The Truth about the Australian Open Final (from ruansfedererblog)

Yes, I do think there was an injury (why else would I be speculating as to it's origin?)

Paul wrote:Please look at Nadal’s serve statistics from the AO final  (km/hr). I hope that this will help to open eyes and know how that travesty show went on that great Stan's day

(taken from http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day19/1701ms.html)

Avg. serve   total                   the first                 the second    

1st                174                             180                             149

2nd               144                             150                             127

3rd           155                             158                             131

4th                159                             166                             136

Nadal  increased his total avg serve from 144 to 155 to 159 km/hr from the second to the fourth set.  No double fault within the third and fourth set. People wake up!!  I saw it on TV, then this stats shows it clearly, Nadal had no back injury,

So his serve decreased 30 km/h from 1st to 2nd set, on average.

And in the 3rd set he averaged 94mph, 96 in the 4th set.
I guess that's totally normal for Nadal.

If you decrease the serve speed by 15km/hr in favor of your higher kick variation and placement, then your serve can be even more efficient, especially in case of left handers.

But he barely put any kick or topspin on his serves from the second set onwards, so we can discount this idea immediately.

When you have a real back injury then  you just produce  double faults, does not matter on your  serve speed.

Firstly that's nonsense, you could just roll in your serve below 100mph (as Nadal did).
Secondly, Federer said that after his Indian Wells QF 2013 against Nadal, that he had a back injury. I believed him, as he wasn't moving well so no reason not to believe him. However I've checked the stats, and Federer did not hit any double faults.
SO ARE YOU SAYING FEDERER IS LYING ABIUT HIS BACK INJURY?? HOW DARE YOU.

mikeyM1000 wrote:Yes, I do think there was an injury (why else would I be speculating as to it's origin?)

That means you agree with me.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Nadal had a perfect record against Wawrinka, and one of the greatest record from coming from 1 set down.

Djoko's record v Stan wasn't bad either.

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Nadal had a perfect record against Wawrinka, and one of the greatest record from coming from 1 set down.

Djoko's record v Stan wasn't bad either.

Very different, Djoko kept on winning really close matches... sooner or later he would lose an epic.
I don't see why that's reason for Nadal to give up what has worked so so well against Stan, tried and trusted, instead to throw away the match with really slow serves and not running.

Remember also, this is Nadal, who has probably one of the best records from being a set down.

Very different,

  

What's funny?
Stan struggles in general more against Nadal than Djoko, in the past, infact before the final Stan hadn't won a set.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Nadal had a perfect record against Wawrinka, and one of the greatest record from coming from 1 set down.

Djoko's record v Stan wasn't bad either.

Very different, Djoko kept on winning really close matches... sooner or later he would lose an epic.
I don't see why that's reason for Nadal to give up what has worked so so well against Stan, tried and trusted, instead to throw away the match with really slow serves and not running.

No disagree...Stan got close to taking sets many times v Nadal.....including 3 TBs in their last 4 sets...they played before that final...so you see Stan was getting closer too.

Having looked at Nada's serving stats in his semi....they do not look much better than in the final I must say. Fed must have been nackered not to have done better v nadal that day.

My point is that it's no reason for Nadal to give up what has worked so so well against Stan, tried and trusted, instead to throw away the match with really slow serves and not running.
Only if Nadal had a really bad record against Stan would that be understandable, but he had won every match, and every set too.

Julia Santamaria wrote:What's funny?

How you just disregard any and all evidence, situations, stats, facts, or observations, when they don't agree with your personal opinion (usually closed minded).

"That's different" is such a lame cop out response. Especially since it isn't different.

FedererKing wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:What's funny?

How you just disregard any and all evidence, situations, stats, facts, or observations, when they don't agree with your personal opinion (usually closed minded).

"That's different"  is such a lame cop out response. Especially since it isn't different.

 
What?
Nadal has a better record, set by set, against Stan compared to Djokovic.
Are you denying that?  

I am correct.

I don't think Nadal's injury in the match was psychosomatic, I think he probably had a pulled muscle in the MIDDLE back/rib area which he had heavily setdated by pain-killers before the match in the first set when he produced his "blastiest" tennis, but still only 100, not 110% as he had to be cautious not to worsen the condition.
Stan held his nerve as he must have felt the difference in the power of Nadal's shots and was very confident after his win over Nole.
Nadal then started the theatre in order to break Stan's momentum which he nearly succedeed in, that was the whole problem!
He should have just played with dignity like all other injured players do and lose with some decorum, not think about himself only, as usual...
In fact, Nole had the same injury against Nadal in that USO 2011 final, except that his one was tougher as it was caused not by bashing, but the sheer wear of that long winning streak.
Yes, Federer played and won/lost many matches injured but never made a spectacle of himself, certainly never ever mentioned his poor luck and injury DURING THE PRESENTATION SPEECH!
In fact, he only mentioned his back injury towards the end of 2013, once it was on the mend...while the world was writing him off as aged...that must have been so frustrating.
His back injury is the proper, lower back one, not the 3 day full recovery in a hot bath Nadal had during that AO.
Anyway...it was all unnecessarily ugly and spoilt for Stan, and I'm glad Stan showed his teeth a bit with the umpire and the crowd booed Nadal.
About time!

FedererKing wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:What's funny?

How you just disregard any and all evidence, situations, stats, facts, or observations, when they don't agree with your personal opinion (usually closed minded).

"That's different"  is such a lame cop out response. Especially since it isn't different.

It's nopt all down to Nadal....in fact versus a player like Stan...it's all down to Stan. Stan can only blame himself for losing those 3 TBs out of the last 4 sets they playes. Nadal is just scrapping right and left hopping for a mistake. Problem is that in this first set Stan played extremely solid and held his nerve when we all expected him to fail (holding for that first set service game).

You cannot expect Nadal to plain sailing cause he had never lost a set. never losing a set doesn't mean not being close lose some....and Nadal was certainly very close to lose a few of those sets. You just need one player to improve and the balance can quickly shift. And clearly Stan seriously improved over Xmas. Those close sets he lost became easy sets won, regardless of Nadal being injured or not.

To me it is clear, it's Stan, and all other players nadal faced before the final, which forced Nadal's injury. Like Nadal can also force players out of breath by extending rallies. This is essentially why for me, Nadal being injured or not is completely irrelevant...and it should be for you too. He lost to a better player on the day. In fact a much better shot makers than Nadal ever was or will be.

I said to Paul the same when saying that Stan was a much better shot maker than Stan despite Stan losing those tight matches v Djoko....now I think many can see that the best of Stan is better than the best of Nadal and Djoko....though I don't think that's the case over a 5 setter..even if Stan managed to win the last ones.

Tenez my point is not that Stan managed to get to TB or not, my point was that the H2H was not so bad for Nadal that he would abandon his plan... infact he had won every set in the match up so far so that would be suicidal thinking.

As for he injury, Nalbandian, Haas, Hewitt etc. many players with different styles all have chronic injury problems.

Tenez wrote:
It's nopt all down to Nadal....in fact versus a player like Stan...it's all down to Stan. Stan can only blame himself for losing those 3 TBs out of the last 4 sets they playes. Nadal is just scrapping right and left hopping for a mistake. Problem is that in this first set Stan played extremely solid and held his nerve when we all expected him to fail (holding for that first set service game).

You cannot expect Nadal to plain sailing cause he had never lost a set. never losing a set doesn't mean not being close lose some....and Nadal was certainly very close to lose a few of those sets. You just need one player to improve and the balance can quickly shift. And clearly Stan seriously improved over Xmas. Those close sets he lost became easy sets won, regardless of Nadal being injured or not.

To me it is clear, it's Stan, and all other players nadal faced before the final, which forced Nadal's injury. Like Nadal can also force players out of breath by extending rallies. This is essentially why for me, Nadal being injured or not is completely irrelevant...and it should be for you too. He lost to a better player on the day. In fact a much better shot makers than Nadal ever was or will be.

I said to Paul the same when saying that Stan was a much better shot maker than Stan despite Stan losing those tight matches v Djoko....now I think many can see that the best of Stan is better than the best of Nadal and Djoko....though I don't think that's the case over a 5 setter..even if Stan managed to win the last ones.

That's a bold comment.
I can't disagree with it as shot-making tennis should always win against good movers without weapons (Nole) and against life-sucking players like Nadal.
Stan has really improved his FH and turned it into a weapon, it's not just a rallying shot it used to be for him until Norman Magnus took over as his coach.
Even his loss to Nadal in WTF last November was purely down to Stan's choking.
Hopefully, the conditions will get a bit faster everywhere and that will get everyone into proper tennis playing gear, it's a win-win situation!
A great start of 2014 with just this one win, I hope it turns the corner in the right direction.

Was quite interesting to see Murray get his skates on and play Rotterdam out of the blue, he clearly wants to get back to top 4 and avoid tougher draws in the big tournaments that are coming.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Tenez my point is not that Stan managed to get to TB or not, my point was that the H2H was not so bad for Nadal that he would abandon his plan... infact he had won every set in the match up so far so that would be suicidal thinking.

As for he injury, Nalbandian, Haas, Hewitt etc. many players with different styles all have chronic injury problems.

I don't think Nadal abandoned his plan. I mentioned on the contrary that he forced his plan (hitting even harder) as he was facing an in-form Stan and that is what has probably caused the injury.

Very similar to his injury in AO v Ferrer, remember? Nadal wanted to strangle Ferrer early on to avoid a long and gruelling battle as he was trying to save himself for the final. He therefore went, very early on, for balls that should not have come back but was trying to kill Ferrer's spirit early on trying to break him by showing him he could retrieve anything ferrer could throw at him.....and that created the pulled muscle. Watch that semi....it's obvious!

In fact, from memory, didn't Stan choke EVEN serving for that first set, he went down 00:40? and managed to get out of it somehow! It was such a fine line, that could have gone the wrong way like all other times, but didn't!
That was a very strange game from Nadal....

Tenez, I was arguing against what FK was saying there not you.

As for the cause of his injury, I can't be sure really. What you're saying certainly can't be discounted.

noleisthebest wrote:That's a bold comment.
I can't disagree with it as shot-making tennis should always win against good movers without weapons (Nole) and against life-sucking players like Nadal.
Stan has really improved his FH and turned it into a weapon, it's not just a rallying shot it used to be for him until Norman Magnus took over as his coach.
Even his loss to Nadal in WTF last November was purely down to Stan's choking.
Hopefully, the conditions will get a bit faster everywhere and that will get everyone into proper tennis playing gear, it's a win-win situation!
A great start of 2014 with just this one win, I hope it turns the corner in the right direction.

Stan was a more natural and talented player even before Norman. He never had that champion's mindset, for sure but his shots were always amongst the best. Federer says he knew Stan was capable of the uspset but he probably knew what was Stan's main problem...his belief...and rightly so cause with his thin margins shots it#s always tougher.

Had the roadrunners got to rely on pure shot making under pressure, they too would have a weak mind...in fact that's the reason why they prefer to chase and muscle the ball.

I think Nadal had some type of strain.  Def minor and I've seen great players win big matches with worse- Fed in Wimby 2012 an example, and players lose with less... Certainly Fed losing to guys ranked in the 100's last year while carrying a back injury shows us it can disrupt your confidence and play.  So it is what it is- he had a strain and lost the match. did he lose the match because of the strain though?   NO.   Stan was fearless and outplaying and him and well ahead, and Nadal was panicked. There is no doubt.  Stan won the match fair and square.

The problem for Nadal and what Nadal fans must acknlowedge is there is no doubt Nadal has used strategic MTO's, halts in play, needing to be retaped, etc during big moments to throw his opponent off..   He just has.. Maybe as a fan you accept that as a flaw since he is human and we all do have flaws, but if you pretend he doesn't- then you are just deluding yourself.

SO- with the certainty that he has done it in the past- comes the suspicion from many whenever he does it in the present and future. That's what he has to live with because of his past deeds. That's just the way it is, and fans should not be shocked and outraged when people question his motives-- because he's the one that has created the problem and perception.

No different than we know for a fact he has been coached constantly... fined, warned in tons of matches throughout his career, tv shown him being coached multiple times, even warned in 3 out of 7 matches by umpires during the AO..     Now that doesn't mean that every time he looks at his box he is being coached or he is coached in every single match, but you can't be outraged if someone sees him look at his box and think he's being coached... because his past deeds have created the perception that he is being coached.

All of the flak and suspicion regarding Nadal is not a conspiracy and blind hate by people as Nadal fans want to believe-   it's legitimite criticism fueled by things Nadal has and continues to do.  That's just the fact of the matter.

I've refuted all these points, we'll just be going round in circles...

You didn't refute anything, you ignored it, or made bad excuses for it.  All from personal opinion. And now you say "Oh I've answered all that". Another cop out.

I did, you must have missed it.

I mean come on, you thought Nadal serving at 94 mph is normal for him, just because he won the set; how many times have you actually watched Nadal play?

I mean Paul even produced the set by set stats which showed the 30kmph drop, and you still somehow thought that proved you right.

This was the quote (just after Paul posted his stats), very funny as well as being a full scale attack on logic.

FedererKing wrote:When you have a real back injury, you don't go winning sets in a grand slam final.  It's a load of shit.  Amri won't bother conceding to those stats though, he'll/she'll just move the goal posts or ignore them. As usual.

Pretty funny, as I had been arguing Nadal slowed his serve after second set, you were insisting he was ok; then Paul provides stats which show that Nadal slowed down his serve by 30kmph immediately, and in sets 2, 3, and 4 served below 100pmh on average, and apparently I 'won't bother conceding to these stats'

Julia Santamaria wrote:I've refuted all these points, we'll just be going round in circles...

truffin said "warned in 3 out of 7 matches by umpires during the AO". Is that not true then? I've no idea if it is or not.

I've discussed the points in general (including Toni and coaching), as for that stat- the onus is on him to find the evidence.

My mistake. When you said you'd refuted it, I assumed you'd refuted it.

I have, last week I wrote a long post addressing the criticisms at Nadal.
Of course I did no exactly know what Truffin was going to post today when I was writing those posts, but I've broadly covered all the points he mentions.

OK.

truffin also said "There is no doubt.  Stan won the match fair and square."

Is that also refuted in your previous post?

Julia Santamaria wrote:I've discussed the points in general (including Toni and coaching), as for that stat- the onus is on him to find the evidence.

Here's one of the 3

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/01/australian-open-nadal-d-nishikori/50336/#.UvkxKfmYaM8

Here's another that talks about Toni breaking the rules by talking to the trainer to work on Nadal, and what Stan has to say about the coaching from the WTF... and that Toni has already been caught at the AO

http://tennis.si.com/2014/01/26/rafael-nadal-stanislas-wawrinka-australian-open-final-live-analysis/

I and I'm sure Amri watched Nadals opening match where the umpire also warned him.

Here's Djokovics father talking about Nadal being coached in the French Final and "all the time"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7CMB0w6Bfc

Here is STan at the WTF after the match where Nadal was warned by the Umpire for coaching 1 time but as Stan says- was being coached by Toni before every point

Q.  Could you explain what was the main reason of your complaints to the referee in the second set. 
STANISLAS WAWRINKA:  I am sure you know. 
No, it's nothing personal against Rafa or against Toni.  We all know, players and umpire, that Toni is always trying to help Rafa.  That's normal.  That's part of the game.  But when it's too much, it's too much. 
Today I didn't agree with the umpire that he didn't tell him something or he didn't give him second warning just because it was Rafa.  We all see.  I was there.  Before every point, he was trying to coach him.  That just what happened.
Again, it's nothing against Rafa or Toni.  That's in the rules.  Normally the umpire should have done something.

Here's a report where the umpire warns Nadal during changeover at 2009 Ao
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/7858895.stm



There are various reports of him being caught by umpire at 2010 French, 2008 Rogers Cup, 2013 Indian Well.  

Here's the famous one at Indian Wells where the umpire catches him, Nadal lies and says the umpire couldn't understand them because they were speaking in Spanish and the umpire brings over the linesperson who COULD understand them while Nadal looks on completely mortified

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=457773

Fined at Wimbledon 2010
http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/31805.html


Should I go on guys?--  there are plenty more!



A Nadal fan can really say with a straight face he isnt' coached?!!! lol

No, last week there was a thread on Nadal and sportsmanship, and I responded broadly to all the points made against Nadal.
Stan winning did not come into the debate last week, but I will say he deserved to win and I was happy to see him win a Grand Slam.

Firstly I'm not sure how this is relevant to the thread, SR has a thread on him with this in mind specifically.
I did not say Toni has never coached Nadal on court, go to SRs thread and find my post on it.

Toni talking to the trainer is not on court coaching, and where's the link to Nadal being coached against Nishikori?

Truffin, make a list of these incidents, with official links only as evidence ('various reports' isn't good enough really).
Then let's see how many we get, so far you have shown evidence for less than 1% of his matches.

OK here's a challenge for you Truffin:
Nadal has played 799 matches in his ATP career, let's round that up to 800.

2% of 800 is 16.

So, can you list (no emotional descriptions etc needed) 16 matches where Nadal has taken a dodgy MTO, and 16 matches where he has been warned for on court coaching.
Just give the match fixture, date and tournament; with a link from an official site (ie tennis.com, bbc, espn, SI, etc.)... no Federer fan blogs or 'various reports' or 'I remember the time when'.

If you managed to find 16 of each, then you will show that in 2% of his matches he has done either of these things... not much... but let's see if you can even get to 2%.

Surely even if it's, say, 8 matches, that is cheating and should be condemned without reservation, and is something that both Rafa and Toni should be ashamed of, rather than openly unrepentant.

Read my post on SR's thread.

Why? It would take but a sentence to reply to my point.

Toni certainly, but not Rafa.
There is a lot of internal tension between the two, which people aren't aware of.

Anyway I've explained it better on that thread.

Where are we upto then?
We needed 16, Julius I assume you can do the first 8.

40/44, honestly Julius.

Keeping count, honestly Red  

Julia Santamaria wrote:Where are we upto then?
We needed 16, Julius I assume you can do the first 8.

I don't need to. There are enough well-documented cases that it deserves condemnation - which all fair-minded posters would do.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Toni certainly, but not Rafa.
There is a lot of internal tension between the two, which people aren't aware of.

Anyway I've explained it better on that thread.

Wow, you've entered "Cop out city" today....  almost all your replies are "not replying to that".

Do you realize that Nadal is lucky he isn't banned? In other sports, the least that would have happened is Toni being banned, and Nadal fined.

I'm just saying, this is a forum where most people hate Nadal, most people write contradictory theories about Nadal (which means you can't agree with all of them), and yet you focus 95% of your posts on the one person who stands up for Nadal. Why?

FedererKing wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Toni certainly, but not Rafa.
There is a lot of internal tension between the two, which people aren't aware of.

Anyway I've explained it better on that thread.

Wow, you've entered "Cop out city" today....  almost all your replies are "not replying to that".

Well this is the second time I've said today I think, which is hardly all the time, but it's because I've written long posts on other thread, and honestly it would just be repeating myself.

mikeyM1000 wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Where are we upto then?
We needed 16, Julius I assume you can do the first 8.

I don't need to. There are enough well-documented cases that it deserves condemnation - which all fair-minded posters would do.

Who said anything against saying it deserves condemnation?
But is Nadal the only one we condemn, why not anyone else?