Australian Open: Day Ten - 2014

First topic message reminder :

http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/schedule/schedule15.html

Day 9 somehow got lost , but Day 10 is ready to start.



Cibulkova would be an interesting winner, but she has a hard time closing matches (she is a class apart from the recent Djokovic antics).

Vika should have an easier time, but ARad is a tough cookie.

The Mens side has seen two "upsets" already, is there room for more?

Can Grigor (Baby Fed, to the French version) do the possible and upset Nadal the Iron Man?

Perhaps Federer (the elder) is the more capable between the two to cause an upset and beat Murray?

Fun day of Tennis awaits. Goodluck to all contestants today.

Dimitrov played some excellent stuff today - most notable of all, his serving was right up there at Federer's level. But still it wasn't enough to see off Rafa.

And if the problem was that Dimitrov didn't take his opportunities - well, isn't that precisely what we saw from Federer when he had the chance to wrap up his own match cleanly in 3 ..... ?? Federer would be punished in the worst possible way for such a sloppy game at 5-4 - ie not just loss of a set, but the match itself   

I wonder what's caused the crater? (I like the term)

Presumably the heat coupled with an extreme grip is related. It certainly is a bad'un though, KT extinction-level stuff.

lags72 wrote:Dimitrov played some excellent stuff today - most notable of all, his serving was right up there at Federer's level. But still it wasn't enough to see off Rafa.

And if the problem was that Dimitrov didn't take his opportunities - well, isn't that precisely what we saw from Federer when he had the chance to wrap up his own match cleanly in 3 ..... ?? Federer would be punished in the worst possible way for such a sloppy game at 5-4 - ie not just loss of a set, but the match itself   

There were a lot of strange errors in the Nadal game. It was entertaining but not great quality even if Grigor made it look good. Federer was really another level to Murray save for two games at the end of the third, which you have to expect. Nadal is favourite but Federer has as decent a chance as he will ever have at a major.

My money is still on Rafa. I think Roger has a chance if he serves as well as he did today, first 2 sets especially. But as great as Roger was, Rafa is going to be a step up from a post op Murray.

He'll be fitter than Murray, he'll be more match tight, he'll make less errors. That said, I do see evidence for some optimism for Federer. There were very few backhand shanks. With his new racquet he seems to need less rotation on that side. Sure Murray doesn't spin it like Rafa does, but signs were there that he'll cope better than he used to.

I'd still go for Rafa though, in spite of his blister. I think it will be tight though, and I think Fed may take the momentum into the match and take the first set.

Agreed, good assessment Danny

Anyone got a link to a picture of this chasm? Is there any chance it could have a human being standing next to it to lend perspective?

bogbrush wrote:Anyone got a link to a picture of this chasm? Is there any chance it could have a human being standing next to it to lend perspective?

There's a couple here:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1932350-rafael-nadals-blistered-hand-at-australian-open-match-looks-painful

It looks sore as anything but doesn't appear to stop him from fist pumping!!

Silver, Nadal doesn't have an extreme grip.
Lags, there's playing at 95% due to holding back form but this isn't the same is it. Its a massive impediment.

That doesn't look too bad to me. It's messy and weepy, but not very big and not deep. Lots of cream with a bit of pain killer in there. Strapped up, he's a big boy. At least that's how it looks to me, as if I know what it feels like though.

Was it messing him up for sure?

If it's a massive impediment Rafa will lose. If he wins it clearly isn't a massive impediment.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If it's a massive impediment Rafa will lose. If he wins it clearly isn't a massive impediment.

  How so very predictable

I would hazard a guess the blister is affecting him. He was very good against Monfils and decent prior to that so it is a safe to presume it has deteriorated with the wear and ter of tournament play. He looked vulnerable against Nishikori and made uncharacteristic errors and likewise today throwing in three double faults in one game. It will not get any better (only worse). This is Roger's best chance to beat Rafael at a slam in years what with Roger's improved form and Rafa's apparent vulnerability.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If it's a massive impediment Rafa will lose. If he wins it clearly isn't a massive impediment.

  How so very predictable

Logic is predictable.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If it's a massive impediment Rafa will lose. If he wins it clearly isn't a massive impediment.

  How so very predictable

What was wrong about what he wrote?

No player can beat one of the top rivals carrying a massive impediment.

Not sure why but I keep hearing that Elvis song today 'It's Now Or Never'. A message to Roger?

lydian wrote:Silver, Nadal doesn't have an extreme grip.
Lags, there's playing at 95% due to holding back form but this isn't the same is it. Its a massive impediment.

A more meant in relation to the kids I've seen with blisters! His grip isn't unusual on tour, as you say.

It does look pretty bad to me. Even if it's not about to crack his hand open, the rubbing could be a horrendous distraction after a while. Even so, it is what it is. I just hope that it doesn't decide the outcome of the match.

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If it's a massive impediment Rafa will lose. If he wins it clearly isn't a massive impediment.

  How so very predictable

What was wrong about what he wrote?

No player can beat one of the top rivals carrying a massive impediment.

Wrong ????? are you reading what I said... or what you think I said BB 

So, Rafa's blister, Murray's back op recovery, Novak only losing because of Stan's fluke return to earn match point, Delpo losing because exhausted from the heat... Best asterix this one now, no matter who wins it.

Plus Serena in the women's... Let's asterix the whole thing.

There's a good case for this post to be asterixed too!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Not sure why but I keep hearing that Elvis song today 'It's Now Or Never'. A message to Roger?

Not really, Federer is 33 soon and his time at the top is done. Now it's flashbacks and reminders, though if we were looking for such a sentiment as that we'd be looking for a freakily easy draw, not going past Tsonga, Murray and Nadal, and then Berdych / Wawrinka.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If it's a massive impediment Rafa will lose. If he wins it clearly isn't a massive impediment.

  How so very predictable

What was wrong about what he wrote?

No player can beat one of the top rivals carrying a massive impediment.

Wrong ????? are you reading what I said... or what you think I said BB 

You're saying Julius was predictably spot on?

Yes he could still beat another top player with it as he did today but come on its going to make life much harder. Indeed it may give Federer the 2-3% edge he needs to get over the finishing line. It's hardly ideal is it - he was barely serving above 100mph today and said he couldn't feel for the serve...that may be all Fed needs to get a strong look in on Nadal's service games. Apparently it's a callous that's moved and shorn off. I'm not looking for group sympathy, etc, its just bloody obvious it's a big impediment to any tennis professional to have great blister in the palm of your hand. One that's getting worse, not better (as Nadal said).

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Not sure why but I keep hearing that Elvis song today 'It's Now Or Never'. A message to Roger?

Not really, Federer is 33 soon and his time at the top is done. Now it's flashbacks and reminders, though if we were looking for such a sentiment as that we'd be looking for a freakily easy draw, not going past Tsonga, Murray and Nadal, and then Berdych / Wawrinka.

If Roger gets past this lot at 32.5, then the GOAT argument is OVER!!

If Fed had any sort of massive impediment I would very much expect him to lose to anyone in the top 20, probably top 30.
Perhaps Rafa is so much better than Fed that he can beat him and other top 10'ers even with a massive impediment, but I don't believe that to be the case.

^ unless Rafa wins one aged 32.6

Well we know Nadal is the master of enduring pain, he'll play until his hand drops off but it's clear if his game is impeded. His serve clearly was today so I call that a massive impediment. Since when did Nadal serve 3 doubles in one game? He could get away with that vs inconsistent Dimitrov. Federer won't be so kind.

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If it's a massive impediment Rafa will lose. If he wins it clearly isn't a massive impediment.

  How so very predictable

What was wrong about what he wrote?

No player can beat one of the top rivals carrying a massive impediment.

Wrong ????? are you reading what I said... or what you think I said BB 

You're saying Julius was predictably spot on?

You tell me your the one that knows what I think obviously... to assume makes an ass out of u and me

And if Rafa wins, how can we explain it? He has a massive impediment but still wins - the only explanation would be that he is a far, far better player than Federer.

JHM you can be a real smart arse at times. If he wins its because they found a way to manage/control it whereby it affected him minimally and he played obviously well, if he loses Fed may have been too good anyway, or it affected Nadal enough to tip the balance in Feds favour. Or any combo therein. The Captain Obvious point is its not exactly great for the guy is it...or perhaps you're trying to say it won't affect him one iota?

Lydian's right. It will almost certainly affect him, and may help to decide the outcome of the match. With that said, regardless of the result it shouldn't detract or add to/from the achievement of the victor. That made more sense in my head.

In fairness to him, I suspect JHM is only reacting to what has been seen on this forum over the last few months.

lydian wrote:JHM you can be a real smart arse at times. If he wins its because they found a way to manage/control it whereby it affected him minimally and he played obviously well, if he loses Fed may have been too good anyway, or it affected Nadal enough to tip the balance in Feds favour. Or any combo therein. The Captain Obvious point is its not exactly great for the guy is it...or perhaps you're trying to say it won't affect him one iota?

I choose my words carefully Lydian. If I think something is a massive impediment, I'll say 'massive'. If I think it might 'affect him minimally' I'll choose another word more suitable. That way my meaning is clear and other posters can't get all smart-arsey with me.

Massive synonyms - enormous, gigantic, very big, very large, great, giant, colossal, mammoth, vast, immense, tremendous, mighty, stupendous, monumental, epic, prodigious, mountainous, monstrous, titanic, towering, elephantine, king-sized, king-size, gargantuan, Herculean, Brobdingnagian, substantial, extensive, hefty, bulky, weighty, heavy, gross

Yes, it may affect the outcome. Should Rafa win, it would please some Rafa fans, not necessarily yourself, to imply that Rafa can beat Fed despite being massively impeded by injury.

Well to be honest Silver anything injurywise that happens to Nadal is usually seen with little sympathy. It's never been a particularly pro-Nadal forum here so any of his fans are usually arguing (or metaphorically urinating) into a strong wind. It was written of Nadal and his meagre impediment...

The Spanish player twice had his left hand extensively re-taped during his intense three-hour, 37-minute struggle and said trying to serve with the injury was becoming a major worry. "I feel that with the tape, I can lose the racquet when I'm serving. That's my feeling. The racquet can go. That's a terrible feeling for a serve, because then when you have this feeling you are not able to accelerate at the right moment. You lose a little bit the coordination. That's a big deal."

Nadal said his serving troubles were also affecting the rest of his game. "When you lose the confidence with one shot, one important shot, then you are not able to play with calm the rest of the shots. So I'm going to try to improve that for after tomorrow that I need. If not, I not going to have the chance to be in the final."

Whether it's a massive...<insert JHM thesaurus>...deal or not I leave to others.

Should Rafa win, it would please some Rafa fans, not necessarily yourself, to imply that Rafa can beat Fed despite being massively impeded by injury.


I wouldn´t say that you chose those words particularly carefully JHM
Lydian is a massive Rafa fan as am I so who are the "some" you speak of. I have never implied any such thing either.

I understand Lydian, and agree with what you're saying, particularly on how much this could affect Nadal. I've got enough experience with blisters on my feet due to distance running to know that they can be bloody agonising! Occasionally even bloody and agonising

Let's not let this get too ugly, chaps. The match hasn't even been played yet! We still have Stan trying to shoot down a Berd tomorrow, too.

Not necessarily regular posters H-N, or even posters on this particular forum. But we've all seen it done by Rafa fans - and Fed fans when the situation is reversed.

My only point, which seems to have been lost, is that if it is indeed a massive, monstrous, titanic or Brobdingnagian impediment during the match, then the outcome is inevitable, because Rafa won't be able to overcome that.
If Fed wins in 3 easy sets then clearly it is massive and it is a damn shame for Rafa.
If Fed wins in 5, maybe it was a small impediment that affected the outcome, but we'd have to watch closely.
If Rafa wins, it can't be massive, it can be no more than slight, if anything at all.

Is that such an unreasonable position to take?

Thats rowing backwards now. Your point before this expanded rationality was one of polarity...you basically inferred I was effectively saying (after all it was I who mentioned "massive impediment" which you've jumped on with 101 synonyms) Rafa could only win with such a huge impediment due to him being "a far, far better player than Federer". Your words...designed to polarise my position into one of farcical nonsense.

Point taken JHM, after all us Rafa fans only talk out of our arse anyway. Clearly that minimal blister is nothing for any pro player to worry about even though they can't feel for their serve due to it.

See you after the semi...perhaps...its time for one of those BB breaks. Enjoy the rest of AO folks.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If it's a massive impediment Rafa will lose. If he wins it clearly isn't a massive impediment.

  How so very predictable

What was wrong about what he wrote?

No player can beat one of the top rivals carrying a massive impediment.

Wrong ????? are you reading what I said... or what you think I said BB 

You're saying Julius was predictably spot on?

You tell me your the one that knows what I think obviously... to assume  makes an ass out of u and me

Ok, enlighten us what you meant. Be imaginative.

Maybe Lydian and HN are reading JHM's comments in a different context to me (well I expect so since I don't have their history), but they make sense to me.

If Rafa's blister is a massive impediment i.e. he's seriously struggling with his grip on his racquet, then I don't see how he can win. If he can grip it normally, I fully expect him to win.

Personally I think it's possible it will be such a major impediment, but more likely that he will severely limit his practice tomorrow to get treatment and allow it to heal as much as possible in the short time available and he'll have it managed to tolerable levels by Friday.

The guy burned his hand in Cincinnati a few years back and still beat some quality opponents, so he seems to have a pretty high tolerance of pain.

lydian wrote:Thats rowing backwards now. Your point before this expanded rationality was one of polarity...you basically inferred I was effectively saying (after all it was I who mentioned "massive impediment" which you've jumped on with 101 synonyms) Rafa could only win with such a huge impediment due to him being "a far, far better player than Federer". Your words...designed to polarise my position into one of farcical nonsense.

Point taken JHM, after all us Rafa fans only talk out of our arse anyway. Clearly that minimal blister is nothing for any pro player to worry about even though they can't feel for their serve due to it.

See you after the semi...perhaps...its time for one of those BB breaks. Enjoy the rest of AO folks.

Can I jump in and say Julius really wasn't meaning that. He was, I think, reacting to the 'set up' by one or two (not you) that Raf (I) loses because of injury or (ii) wins against massive odds.

Sensible posters all know that none of these guys beats another with a genuinely massive impediment. You're one of them.

YvonneT wrote:Maybe Lydian and HN are reading JHM's comments in a different context to me (well I expect so since I don't have their history), but they make sense to me.

If Rafa's blister is a massive impediment i.e. he's seriously struggling with his grip on his racquet, then I don't see how he can win. If he can grip it normally, I fully expect him to win.

 
Thank you Yvonne, that's all I was saying. At no point did I say it wasn't or couldn't be a massive impediment, simply that if is it, he won't be able to win. And that, logically, if he wins, it can't have been a massive impediment.
 
And that's all I would have said if I hadn't been drawn into a discussion by the replies that followed.
 
BB has explained it well, as well.

Nadal says it's fine, apart from the occasional serve: "The rest of the things are more or less fine but with the serve I sometimes feel the racquet go."

Then again, I suppose he's hardly going to say: "yeah kills on the forehand, can barely hit it, but don't tell Rog!"

Should be able to tell in the match. I hope it doesn't affect the result as I hate the after argument of "doesn't count, so and so was hurt". If you're on the court, for me it counts.

Rafa in 4 sets, Fed to take the first set.

Anyway, I just watched Murray-Fed and it struck me as almost a mirror image of last year's semi between them here. Both had one player dominant throughout, the other just keeping themselves in it by fighting of multiple break points, stealing a set or two on a tie-break before finally fading physically in the end - and both the scorelines looked much closer than they actually felt and could easily have been something like 6-2 6-4 6-2.

Following on from the discussion earlier on post-match press conferences, I thought Murray's was pretty good - obviously disgusted with himself for the errors that lead to the final break but otherwise saying he did his prep as best he could, the back itself wasn't an issue but now he needs to go away and continue to put in the work to get back to pre-surgery physical level. Seems fair enough.

Good points, Yvonne. Murray managing to avert disaster in the third today was very reminiscent of Federer somehow forcing the deciding set out of nowhere last year. And as you say, the general pattern of the match was very similar - even the injury that slightly hampered each player was the same!

bogbrush wrote:

lydian wrote:Thats rowing backwards now. Your point before this expanded rationality was one of polarity...you basically inferred I was effectively saying (after all it was I who mentioned "massive impediment" which you've jumped on with 101 synonyms) Rafa could only win with such a huge impediment due to him being "a far, far better player than Federer". Your words...designed to polarise my position into one of farcical nonsense.

Point taken JHM, after all us Rafa fans only talk out of our arse anyway. Clearly that minimal blister is nothing for any pro player to worry about even though they can't feel for their serve due to it.

See you after the semi...perhaps...its time for one of those BB breaks. Enjoy the rest of AO folks.

Can I jump in and say Julius really wasn't meaning that. He was, I think, reacting to the 'set up' by one or two (not you) that Raf (I) loses because of injury or (ii) wins against massive odds.

Sensible posters all know that none of these guys beats another with a genuinely massive impediment. You're one of them.

This is also what I wanted to say - well put.

Silver wrote:Good points, Yvonne. Murray managing to avert disaster in the third today was very reminiscent of Federer somehow forcing the deciding set out of nowhere last year. And as you say, the general pattern of the match was very similar - even the injury that slightly hampered each player was the same!

I thought Fed just ran out of steam (physically & mentally) last year due to the second 5 setter in a row. They did both have their old man vests on, right enough.

Was about to say at least Murray won't be playing 5 set matches again until end of May - until I realised he is playing Davis Cup next week (on clay as well).

federer can well win this tournament and to be honest I thought that would be impossible thus far in his career. lets see tomorrow.

I'm not buying the explanation because of the sarcastic straw man thrown back at me.

I said:
Well we know Nadal is the master of enduring pain, he'll play until his hand drops off but it's clear if his game is impeded. His serve clearly was (hampered) today so I call that a massive impediment. Since when did Nadal serve 3 doubles in one game? He could get away with that vs inconsistent Dimitrov. Federer won't be so kind.

JHM replies:
And if Rafa wins, how can we explain it? He has a massive impediment but still wins - the only explanation would be that he is a far, far better player than Federer.

So a ridiculously polarised converse extrapolation of what I said was given back. The "far, far better player" is a sarcastic reverse point to illustrate I'm talking out of my arse when that wasn't what I said in the first place. It's a straw man. I said Dimi lost due to inconsistency, Federer isnt like that this AO so wouldn't be so generous to Rafa...however at no point am I inferring Fed is guaranteed to win. Therefore the 100% reverse counter cant be made back at me. In any case, Rafa could win but only if those blisters improve significantly in 2 days...which is a different argument. If they stay as they are (which is likely) then they're a massive impediment to his serve as he himself states. In that scenario I see Nadal's chance of winning correspondingly massively reduced. So my point is I don't need to be sarcastically drawn into a counter straw man I never made.

Danny - sounds like you follow (as I do) the Jimmy Connors school of philosophy : once you choose to step on to the court, you're fit to play.

On the contentious subject of "massive impediments" I don't understand how this has been so horribly misconstrued.

It's widely accepted that Rafa is the favourite to beat Federer over 5 sets nowadays, and so if he can grip the racquet normally, then it will be normal for him to win. If however the impediment is truly "massive" then all logic says he cannot win.

Haddie-nuff and (undoubtedly) lydian are excellent, knowledgeable posters ; but I suspect that on this occasion it was an over-sensitivity as longstanding Rafa fans that led them towards a somewhat misguided approach & reaction wrt the rational arguments put forward by others.

It's easy to get sensitised lags when seemingly every word Nadal fans utter is dissected & strawman'ed to the nth degree to corroborate an oft held counter view that Nadal fans only believe he wins through adversity or injury. A view that positions Nadal fans as seeing every win elevating his hero status further...i.e. he must be a far far better player to keep winning under such terrible & longstanding injury situations. I, for one, have never said that so I get cheesed off when those assumptive views are lazily thrown back at me in response, as outlined above.

Grip the racquet normally vs swinging normally are 2 very different subjects though. Especially where grips and swings during serving are concerned. But hey...this is getting tedious.

Well, one thing is for sure lydian ..... these two giants of the sport still have the power to generate emotion and controversy even days before a match, quite unlike any others. I firmly believe that all (true) fans of tennis will rue the day when they respectively choose to call time on their glittering careers.

Meanwhile, the diametrically opposing views away from the tennis action itself can all get a little tedious as you say. And with that in mind, I'm just off for a couple of hours at the beach, followed by a quick metro train to Melbourne Park - though sadly armed only with a ground pass for today. But I will of course make good use of the massive outdoor screens at the complex - and hopefully it won't be so crowded as to spoil my view, because that would be an impediment ...... 

Ok I think its time to calm down, its a massive tizz on an internet forum over 2 blokes whacking a ball about in a couple of days. Lets put the strawmans etc away

All I first said was "If it's a massive impediment Rafa will lose. If he wins it clearly isn't a massive impediment." I honestly don't see anything wrong with that argument.

H-N comes back with "   How so very predictable"

Seems like every word I utter also gets dissected to the nth degree and still no-one knows what she meant. I was happy to leave it at that, but the debate went on with a few other posters, so I went with it. I don't think he could've beaten Dimi with a massive, withdrawal-type impediment/'crater'. I think the use of those words is excessive and needless hyperbole - the same way the media hype everything up. That's just my view. I think he beat Dimi despite being hampered somewhat on his serve by a blister - that's all. The same way Fed beat Murray with Murray somewhat hampered by the legacy of his back trouble - not because Murray had a massive impediment.  

Lydian, I've already specifically said that my views on 'some' Rafa fans are not directed at you. There are 'some' Fed fans who are equally ridiculous as those 'some' Rafa fans, if not more so.