Re: The Truth about the Australian Open Final (from ruansfedererblog)

by mikeyM1000 Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:12 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote: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?

I think I explained it all it a previous post.

by truffin1 Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:24 pm

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

the link is there-I guess you missed it.

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

Smacking his backhand down the line to damaging effect, Nishikori dug out of a triple break-point deficit to hold for 4-3. Three points into the first-set tiebreaker, chair umpire Eva Asderaki hit Nadal with a coaching violation warning. Rafa smiled it off (apparently replying “It doesn’t matter,” according to ESPN’s Brad Gilbert, who was sitting courtside), but it deepened his defiance as he drew two errors for a 4-2 lead. Nishikori launched himself airborne for a dazzling backhand down the line, but by the time he landed, Nadal was already knifing a sliding slice backhand winner cross-court for 6-2. He thumped a serve winner to close the 65-minute opening set.

by truffin1 Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:27 pm

I think I posted plenty, but I'll find more for you...

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:31 pm

truffin1 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Toni talking to the trainer is not on court coaching, and where's the link to Nadal being coached against Nishikori?
the link is there-I guess you missed it.

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

Smacking his backhand down the line to damaging effect, Nishikori dug out of a triple break-point deficit to hold for 4-3. Three points into the first-set tiebreaker, chair umpire Eva Asderaki hit Nadal with a coaching violation warning. Rafa smiled it off (apparently replying “It doesn’t matter,” according to ESPN’s Brad Gilbert, who was sitting courtside), but it deepened his defiance as he drew two errors for a 4-2 lead. Nishikori launched himself airborne for a dazzling backhand down the line, but by the time he landed, Nadal was already knifing a sliding slice backhand winner cross-court for 6-2. He thumped a serve winner to close the 65-minute opening set.

My apologies, I meant to ask about the Tomic match, not the Nishikori match, my bad.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:34 pm

truffin1 wrote:I think I posted plenty, but I'll find more for you...

As I said earlier:
let's see if you can cross the 2% barrier for on court coaching or dodgy MTOs
-so 16 for each
-no descriptions needed, just match fixture, tournament, and official link
-Official link includes sources like BBC, or any news site; but not Federer fan blogs, and don't say 'I recall this one' or 'various reports' as that is not really proof.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:36 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote: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?

I think I explained it all it a previous post.

You said 'keep counting Red' or something like that.
What does that mean, what does it explain?

by truffin1 Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:37 pm

This kind of says it all really Amri. Toni's own words

http://larrybrownsports.com/tennis/rafael-nadal-uncle-toni-cheats-coaching-during-matches/196908

or this one from the New York Times

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/nadals-uncle-is-heard-from-the-box/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I'm pretty satisfied that it has been proven Nadal is coached. I don't need to play games with you since you clearly will never admit to it... but if I do have some time later today or tomorrow, I'll find some more good ones for you..

Bottom line though- Toni admits it, Nadal admits it, he has been fined and warned multiple times.. There really isn't anything more that needs to be said.

by paulcz Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:38 pm

truffin1 wrote: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.

Hi Truffin, nicely written and fully agree.

Your patience is enormous, to respond to such a nonsensical twaddle so kindly should be awarded by a medal as Golden heart of OTF Thumbs Up

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:41 pm

truffin1 wrote:This kind of says it all really Amri

http://larrybrownsports.com/tennis/rafael-nadal-uncle-toni-cheats-coaching-during-matches/196908

Still 16 more to go Truffin...

This is a blog, and it's only source is the some random guy's twitter page who has the same surname as Nadal.
If we were believing what we saw on twitter, I could convince anyone of anything.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:42 pm

paulcz wrote:
Hi Truffin, nicely written and fully agree.

Your patience is enormous, to respond to such a nonsensical twaddle so kindly should be awarded by a medal as Golden heart of OTF

Forgot to thank you earlier for the serve speed stats for the AO final, that was a real treat, cheers for that.

by mikeyM1000 Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:43 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
mikeyM1000 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote: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?

I think I explained it all it a previous post.
You said 'keep counting Red' or something like that.
What does that mean, what does it explain?

You got the wrong post. Actually, it might have been 2 other previous posts.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:45 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
mikeyM1000 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote: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?

I think I explained it all it a previous post.
You said 'keep counting Red' or something like that.
What does that mean, what does it explain?

You got the wrong post. Actually, it might have been 2 other previous posts.

This is different from the Nadal sportsmanship one, as for me I genuinely wrote a really long post on the relevant thread; but you haven't.

by mikeyM1000 Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:45 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
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?

Interesting game. "If I with a question I can avoid condemning it, while making it seem like I might be."
A statement of condemnation would provide sufficient clarity (possibly).

by mikeyM1000 Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:48 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
mikeyM1000 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
mikeyM1000 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote: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?

I think I explained it all it a previous post.
You said 'keep counting Red' or something like that.
What does that mean, what does it explain?

You got the wrong post. Actually, it might have been 2 other previous posts.
This is different from the Nadal sportsmanship one, as for me I genuinely wrote a really long post on the relevant thread; but you haven't.

I explained why I contributed to this thread and I also said that I assume you enjoy posting with those you perceive as anti-Nadal, given that you spend a lot of time doing it. You perceive me as anti-Nadal and would thus enjoy the joust. If you prefer it, I will cease to post any references to your own posts. Let me know.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:50 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
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?

Interesting game. "If I with a question I can avoid condemning it, while making it seem like I might be."
A statement of condemnation would provide sufficient clarity (possibly).

Yes, I condemn each occasion, as I made clear weeks ago.

But it remind me of a project I did a while back, on far right propaganda in this country:
I went on the BNP website, and guess what? Every news story had a crime, and coincidentally every crime happened to be committed by people of a certain skin colour.
No while I condemn each crime on its own merits, can you not see how a website just listing the crimes by people of a specific skin colour may not give a fair picture?
That is very much similar to people on here, just criticising Nadal. And yet they can't find even 2% of his matches where he has done it.

EditL Just to clarify, my analogy is on the unfair picking out, rather than anything to do with the far right in this country.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:52 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
mikeyM1000 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
mikeyM1000 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote: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?

I think I explained it all it a previous post.
You said 'keep counting Red' or something like that.
What does that mean, what does it explain?

You got the wrong post. Actually, it might have been 2 other previous posts.
This is different from the Nadal sportsmanship one, as for me I genuinely wrote a really long post on the relevant thread; but you haven't.

I explained why I contributed to this thread and I also said that I assume you enjoy posting with those you perceive as anti-Nadal, given that you spend a lot of time doing it. You perceive me as anti-Nadal and would thus enjoy the joust. If you prefer it, I will cease to post any references to your own posts. Let me know.

Yes, but I think be fair and criticise others as well if you disagree with them.
If my posts are genuinely the only ones you disagree strongly enough to debate back on, then fair enough, I have no problem with that.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:56 pm

Right Truffin, where are we with the race to 16?
You're normally quite resourceful, so I'm expecting atleast 10.

Oh and remember no, 'I heard' or 'various gossips' etc. and certainly we can do better then some random blog which uses some random guy's twitter account as evidence.

by Tenez Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:00 pm

truffin1 wrote: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.

Yes but the thing is that despite all that, people still love him...so he must bring something that only him can bring in the table. It's almost our job to try to understand it. I don't know quite why but he raises passion in mass! Look at Madonna, McDonalds and Miro same thing..how come people love those "products", especially if you compare them with Schubert, Les 3 Gros (a pretty good address in France) and Michelangelo.

I guess "il faut de tout pour faire un monde" et what we like and why we like it tells so much about ourselves...So for me: no Madanna, McDo or Miro....more Schubert, Sushi and Schiele!

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:02 pm

Tenez for me, it's the other way round- why would more people not enjoy Mozart (aka Rafito in my analogy)?

by truffin1 Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:03 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
truffin1 wrote:This kind of says it all really Amri

http://larrybrownsports.com/tennis/rafael-nadal-uncle-toni-cheats-coaching-during-matches/196908
Still 16 more to go Truffin...

This is a blog, and it's only source is the some random guy's twitter page who has the same surname as Nadal.
If we were believing what we saw on twitter, I could convince anyone of anything.

Your denying that Toni gave that interview now? It was all over the press.

Lol-- that random guy's twitter is the Nadal families close friend and frequent interviewer of Toni Nadal who happens to share the same surname.. Here is a link to a RAFA FAN SITE talking about the documentary David Nadal directed which included one on one interviews with Toni and various associates.. http://www.rafaholics.com/2011/02/toni-other-nadal.html

David Nadals twitter is one of the main sources of how Toni breaks news of Nadals plans.. Heres another link with some of his tweats from an RAFA fan site- http://www.nadalnews.com/2013/07/09/rafalint-july-9th-the-return-to-practice-edition/#.UvlM5PmYYdk

REally AMri- this is getting embarrassing. David Nadal is a respected Spanish journalist, Toni Nadals associate and tweeted out a blip from an interview he did with toni and you immedialty stick your head in the sand and claim he's just a random guy twitter person.. lol

No Amri- I don't need to give the exact number of examples that you deem acceptable.. You are one of the last people that should be setting the goal line for what proves something about Nadal or not.. Just this last statement denying Toni Nadals words just proves that. I was going to play along, but you've massively bored me now with you refusal to accept facts.. I'll stop at my examples I've given and their sources and if people believe your take on it-- that's perfectly fine with me. I have a pretty strong hunch that any unbiased person looking at just what I've put out there would come to the conclusion that Nadal is coached and coached often.

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:05 pm

Here's a bit of Schubert for you...I've been listening a lot to this piece lately:

Can't stand sushi, though!

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:07 pm

truffin1 wrote:

No Amri- I don't need to give the exact number of examples that you deem acceptable.. I was going to play along, but you've massively bored me now with you refusal to accept facts..

Just find 16, Truffin, 16...

Your denying that Toni gave that interview now? It was all over the press.

Find a reputable news site, or preferable an audio clip or video, with that quote.

by mikeyM1000 Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:11 pm

Lumping Miro in with Madonna and McDonalds - that's a bit strong! If you'd said Pollock, fair enough.

by Tenez Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:14 pm

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.

You serious? Rafa is not part of that on court coaching? he listens to Toni against his own will?? Whistle

nadal would achieve nothing without Toni and his team as nadal is the most manufactured champion. tension? probably but only because Nadal cannot win without that huge team.

by Tenez Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:14 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote:Lumping Miro in with Madonna and McDonalds - that's a bit strong! If you'd said Pollock, fair enough.

Needed an "M" artist! Winking

by Tenez Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:17 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Tenez for me, it's the other way round- why would more people not enjoy Mozart (aka Rafito in my analogy)?

Nadal => Mozart? Surely that's a "coming out" comment! You must be in love! It makes you blind!

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:17 pm

Tenez 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.
You serious? Rafa is not part of that on court coaching? he listens to Toni against his own will?? nadal would achieve nothing without Toni and his team as nadal is the most manufactured champion. tension? probably but only because Nadal cannot win without that huge team.

On court coaching is any communication.
Toni sometimes gets overenthusiastic and shouts things like 'Vamos' and 'Break him' and 'Go for it'- it is technically on court coaching but not really earth-stopping.
This hand signal theory is nonsense, I have been to Nadal matches, and Toni is always always fidgeting, even when Nadal is not on court yet he is moving his hands around.

by mikeyM1000 Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:20 pm

Tenez wrote:
mikeyM1000 wrote:Lumping Miro in with Madonna and McDonalds - that's a bit strong! If you'd said Pollock, fair enough.
Needed an "M" artist!

Just as well you didn't say "Marx Brothers". There would have been a riot!

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:20 pm

Problem is Amri thinks we all dislike Nadal because he beats Federer.
But I can assure you that is not the case.

I simply don't like anything about him, I think his tennis is ultra ugly, and so is his on-court presence, lack of manners, vulgar grunting, I literally have to look away when every time he starts his serving ritual, it's repulsive.
All that sweating, hard work whipping his opponent with that one trick forehand which only his mother can love...
Recently he has become even comical in the way he can't cope with losing, all through this AO, he's had "moments" sticking his ugly blister in everyone's face like a big baby, who wants to look at that...then he falls over and runs off the court because his shoelaces "break"...
Has anybody's shoelaces ever broke, let alone from falling to the ground?
And then that Oscar performance in the final, I actually laughed, he was so worked up within his fear he forgot there was the world watching him, judging him, disbelieving what they were witnessing.

And then worst of all, after the match, everyone, including Stan and his team pretend nothing happened.....

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:21 pm

We have a forum of people who hate Nadal, and we still haven't found uptil 2% of matches yet...

Nadal => Mozart? Surely that's a "coming out" comment! You must be in love! It makes you blind!

Nope, I like Nadal for his tennis and attitude.

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:24 pm

Nadal is a living proof you can train a monkey to play with these strings...I just hope we never see that experiment on the tour again.

by Tenez Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:25 pm

noleisthebest wrote:Here's a bit of Schubert for you...I've been listening a lot to this piece lately:

Lovely!

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:27 pm

But having said all the above, I respect Amri's love and reasons for loving Nadal.
I just don't understand why...

by Tenez Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:29 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:We have a forum of people who hate Nadal, and we still haven't found uptil 2% of matches yet...

Nadal => Mozart? Surely that's a "coming out" comment! You must be in love! It makes you blind!
Nope, I like Nadal for his tennis and attitude.

Mozart was making a complex music look simple and easy. Nadal's tennis doesn't look easy at all. Certainly not easy on his knees....and nowadays back! Doh

by paulcz Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:30 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
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.

Such a void thrash would be a good base for a diploma thesis at Medical school called “how the internet enables posters write about something, which writers know nothing about or what idolizing of sportsmans can do with some fans”. Because you are a woman and not that young, I will be very moderate in my comments. Therefore I say you just know nothing about tennis game. Your reactions are silly, lack of right perceiving of tennis game and intentionally provoking. That is as bad as your obscure idol who played the main part in the biggest travesty show ever.

That is a total dullness of your brain not to see the real intention of Nadal's drop of his serve speed in the second set and a total ignoration of the consistent increase of his serve speed with 0 or 1 DF within next three sets. His game plan was to keep the ball in rallies and not shortening of the rallies. Nadal did 3 DFs during the whole match, thereof two in the first set when he was fully ok and since the second set, when he played with back injury he did just 1 DF (not sure whether that one DF was before or after his travesty part).
If you find the match statistics, when a player played three sets after his match's back injury and he had no DFs since then on in next three sets (or 1), was gradually increasing his serve speed and tried to keep the ball in rallies and was so heavily back injured, then put it here.

To write that Nadal's serve lacked kick or spin since the second set, that is the same like writing that Nadal played without racket, that is an ultra total rubbish.

To pick out one match of Fed, when he played from the beginning of the match with stiff back, which troubled him for long period and was used to serving with a more upright back bending and compare it with Nadal's travesty, that is stupidity of really heavy calibre.

I would recommend to you to focus on Nadal's appearance, apparel, his manly behaving routines on the court, on writing some comments about his holiday destinations or some statistics from matches, then it is ok. But, please avoid/limit to comment tennis game, that is a utter calamity. You just live on Nadal's crooked spirit.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:36 pm

Paulcz wrote:That is a total dulness of your brain not to see the real intention of Nadal's drop of his serve speed in the second set and a total ignoration of the consistent increase of his serve speed with 0 or 1 DF within next three sets. His game plan was to keep the ball in rallies and not shortening of the rallies. Nadal did 3 DFs during the whole match, thereof two in the first set when he was fully ok and since the second set, when he played with back injury he did just 1 DF (not sure whether that one DF was before or after his travesty part).
If you find the match statistics, when a player played three sets after his match's back injury and he had no DFs since then on in next three sets (or 1), was gradually increasing his serve speed and tried to keep the ball in rallies and was so heavily back injured, then put it here.

Wait, are you actually being serious?
You genuinely believe Nadal dropped his serve below 100mph as a tactic?
And anyone who watched the match can see Nadal was not hitting the ball with great topspin, he was literally rolling his serves in.

To pick out one match of Fed, when he played from the beginning of the match with stiff back, which troubled him for long period

You said that anyone with a real back injury can't play without double faults, and I showed you an example of Federer with a back injury playing without any double faults...

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:37 pm

Paul wrote:Because you are a woman and not that young, I will be very moderate in my comments. Therefore I say you just know nothing about tennis game.

This is beyond incredible, first you suggest he slowed down his serve by 30kmph and averaged below 100mph in sets 2-4 as a 'tactic' then you have the cheek to say I know nothing about tennis.
Atleast if you make ad hominem insults, try, just try, to post something which is even defensible.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:41 pm

Hands up everyone, hands up.

Who thinks Nadal slowed down his serve below 100mph as a 'tactic' to 'keep the ball in rallies and not shortening of the rallies'. (as Paul said)

Be honest everyone, who agrees with Paul? Hands up.

by Daniel Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:45 pm

Look, people, I think we've worked out that Julia, or whatever she/he is called, is totally and utterly impossible to reason with. I've tried, everyone here has tried. It isn't working and it never will. I don't mind debating with someone who is at least trying to listen, but she/he is clearly refusing point blank to see ANYTHING which contradicts her/his own lofty opinion of Nadal... which is at odds with all the observations made on court and in interviews.

I really despair that people can become that closed minded and twisted, but there is nothing you can do about it. This forum is being bogged down in repetitive nonsense, which may be her/his intention.

If this was my forum, I'd show her/him what happens to people who don't debate properly. But since this place is more forgiving, I would simply recommend posting 1 post of facts or arguments and then not bothering to even read her/his replies.

There really is no point.

if that gives him/her a deluded sense of being victorious, so be it. It doesn't change anything.

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:46 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Hands up everyone, hands up.

Who thinks Nadal slowed down his serve below 100mph as a 'tactic' to 'keep the ball in rallies and not shortening of the rallies'. (as Paul said)

Be honest everyone, who agrees with Paul? Hands up.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:49 pm

Ah this is now getting funny Laugh

FedererKing, you posted earlier that Nadal was 'normal' in sets 2-4, but not after the stats were shown showing he was serving below 100mph.
Meanwhile Paul concluded that Nadal slowed down his serve below 100 mph on purpose to try and 'keep the balls in rallies.'

And then both of you continue with ad hominem insults, oblivious that you've both made contradicting but nonsensical points Laugh

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:51 pm

The funny fact here is FedererKing, I think the majority actually agree with me on this one, it's just you and Paul who think Nadal was not injured (or 'normal' as you said) or 'using it as a tactic' (as Paul said).

So it's just you and Paul who I have seen so far who disagree with me (that Nadal did have back problems).

by paulcz Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:56 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
Paulcz wrote:That is a total dulness of your brain not to see the real intention of Nadal's drop of his serve speed in the second set and a total ignoration of the consistent increase of his serve speed with 0 or 1 DF within next three sets. His game plan was to keep the ball in rallies and not shortening of the rallies. Nadal did 3 DFs during the whole match, thereof two in the first set when he was fully ok and since the second set, when he played with back injury he did just 1 DF (not sure whether that one DF was before or after his travesty part).
If you find the match statistics, when a player played three sets after his match's back injury and he had no DFs since then on in next three sets (or 1), was gradually increasing his serve speed and tried to keep the ball in rallies and was so heavily back injured, then put it here.
Wait, are you actually being serious?
You genuinely believe Nadal dropped his serve below 100mph as a tactic?
And anyone who watched the match can see Nadal was not hitting the ball with great topspin, he was literally rolling his serves in.

To pick out one match of Fed, when he played from the beginning of the match with stiff back, which troubled him for long period
You said that anyone with a real back injury can't play without double faults, and I showed you an example of Federer with a back injury playing without any double faults...

Did you see a player to serve under his arm? Were they injured? You ask in such a fool way, that it is really horrible to answer. He timed his MTO at the beginning of the second set, so still two sets at minimum to finish the match. Nadal could play another 4 sets, he still had a good chance to disrupt Stan's focus. Is that normal how his serve went up when there were a couple of serves when he looked like close to his death?

You can't compare when you suffer a back injury during the game and when you struggle with a chronical back problem. Did somebody play the match when his back were ok and did 2 DF and after match's injury he did 0 or 1 within next three sets and improved his serve? Your example is not worthy to comment any more.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:58 pm

Let's just see this debate specifically, who agrees with me (notwithstanding the hate and bias against Nadal generally):

NITB- said Nadal has back injury in AO final

Tenez- said Nadal has injury, caused by the different gamestyles of Nadal and Wawrinka

SR- said she agreed with this article, which said Nadal had a back injury which was stimulated by mental collapse

TRuffin- Agreed with me that Nadal had a back injury, but added Nadal is a pr*t in general, ok. but still agreed with me on this

Mikey/ Julius- Agreed with me that Nadal had back injury, but kept options open as to what the cause is, including mental aspect

Summerblues- Agreed with me, but only after seeing the fact that Nadal did not serve properly late in the 4th set

FedererKing- Disagreed with me, apparently people don't win sets in slam finals with 'real' injuries

Paul- bizarrely said Nadal served below 100mph as a tactic to keep ball in play

So see, it's only 2 people who inherently disagree with me on this one FK, on whether Nadal had a back injury or not.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:02 pm

Paul wrote:Did somebody play the match when his back were ok and did 2 DF and after match's injury he did 0 or 1 within next three sets and improved his serve?

You're talking about his serve improving as if it actually went back to what it was.
Even in the 4th set it only went up to 96mph average, 6mph more than 90 which was the second set.
And the reason he didn't hit any doubles is because he was rolling his serve in at under 100mph, isn't that clearly obvious?

by paulcz Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:08 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Let's just see this debate specifically, who agrees with me (notwithstanding the hate and bias against Nadal generally):

NITB- said Nadal has back injury in AO final

Tenez- said Nadal has injury, caused by the different gamestyles of Nadal and Wawrinka

SR- said she agreed with this article, which said Nadal had a back injury which was stimulated by mental collapse

TRuffin- Agreed with me that Nadal had a back injury, but added Nadal is a pr*t in general, ok. but still agreed with me on this

Mikey/ Julius- Agreed with me that Nadal had back injury, but kept options open as to what the cause is, including mental aspect

Summerblues- Agreed with me, but only after seeing the fact that Nadal did not serve properly late in the 4th set

FedererKing- Disagreed with me, apparently people don't win sets in slam finals with 'real' injuries

Paul- bizarrely said Nadal served below 100mph as a tactic to keep ball in play

So see, it's only 2 people who inherently disagree with me on this one FK.

I clearly say that Nadal's back injury was similar to a small back strain, which he was able to overcome without any travesty show. After crowds' reaction he just had to act as clown and could just believe that Stan's focus will drop. There was no other way how he could stay on the court not to increase crowds hatred. The serve speed drop didn't prevent him from keeping his chance to turn around the match.
Such small "injuries' at BO5 matches are common for every second player in these heavy fights.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:11 pm

paulcz wrote:

I clearly say that Nadal's back injury was similar to a small back strain, which he was able to overcome without any travesty show. After crowds' reaction he just had to act as clown and could just believe that Stan's focus will drop. There was no other way how he could stay on the court not to increase crowds hatred. The serve speed drop didn't prevent him from keeping his chance to turn around the match.
Such small "injuries' at BO5 matches are common for every second player in these heavy fights.

Wait, so now you agree with me that there was an injury?

Ok, let's review the logic of your post then... you think Nadal had a 'small back strain', then started hitting serves at below 100mph due to 'trying to keep the rallies short' (your words, not mine), and you think it's a total coincidence?
So the 'small' back strain had no influence on the fact he served at below 100mph, that is what you believe, right?

by paulcz Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:42 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
Paul wrote:Did somebody play the match when his back were ok and did 2 DF and after match's injury he did 0 or 1 within next three sets and improved his serve?
You're talking about his serve improving as if it actually went back to what it was.
Even in the 4th set it only went up to 96mph average, 6mph more than 90 which was the second set.
And the reason he didn't hit any doubles is because he was rolling his serve in at under 100mph, isn't that clearly obvious?

I really don't know whether you provoke by such a question or just don't know how that serving works on the court. When returner caught your serve pace and owns you on the court then you need to serve just differently. I played many matches against opponent who returned my flat fast serves much better than high kicked serve. Then it is better to serve just with the kick. You just need to change the serve and pace of the game. If you played some competitive tennis matches, then you would surely understand.

If you have a time, try to analyze how many serves Stan returned in each sets. I had a look at it now and saw that Stan's returned points did not rise rapidly since the first set, but vice versa. I know that fandom can be important for somebody, but keep the open eyes. Who plays tennis only occasionally and rather likes tennis as a watcher then it is not easy to recognize the real aspect of the game. But then it is better to a bit stop writing on forums and also stop defending a hero at all costs.[/quote]

by paulcz Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:49 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
paulcz wrote:

I clearly say that Nadal's back injury was similar to a small back strain, which he was able to overcome without any travesty show. After crowds' reaction he just had to act as clown and could just believe that Stan's focus will drop. There was no other way how he could stay on the court not to increase crowds hatred. The serve speed drop didn't prevent him from keeping his chance to turn around the match.
Such small "injuries' at BO5 matches are common for every second player in these heavy fights.
Wait, so now you agree with me that there was an injury?

Ok, let's review the logic of your post then... you think Nadal had a 'small back strain', then started hitting serves at below 100mph due to 'trying to keep the rallies short' (your words, not mine), and you think it's a total coincidence?
So the 'small' back strain had no influence on the fact he served at below 100mph, that is what you believe, right?

100% he could serve with about the same speed as he did in the first set if he wanted to after his travesty break.

by N2D2L Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:54 pm

Paul wrote:When returner caught your serve pace and owns you on the court then you need to serve just differently. I played many matches against opponent who returned my flat fast serves much better than high kicked serve. Then it is better to serve just with the kick. You just need to change the serve and pace of the game. If you played some competitive tennis matches, then you would surely understand.

So you think the fact he had a 'small back strain' (your words, not mine), and then started slowing his serve down below 100mph is a total coincidence?
And if you watch the match, Nadal did not even put any topspin onto the ball, he was not serving kick serves. Just watch the match, he was slicing balls in very slowly, not kicking it with topspin.
The idea that Nadal would suddenly decide to use the tactic of serving below 100mph for the first time in his career, and coincidentally have a back strain is just ludicrous.

Stan had 22, 27, 35, 24 total returning errors in each sets.

This is total nonsense.
There weren't even 35 points on the Nadal serve in set 3, how on earth could he make 35 errors.

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31