Australian Open 2014 Men's Final

First topic message reminder :

We seem to have overlooked this. It's tomorrow apparently. Or today in Australia. The bad news is it that rain is forecast - no, not for Oz, for my doubles match at midday 

Danny_1982 wrote:Also, those celebrating a Rafa defeat should treasure this moment because he is still clearly the best player on the tour right now and that 14th slam is coming very soon.

Obviously Rafa is the best player on tour right now - by some distance too.  You do not have to win every single title to be the best; nobody ever does.  Nothing is ever guaranteed but you would have to say that indeed, chances are 14th will be coming sooner rather than later.

lydian wrote:Quite agree Banbrotam actually. Djokovic and Nadal are still superlative players...Djokovic only lost narrowly to the champ as it turns out. Delpo has never been a consistent force but his time will come again, as will Berdy's. Wawrinka has always been a major talent, suffocating under Federer's great wings...he's got chance to shine himself now. Murray will pick up through the year and Dimitrov is getting better too...so loads of guys in the mix moving forwards. I think BB is inwardly sad Federer is on the decline and in the final winter of his career. I get that. Had it following Sampras years ago...but you have to keep your love of tennis close to your heart, others will come along and write new chapters of tennis history. That's always the way it goes. There's a kid called Borna Coric from Croatia...who's only 16...but already ranked 300 and rising. Watch for him.

The point is new guys will come along and change the way the game is played, the game evolves. The key is that we evolve with it and not live in the past waiting for someone to replace the guy we followed on a like for like basis. Dimitrov is like Federer but has his own qualities too. But not every guy can come along and win 10+ slams, there is a blip in new blood at the moment but that won't stay the same forever. So, keep watching...keep writing...keep the faith

I've no confidence in Del Potro and certainly Berdy winning a slam. I think the former finds it too difficult to get his large frame and dodgy wrists through two weeks. Berdy, is too one-dimensional, lacks the mental daredevil to do something different etc

Agree with the rest. I anticipate Andy getting his game back for Wimbledon, maybe having a good dirt season and then really kicking on in the second half

Come on banbrotam, the guy was clearly affected...he can't help getting an injury, particularly one he's not had before. If it was a spasm then they're awful. Given his medical issues down the years he's clearly sensitised to injury...but I don't begrudge him the MTO. Its not like he pulls MTOs every tournament is it. However, the back clearly affected the match, to say otherwise is rather non-sensical. It's a shame but it is what it is. Don't see why it has to be a bone of contention...neutral tennis fans were basically robbed of a good tennis match today, and whether the title is asterisked or not Stan's name is on the cup so who cares 20 years from now.

Just realised that Novak no longer holds a slam or the end of year event for the first time since 2010

Danny_1982 wrote:Is "the big 4" dead?

Fed's consistent best is long gone I'd say (even after this tournament, which was good for him). Murray and Djokovic are I think going to be a little more vulnerable to the odd defeat in slams and masters (well, they were both pretty vulnerable to odd defeats in masters last year). Nadal, it is tough to predict, but his level last year was so high, you've got to think it will drop slightly.
But, the matches between them are still the biggest draws in tennis - they are the rivalries that have meaning - but there are chinks in the armour that other guys can exploit.
Down the line, I think when the "big 4" period is referred to, it won't include 2014.

Congratulations to Stan, whose unshaven face surely makes him the most disheveled looking Slam winner since Agassi's pirate phase... Haven't caught the match yet, so I can't comment on the injury, or how bad it is, but it goes without saying that beating a guy you've never won a set against in your first GS final is a phenomenal achievement, and going through Nadal and Djokovic may just be the toughest route to a first Slam ever.

As for Rafa, my understanding is that it was simply a case of spasms, coming at a horrible time, nothing too serious. Correct?

Just a shame we now have to wait 5 months until the next slam! I'd far rather AO was in early March.

Yep DP & Berdy are unlikely slam winners but they will do well enough to push top 4 though. I think it'll be Stan tbh, he's beaten Berdy last few times they've played now. I think he's the real deal now.

Actually, as a neutral, I found it fascinating simply because it was unusual - it played out quite well as a drama, if not as a tennis match. Probably not if I'd paid to see it though.

Well done to Stan, shame for Rafa.

He never shaves to hide the severe acne scars he had & still suffers from.

I think Fed and Murray will be back in the top four by the end of W.

Murrays obviously working his way back but all the signs in AUS were encouraging.

I think Fed still has the game, when fit, to challenge anyone not named Rafa. He's only been playing with his new racquet for about 6 weeks so he'll probably continue to improve over the next few months. He's also been saying since before the AUS started that he doesn't expect to be back to full fitness till about april.

lydian wrote:Just a shame we now have to wait 5 months until the next slam! I'd far rather AO was in early March.

In many ways it would make sense to play IW and Miami before the AO - also in March it may hopefully be cooler in Melbourne (?).

Stan is good on clay too, he won Junior RG i think. Lets see his new found style and confidence will play this year. Wouldove to see him get  Masters and the USO  

lydian wrote:Come on banbrotam, the guy was clearly affected...he can't help getting an injury, particularly one he's not had before. If it was a spasm then they're awful. Given his medical issues down the years he's clearly sensitised to injury...but I don't begrudge him the MTO. Its not like he pulls MTOs every tournament is it. However, the back clearly affected the match, to say otherwise is rather non-sensical. It's a shame but it is what it is. Don't see why it has to be a bone of contention...neutral tennis fans were basically robbed of a good tennis match today, and whether the title is asterisked or not Stan's name is on the cup so who cares 20 years from now.

I've said, I don't blame Rafa. I still wonder whether Fed or Murray would have gone off the court. That doesn't mean that they are morally superior or correct - Murray in particular obviously had something wrong with his back for 18 months and rarely went off, for me that's actually foolish

What I mean is that different players will react in different ways and its highly likely that lots of players have an 'unrevealed' problem

You're correct, we wuz robbed   of a classic match - but so were we at the last US Open, when Murray lost to Wawrinka - but I still think Stan would have won both matches against 100% fit players. It's the backhand, when it's firing it's the No.1 weapon in Tennis and actually makes the likes of Nadal and Nole wary

banbrotam wrote:I've said, I don't blame Rafa. I still wonder whether Fed or Murray would have gone off the court.

Nole would have though

IMO Wawrinka played the higher level tennis throughout the 2014 Australian Open. 

Nadal, whilst he got to the final, only played a really high level against Monfils and Federer. 

Wawrinka was in the zone for the entire event, aside from the set he gave away to Berdych. 

Wawrinka is a worthy champion. 

As for looking forward. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray will be looking to up their level in the run up to Roland Garros. 

Even with this defeat, IMO, only Djokovic offers Nadal a challenge in Paris. 

But Wawrinka will be a danger man on the dirt. But the extra bounce many nullify his beautiful backhand. 

I don't expect Federer to be a contender on the clay, and it hurts me to say that. 

Murray will want to get enough miles under his belt for his Wimbledon defence. 

Nadal vs Djokovic will go on a tear on the clay.

Jahu wrote:Stan is goos on clay too, he won Junior RG i think. Lets see his new found style and confidence will play this year. Wouldove to see him get  Masters and the USO   

I said on Friday, that I thought he could win RG - but I did think he'd lose today!!

Great to see a much ridiculed player (even last US Open, posters were scoffing at the thoughts of him winning a slam) who's play I've loved for years now - simply because like Roger and Andy he has a beautiful varied game

Be great to see Andy and Stan at peak fitness in a Slam final, like the the first Wimbledon roof match of 2008. How great was that? And they've both improved since

Q. Obviously a very difficult occasion for you emotionally. Did your back go when you played that forehand in the first game of the second set when you doubled over?

RAFAEL NADAL: No. The back, since the beginning I felt a little bit, from the warmup. It was a little bit worst in the first set. End of the first set, I start to feel worst.

Then at the beginning of the second was the key moment that I felt, during a serve in a bad movement, is very stiff, very bad.

That's not the real moment to talk about that. Is the moment to congratulate Stan. He's playing unbelievable. He really deserve to win that title. I very happy for him. He's a great, great guy. He's a good friend of mine. I am really happy for him.

I think if Fed avoids Nadal, he can make some damage this year, not much to defend and new racquet ams Edberg seem to be more flowing combo.

summerblues wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I've said, I don't blame Rafa. I still wonder whether Fed or Murray would have gone off the court.

Nole would have though

Quite rightly!! I think BB once said, he'd like to see Murray play Rafa and Novak at their own game (or words to that affect)

I actually get frustrated with the stiff upper lip Murray does with his injuries. Then again after this even he opened up, stating that he never thought he could win and got crucified by some

They're all damned no matter what

Jahu wrote:I think if Fed avoids Nadal, he can make some damage this year, not much to defend and new racquet ams Edberg seem to be more flowing combo.

On grass and HC but not clay. 

If he dodges Nadal, then he's gotta face Djokovic

banbrotam wrote:

summerblues wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I've said, I don't blame Rafa. I still wonder whether Fed or Murray would have gone off the court.

Nole would have though

Quite rightly!! I think BB once said, he'd like to see Murray play Rafa and Novak at their own game (or words to that affect)

Yes, Nole and Rafa are both quite bad with MTOs - Nole perhaps even worse than Rafa.  He took an MTO just before Andy was going to serve for the match in their USO final if I remember it correctly.

Nadal did the same on match point for Fed in Cinci i think 2y ago?

Thanks Danny for the interview. Such a weird injury for Rafa too...I wonder if its related to the blister through shielding his natural motion/rotation, partic. on serve which affected him the most. Anyway...history now.

Come on guys, lets drop MTO inference here...Nadal WAS injured and needed the MTO. Is that not good enough for you, does there have to be an angle to everything? Would you rather he just retired and then really asterisked the slam for Stan by foregoing the MTO?

I hope none of the top 4 win a GS this year.

Lets give them a year to be slapped by others for the sake of tennis.

lydian wrote:Come on guys, lets drop MTO inference here...

Ok, I will stop for now out of respect for you guys, your man lost and it is only fair not to poke into it too much, especially so soon after the match, but at the same time I do claim the right to see it differently from you.

Too bad for Rafa, but I am sure he will be back, he has been in great form and no reason to expect he will be slowing down. 

Side note: what is it about the Aussie open that results in these great players and mental giants reduced to tears? Roger, Andy, Stan last year, Rafa this year... Always here.

Considering almost everyone thinks of it as the 4th most important, it's the number 1 for tears.

Nadal also said:

"The last thing that I wanted to do was retire. No, I hate to do that, especially in a final," said Nadal, who revealed he felt the back issue in the warm-up.

Some may say there'll always be an asterisk alongside Stan's win. However, after knocking out Djokovic in QF, then starting this match with a barage of winners, Stan can be argued to have genuinely made his own luck.

Danny_1982 wrote:Considering almost everyone thinks of it as the 4th most important, it's the number 1 for tears.

Andy cried at Wimbledon just fine.

Nobody cares for MTO. Not Stan not Nadal. Super win. Lets enjoy it.

It's the heat, it causes water excretion to occur easier.

You taking about ladies now?   

Fair enough SB but I dont need the sporting gestures. Nadal losing makes no difference to my life, I'll still be on the tennis courts tomorrow evening around the junior academy squads. TV tennis isn't my life, I prefer to play & see juniors develop in their own games. That's what gives me best tennis satisfaction, not some Spanish or Swiss guy I don't know from Adam.

My beef is I don't see how anyone can see the match today as a sleight on Nadal which it feels like you guys are clamouring to turn it into. Indeed the guy would still likely be vilified by you lot if he handed over his match winnings to a local cancer charity for not being generous enough.

lydian wrote:the guy would still likely be vilified by you lot if he handed over his match winnings to a local cancer charity for not being generous enough.

This is what I take exception to.  Maybe I am too cynical, maybe I am wrong about my take on his MTOs, but no need to imply that I am trying to vilify him for the sake of it.

summerblues wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

summerblues wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I've said, I don't blame Rafa. I still wonder whether Fed or Murray would have gone off the court.

Nole would have though

Quite rightly!! I think BB once said, he'd like to see Murray play Rafa and Novak at their own game (or words to that affect)

Yes, Nole and Rafa are both quite bad with MTOs - Nole perhaps even worse than Rafa.  He took an MTO just before Andy was going to serve for the match in their USO final if I remember it correctly.

Yeah but Andy only won because Novak was injured   

I jest but it shows the quandary

For me today as when Murray beat him in 2010, the intensity of his rivals Tennis exasperated whatever niggle he might have had. That I'm afraid, is just normal sport

lydian wrote:My beef is I don't see how anyone can see the match today as a sleight on Nadal which it feels like you guys are clamouring to turn it into. Indeed the guy would still likely be vilified by you lot if he handed over his match winnings to a local cancer charity for not being generous enough.

Wow Lydian, you're a bit sensitive today. Is anyone sleighting Nadal? I clearly stated that Murray should make more use of the injury time outs. I simply don't think that Nadal's injury can be used as an excuse.

If Wawrinka had played like a sop beforehand - we'd not be talking about it, because Nadal would have won beforehand. That's the issue!! We can't have every defeat Rafa has put down to an injury

When he lost Murray and 2010 and now here, he was beaten fair and square as both his rivals intensity made whatever niggle he had worse. That's their brilliant play causing the defeat - not Rafa's injury

However, like at Rotterdam in 2009, when he could barely stand - then of course the injury was the big problem

The theory that he's have won if he'd been fully fit, is naive idealism. Using such theories, us Murray fans could argue that he's have won this even 5 years ago and the US Open

No, if you walk on court at the start of a match seemingly fit, then you were

Of course we can then evaluate the reasons for the defeat, like we did when Murray went for back surgery, but it isn't a 'if only' excuse.

Yes SB and banbrotam, plenty on here are itching to stick the knife in. Ok, maybe not you two specifically (although SB you are very cynical about Nadal in general...fair enough thats your prerogative) but you've seen the comments in here today. And who is exactly making an excuse regarding his injury (even though of course it is a huge factor in his loss right?) for losing? I'm not. But I've just watched 3-4 news alerts on TV all showcasing the result and saying "Wawrinka beat an injured Nadal". I'm afraid it's already been asterisked by the broader media no matter what we write on here.

A few years ago we played in a massive cricket match, and we were the odds on favorites, ransacked every team in the league... Come quarter finals we had a bit of a nightmare match... the twelfth man had to go to hospital for grass burns, or something, and I cracked my hand. We lost, we might have lost anyway had everything gone well, but the sun shone the next day and life went on. I'm sure Nadal is rather upset now, but he too understands, the earth is still spinning and Superman is still a god-awful excuse for a superhero. Well done to Stan, but everything else is imo, superfluous.

In future Nadal may need better practise before Australia, as he's missed it twice and cried injury three times, so I suppose it's just one of those things.

But then again, I am just very cynical in general, period

I like to think I'm a realist rather than cynic
The game isn't perfect, but then neither is life. I'm not looking for the wrong/bad in everything or life becomes very twisted. Also, Nadal is no saint but neither is any other player. He always comes across as thoroughly decent to me, very competitive yes, but not prepared to win at all costs. Anyway...I felt bad for him that he was booed today, he didn't deserve it. Funny how they all shut up once they saw him serving at 130kph on resumption. The umpire handled the situation badly, allowing Stan to get worked up which in turn worked the crowd up. A bizarre slam final all in all.

lydian wrote:And who is exactly making an excuse regarding his injury (even though of course it is a huge factor in his loss right?) for losing? I'm not. But I've just watched 3-4 news alerts on TV all showcasing the result and saying "Wawrinka beat an injured Nadal". I'm afraid it's already been asterisked by the broader media no matter what we write on here.

But you are?.Unless someone has added that bracketed sentence without your knowledge?
I'm pretty sure the phrase "asterisked slam" is unique to this board rather than the other way around. If you can find me one tennis player who has used this phrase I will gladly defer to you on this matter.

There's a world renowned sports trainer, Alistair McCaw, who works with a lot of UK high performance centres and pro tennis players...his motto and attitude is exemplified by the highlighted tweet below:

"When you focus on problems, you'll have more problems. When you focus on possibilities, you'll have more opportunities."

I don't * any slams. I think the guy holding the trophy is the deserving champion every time. Of course you could * almost every one if you try hard enough. Let's take Murray's defeats and victories for example. Here's both my blinkered Murray fan AND anti Murray perspective:

2008 USO v Fed - he played the day before the final. Fed had a days rest. Asterix.

2010 v AO v Fed - again Murray had a days less rest. Had to beat Rafa and Federer to win it. Harsh draw. Asterix.

2011 AO v Novak - Andy days less rest again. Plus hurt his back hence MTO in final. Asterix.

2012 W v Fed - was the better player until the rain came. We all know indoor favours Fed. He'd have won if it stayed outdoors. Gods were on Feds side.

2012 OG v Fed - Murray only won because Fed had long semi against Delpo. Plus Novak and Fed didn't really care about it anyway, it's not a slam.

USO 2012 v Novak - Murray only won because of the wind. Plus Novak had played the day before. Big asterix.

AO 2013 - Murray only lost because of 'feather-gate' and the blister on his foot. Those 2 things turned the match on its head. Asterix.

W 2013 v Novak - Murray only won because he had the easier semi. Novak was drained after Delpo match. Plus he got lucky home team line calls. Asterix.


That was almost without thinking. I bet it would be easy for all fans to asterix slam finals they've lost. There are circumstances behind every win and loss, there always is.

But I think putting an asterix next to slam wins is disrespectful to the winner and I've always thought that. No such thing as an asterixed slam in my opinion. They guy with the trophy deserves it.

Many congratulations to Stan. His brand of tennis is a thrill to behold.

Commiserations to Rafa. Hopefully he'll be "back" to normal soon.

From a technical perspective Rafa's square-on forehand stance is a recipe for power, spin and back issues in equal measure. I worry that he'll spend a large portion of his post tennis life pained and prostrate.

Johnyjeep wrote:I'm pretty sure the phrase "asterisked slam" is unique to this board rather than the other way around. If you can find me one tennis player who has used this phrase I will gladly defer to you on this matter.

Of course it is not unique to this board, and of course some slam wins are more impressive than others, but if you were really inclined, I'm sure you could find a way to asterisk nearly every slam if the result wasn't to your liking: scheduling, wind, rain, players missing from draw, players knocked out early, players tired after long matches, players who just aren't as good as they used to be, players injured etc etc. Still the player who wins the last match holds the trophy.

JJ, what you are saying is completely & utterly ridiculous.
I've not heard one Rafa fan stating the win is actually asterisked today but you can't separate events.

Fact: Nadal was injured today, he says from the outset but obviously worst in Set2
Fact: Nadal's serve and movement were significantly affected
Fact: Stan was playing very well
Fact: Stan won

Is saying that Stan beat an injured Nadal an untruth? No.
Was injury a factor in the win? Yes.
Does the injury lessen Stan's win? No.

Danny_1982 wrote:I don't * any slams.

Very good, but it is an asterisk.  Asterix lives in north-western Gaul.

summerblues wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I don't * any slams.

Very good, but it is an asterisk.  Asterix lives in north-western Gaul.

Iphone + predictive text.

It mixes up 'of' and 'if' all the time too. Sometimes I can be bothered to read back and correct, sometimes I can't.

I hate predictive text.

Yeah, me too. Sometimes it's my friend though too.