

hawkeye wrote:I would suggest that Rafa's future opponent's won't be scared by todays match. So they can watch it if they want    The only player who shouldn't watch a reply is Nishikori... It would be likely to give him nightmares.

He played quite well today, got the job done. Any thoughts on the time violation?

Given Fed's demolition of Tsonga today, rumours abound that a grim Murray is about to claim his back hurts and an aghast Rafa is feeling his knee - and they both might be about to fly home to see various specialists.

Silver wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I would suggest that Rafa's future opponent's won't be scared by todays match. So they can watch it if they want    The only player who shouldn't watch a reply is Nishikori... It would be likely to give him nightmares.

He played quite well today, got the job done. Any thoughts on the 2 time violations?

If it was Murray it would be a 2 page post by now :-)

Also fixed it for you

Thanks  

On the topic title...perhaps the umpire shouldn't have looked at her watch and don't worry hawkeye Rafa didn't listen to the umpires first warning.

Wow beating Monfils terrifies multi-slam winners, I must say HE is very imaginative these days as she tries to prove that there are a million ways to skin a cat. Monfils is a mental midget who is fortunate not to fall on the court and injure himself due to his pathetically poor footwork and balance.The guy is uncoachable, I don't know why he even wastes the money.