The Truth about the Australian Open Final (from ruansfedererblog)

FedererKing wrote:

I simply do not see any difference in his level of performance on outdoor hard courts, and on clay.

He just lost the Australia Open....

I know, I had to endure the final.

I am not saying he is better at hard courts, but if his fitness levels are equal for the French and US Open (ceteris paribus), then I see no reason why he would perform better at either event.
His best performances in 2013 came on hard court, his level at Montreal was higher than any clay tournament.
In Wimbledon, as I said, I don't actually see him getting past the first week, but if he does then I think he'll be competing at the latter stages just like any other slam.

This post got lost at the end of the last page:

FedererKing wrote:Your love of Nadal has completely crippled your mind...

This line of personal attack does you no favour in this debate.
It reminds me actually, you haven't answered whether you still agree with Paul's analysis; do you also believe Nadal's minor back injury and serving at 90mph was just a coincidence , or do you still stick with your 'he was normal just because he won a set.'
Oblivious to the fact of course that it was clear Wawrinka simply lost that set not because Nadal was playing at a normal level, but simply because he was on the verge of a Grand Slam victory, and mentally went walkabout for a period, before collecting himself again.

Wow!
That's bold!
Rochus for the combined ITF, ATP & WADA boss

Good analysis by Rochus, Nadal left the court to inject himself, really enhanced his service speed and movement in sets 2-4, didn't it?

noleisthebest wrote:Wow!
That's bold!
Rochus for the combined ITF, ATP & WADA boss

Rochus was given a warning by the ATP by letter last year or a couple of years ago after he said in an interview there was rampant doping and named Nadal as prime example.  He said the letter told him to not publically speak about it but he didnt' care.   Just shows you how the ATP is desperate to cover up, and why other players are hesitant to say anything.  He's been pretty outspoken for several years-

Julia Santamaria wrote:Good analysis by Rochus, Nadal left the court to inject himself, really enhanced his service speed and movement in sets 2-4, didn't it?

no- I don't agree with him that's what happened, but again I think you never see the big picture or what someone is trying to convey.. You get stuck in the exact meaning of words and don't understand nuance.  He may have not been even serious about that exact match- but was def trying to raise the greater point that the doping is rampant in the tour and Nadal is doping.

It's incredible how people who hate Nadal can subscribe to this.

The idea that Nadal's performance in sets 3 and 4 were so 'good' that he comes up with the theory Nadal must have gone off to take peds. It's ludicrous, everyone could see Nadal served and played appallingly in sets 2-4.
Clearly attention seeking, either that or very illogical.

You get stuck in the exact meaning of words and don't understand nuance.

I didn't misinterpret what he was saying, and the fact he can make such a clearly nonsense allegation shows what depth he will go to to get attention.
I also read in a forum or some blog a whole ago Rochus implicated Federer and everyone inside the top 50, but yet hasn't managed to find any evidence against anyone.

Surely a guy who was around the top 50 was so long, and believes everyone was doping, would have one shred of evidence?

He was asked what his best evidence was in an interview, and his answer was that once he won the first set 6-1, his opponent went off court, and won the match in 3 sets. How in earth is that evidence?

Julia Santamaria wrote:

You get stuck in the exact meaning of words and don't understand nuance.  

I didn't misinterpret what he was saying, and the fact he can make such a clearly nonsense allegation shows what depth he will go to to get attention.
I also read in a forum or some blog a whole ago Rochus implicated Federer and everyone inside the top 50, but yet hasn't managed to find any evidence against anyone.

I haven't been able to find him mentioning Federer..  send us that link..

I don't think it's up to players or former players to find evidence... They are the ones who are there day to day, see the behind the scenes stuff, know the other players..   most are afraid to say anything, but a few do.  Rochus says doping is very much a factor in tennis.. that's not crazy and out there talk-- anyone who's ever been around the inside of any sport knows there is doping in every sport.  It's more far fetched and out there to think there isn't.

I really don't see where he's outrageous at all in this below interview from a couple of years back... Seems very reasonable actually..   He saw things, and any athlete who has been around knows the signs of doping. The fact that the ATP threatened him to shut up is a classic case of guilty powers that be trying to put a lid on the truth. I've seen it so many times.

Q: You were the first to denounce doping in tennis. Did it come back to haunt you?
A: “Oh yes! Notably, I received a threatening letter from the ATP that caused me problems later on, but that’s not a concern. It’s just proof that the system is rotten…”
Q: You saw some “dirty” things regarding that during your career?
A: “Like everyone, I saw some things. For me, it is inconceivable to be able to play five hours in the blazing sun one day, and still run like a rabbit the next day.”
Q: Do you remember a particular example?
A: “Yes, I remember a match against a guy whose name I won’t mention. I won the first set 6-1, very easily. He goes to the bathroom and comes back to the court, like, metamorphosized. He led 5-3 in the second set and nose started to bleed. I said at the time that this was pretty weird.”
Q: Is doping a taboo subject on Tour?
A: “Yes, it’s like betting. There’s a lot of cheating. Basically, no one likes to talk about it. It doesn’t really upset me. I just want everyone to stop pretending. The hypocrisy is exasperating …”
Q: You would be for legalizing doping?
A: “Well, I wouldn’t be against it. It exists regardless. The people who take these types of products know very well that they’re playing with their health. But it’s a calculated risk because it can allow them to support their entire family. That’s the case with (Guillermo) Canas, for example. I mention his name, because he was caught twice and we can assume that he doped. In the end, he sacrificed himself to support his family for several generations. There’s almost a nobility about his cause …”
Q: How many times were you dope-tested during your career?
A: “I don’t know. I’d say probably 10 to 15 times a year for 10 years.”
Q: There were even rumours about Justine Henin when she retired. Do you think they were unfounded?
say is that I was surprised by the fact that she suddenly stopped competing, without apparent reason. A great champion, generally, announces it several months in advance and does a sort of farewell tour…”
His other pronouncements came about equal prize money for women.
Q: We’ve felt, in the past, that you were irritated by the media aura cast by Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters.
A: “No. Understand me: I have a lot of admiration for the performances of these two players. What bothers me is that people compare the men’s and women’s tour, which have nothing to do with each other. Justine wouldn’t beat the No. 500 player on the ATP. It’s as if we were comparing men’s and women’s soccer …”
Q: To that extent?
A: “With the men, the level is very high from the first round. Even Nadal and Federer can be pushed. With the girls, before the quarterfinals, it’s a joke. The level is distressingly weak and the difference between the top 10 and top 100 is enormous.”
Q: Yes, at Grand Slams, the prize money is identical…”
A: “Yes, and I’m sorry, but that’s not normal. The majority of the players think the way I do, even if they don’t say it out loud. In all objectivity, you can’t compare the amount of effort necessary to reach the second week of a Grand Slam for the men and the women. And I’m not talking just about the matches that are five sets for the men and three sets for the women. Everything is different. All you have to do is look at how easily some players come back after a long break …”
Q: You’re thinking of Kim and Justine?
A: “Not necessarily. Look at the recent performances of Kimiko Date. She stopped for 10 years and she returned to the top at age 40. As if it were nothing. It’s a disgrace. That type of story would never happen on the ATP Tour. The failed comeback of Thomas Muster is the best proof.”

sorry that interview posted twice..

He may be right, I cannot tell for sure (about his point in general, not his nonsense analysis of the AO2014).

But why does he not say any evidence? He's retired, so no longer under the power of ATP, clearly he has no fear of libel laws as he made those ludicrous illogical statements about the AO final (I mean come on... apparently Nadal serving at 90mph is because of ped injections).

Julia Santamaria wrote:He may be right, I cannot tell for sure (about his point in general, not his nonsense analysis of the AO2014).

But why does he not say any evidence? He's retired, so no longer under the power of ATP, clearly he has no fear of libel laws as he made those ludicrous illogical statements about the AO final (I mean come on... apparently Nadal serving at 90mph is because of ped injections).

What evidence would you think he would have Amri other than what he saw and knows? You constantly demand things that just don't necessarily come wrapped in a bow in real life.  He was a player- who saw and knew other players that doped, and likes to mention Nadals name a lot when he talks about it.   Do you want him to produce blood samples, pictures, videos?   Think about it-- the only possible "evidence" he can realistically have is just speaking from his knowledge of the sport-- which he does have as a player on tour.   It seems to me he's clearly said multiple times that there are many players that dope and gamble and that he believes Nadal does..  It's up to the person listening him to believe him or not, but his word is evidence enough. He has no axe to grind with Nadal that we are aware of, prob gets no benefit from saying these things, and according to him was punished behind the scenes by the ATP for doing so... Why if he's just making it up, would he do this and create problems for himself at his job, where he is making a living? 

I saw people do things like dope, payoffs,etc in my profession and know 100% those things happened because I saw it with my own eyes.  At the same time- I don't have a picture, a video, blood samples, whatever to prove it....  that's not realistic and that doesn't mean what I saw wasn't true..

Julia Santamaria wrote:He may be right, I cannot tell for sure (about his point in general, not his nonsense analysis of the AO2014).

But why does he not say any evidence? He's retired, so no longer under the power of ATP, clearly he has no fear of libel laws as he made those ludicrous illogical statements about the AO final (I mean come on... apparently Nadal serving at 90mph is because of ped injections).

What evidence would you think he would have Amri other than what he saw and knows? You constantly demand things that just don't necessarily come wrapped in a bow in real life.  He was a player- who saw and knew other players that doped, and likes to mention Nadals name a lot when he talks about it.   Do you want him to produce blood samples, pictures, videos?   Think about it-- the only possible "evidence" he can realistically have is just speaking from his knowledge of the sport-- which he does have as a player on tour.   It seems to me he's clearly said multiple times that there are many players that dope and gamble and that he believes Nadal does..  It's up to the person listening him to believe him or not, but his word is evidence enough. He has no axe to grind with Nadal that we are aware of, prob gets no benefit from saying these things, and according to him was punished behind the scenes by the ATP for doing so... Why if he's just making it up, would he do this and create problems for himself at his job, where he is making a living? 

I saw people do things like dope, payoffs,etc in my profession and know 100% those things happened because I saw it with my own eyes.  At the same time- I don't have a picture, a video, blood samples, whatever to prove it....  that's not realistic and that doesn't mean what I saw wasn't true..

He obviously isn't lying.  I never realized it was as bad as that either.  I completely disagree with his position that he wouldn't be against legalized doping.  All doping should be an instant 5 year ban or lifetime for serious offenders.

The fact he made up nonsense about the AO final show that clearly he likes a bit of attention.

Of course what he's saying might be true, but so may Christianity- but due to lack of evidence I don't believe in that or the word of any other prophet in other religions.

truffin1 wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Good analysis by Rochus, Nadal left the court to inject himself, really enhanced his service speed and movement in sets 2-4, didn't it?

no- I don't agree with him that's what happened, but again I think you never see the big picture or what someone is trying to convey.. You get stuck in the exact meaning of words and don't understand nuance.  He may have not been even serious about that exact match- but was def trying to raise the greater point that the doping is rampant in the tour and Nadal is doping.

I am actually pretty sure he took a shot and that is why he left the court. It might not have been a PED shot but most probably a shot..... When he needed a massage...he stayed on court. It often happens that athletes need an injection during effort (I saw a guy receiving 5 injections in the TDF, or la vuelta before having to retire). We also see him hesitating taking something froim his bag...something he hides...just before leaving the court.

He rarely leaves the court, I mean he didn't leave the court for the whole AO 2012 final, or any of those 7 matches.
I'd challenge you to find 16 matches where he's left the court.

But yeah... this time he clearly did because of his sensational improvement in performance... fantastic logic.

FedererKing wrote:He obviously isn't lying.  I never realized it was as bad as that either.  I completely disagree with his position that he wouldn't be against legalized doping.  All doping should be an instant 5 year ban or lifetime for serious offenders.

Not that we did not tell you here!

This to me is simply the proof in the pudding.

Q: You saw some “dirty” things regarding that during your career?
A: “Like everyone, I saw some things. For me, it is inconceivable to be able to play five hours in the blazing sun one day, and still run like a rabbit the next day.”

After it's just a legal question of calling those drugs PED or not PED.....the fact is that they enhance physical performances...but playing with words you can always find some who would tell you they don't

Wow, this thread has gone everywhere!  My thoughts -
1) I too noticed the little packet Nadal stole out of his bag to take to his MTO and alarm bells went off.
2) Djokovic is quick and flexible, but seems peculiarly grounded.  There is no airiness to him, but maybe that's just how it feels to the viewer because of his receiving stance.  Nobody has the airiness of Federer, he must have the best kip ever.
3) I believe that Nadal is very susceptible to physical distress when losing.  If he had been freed of Toni during a formative stage we might have seen better things from him, and I say that because his best matches are always against Federer.  He was trained for that and feels released into his real game.  What if he had developed a full game?  It's as though he has the expectation that only Roger can beat him and he is completely thrown when somebody else takes it to him, starts thinking there must be something wrong with him.

Oh Tenez I forgot to add about the Olympics that today one of our coaches gave a ski to a competitor who had broken his, second time I can remember that Canada has done this, and we also had a save in the yachting once.  It was so great to see, sportsmanship in action and not the win at all costs.  I know the Olympics have become almost completely money driven, but sometimes these things still happen and you can feel there is a camaraderie among athletes.  In fact it is amazing that this once in 4 years opportunity retains this purity at all.

bluenose wrote:Wow, this thread has gone everywhere!  My thoughts -
1) I too noticed the little packet Nadal stole out of his bag to take to his MTO and alarm bells went off.
2) Djokovic is quick and flexible, but seems peculiarly grounded.  There is no airiness to him, but maybe that's just how it feels to the viewer because of his receiving stance.  Nobody has the airiness of Federer, he must have the best kip ever.
3) I believe that Nadal is very susceptible to physical distress when losing.  If he had been freed of Toni during a formative stage we might have seen better things from him, and I say that because his best matches are always against Federer.  He was trained for that and feels released into his real game.  What if he had developed a full game?  It's as though he has the expectation that only Roger can beat him and he is completely thrown when somebody else takes it to him, starts thinking there must be something wrong with him.

Agree with 1 and 2.....not sure about 3.

I really do not think Nadal was trained to beat Federer. He was trained to beat everybody, on a slow court....and he does that pretty well. Federer if anything has one of the best record against Rafa....except that it is clearly his worst H2H against anybody else.  I'd say Djoko was trained to beat Nadal more so. Nadal simply was trained to destroy any talented player by making them run until they lose that talent/edge..and making things even harder by sending a powerful ball which is difficult to time, therefore difficult to exploit by talented players.

Without Toni, I fear nadal would not have had the talent to succeed, even be a top 50 player. Nadal's strength is clearly his power and stamina and his whole game is based on that physique. This is why Toni had no problem asking him to play the game with his unnatural arm. We have to bear in mind a very important fact often disregarded:

Toni did not pick the best player in his country to train to the top. He simply chose his nephew ....from a very young age. He probably saw that he had a good potential physically and certainly some talent (movement and eye/hand coordination).....but the chance for Toni to have a nephew in the top 50 talent wise in the world considering millions take the sport young would have been an exceptional coincidence. Then ask that right handed talent to play with his left hand would have been absurd.

My take is that Toni with his plan and team could have manufactured a few Nadals. The advantage however to choose his nephew over anybody else is that the success and it's well kept secret will always remain with the family.

It's also why he is utterly knackered once he ages a little more. Without his physical side, he has no B game. No fall back. He's finished.

bluenose wrote:Oh Tenez I forgot to add about the Olympics that today one of our coaches gave a ski to a competitor who had broken his, second time I can remember that Canada has done this, and we also had a save in the yachting once.  It was so great to see, sportsmanship in action and not the win at all costs.  I know the Olympics have become almost completely money driven, but sometimes these things still happen and you can feel there is a camaraderie among athletes.  In fact it is amazing that this once in 4 years opportunity retains this purity at all.

yes that's great to see. The Olympics, maybe because it's actually a 1 in a 4 year event make the participation itself a great reward. "l'important c'est de participer" was saying the re-inventor of the games. And though the gold medal is great, the money comes essentially from sponsors as prize money is smaller than in other events....isn't it? That would help keeping the sporting spirit up.

Nadal ran off the court even during his match against Dimitrov(or was it Nishi? Becoming all a blur now...)
That time he faked his shoelace "broke" from falling to the ground.

Before he ran off, he went to "look for" a new pair in his bag, then walked towards Toni to "explain" the problem...during which time nobody incl the umpire had a clue what was going on.

And then he ran off into he tunnel...

FedererKing wrote:It's also why he is utterly knackered once he ages a little more.  Without his physical side, he has no B game.  No fall back.  He's finished.

I would have thought so ....until you see him improve year in year out...getting long months rest, like no other player and the more you hit that ball the better you get at it so he can now beat the weaker opposition with more ease, less running than in the past...and wen you see players like Ferrer playing their best tennis at 32....maybe we are a bit too hopefull.

I think once again, it's going to be the new generation which will stop the Nadal and Djoko. They are late maturing cause it's physically so tough that it takes more time to mature.....Stan just proved it a few weeks ago.

Tenez @ 11:42

Huge coincidence you had to write that now !
I was literally just in the middle of a piece on your fallacies on Nadal, and then you provide all of them plus some more in one post!

This will be #2, but now you'll have to wait a bit longer for it

Julia Santamaria wrote:Tenez @ 11:42

Huge coincidence you had to write that now !
I was literally just in the middle of a piece on your fallacies on Nadal, and then you provide all of them plus some more in one post!

This will be #2, but now you'll have to wait a bit longer for it

Admit it makes lots of sense!....just not "your" sense.

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Tenez @ 11:42

Huge coincidence you had to write that now !
I was literally just in the middle of a piece on your fallacies on Nadal, and then you provide all of them plus some more in one post!

This will be #2, but now you'll have to wait a bit longer for it

Admit it makes lots of sense!....just not "your" sense.  

Can you wait around 20 minutes?
I've nearly finished writing this, and I think even you will struggle to deal with the evidence I put forward this time.

Seems to me that if you go back over all the Fedal matches, all Nadal's drill patterns work more often than not.  He is very fixed for those matches, and when he fails he goes down fairly easily and without complaint.  He also has more spirit and drive in those matches than any other.  So I feel he is targeted to Federer.

And maybe his big failing is his lack of coping with the not-Federer.  He can't bring it to those matches in any way but grinding if he is challenged.  It was sad o see him try to stay close to the baseline vs Stan - he wanted to, knew he had to, but the drills weren't there.

And he's way too old to be ruled by his uncle, I don't care what Spanish culture says the time comes to be your own man.

If you combine his H2H against everyone, you get his overall win/loss ratio.

noelisthebest wrote:Foolproof design

Funny you should say that...

Tenez, LS, etc. etc. now is the time to start checking PMs and start digesting.

OK now I look silly, NITB wrote a post and deleted it.   

I don't think it matters who Nadal plays, his "game" works against all.

It's very simple, very risk-free and hence very efficient.
If Nadal is fit, has plenty of juice in his left bicep, the bounce is not low, he beats everyone except Nole.

As soon as his levels of physicality, his only "talent" drop even by a little bit, he is vulnerable, nothing to do with any patterns or drills.
For some reason he was not his usual physical self against Stan, which is why he resorted to his 2nd best talent, his only plan B - cheating and disrupting opponent's momentum.
He is not capable of taking the ball early, hence stands so far back and does not do that well moving  forward, he does it only when he is very safe, anyway.

Against Federer, on slower courts in particular,  his tactics is shamelessly 1D and so effective - to bludgeon his BH until his arm tires.
Federer is almost helpless as his main weapon - taking time from his opponent is annulled in slow conditions, so in the battle of grinding and fitness he suffers against the fittest in the pack.
And that is very, very frustrating.
Against the others - less talented players, all Nadal needs is just to wear them out and send them panicking and going for shots/missing.

He can only do it because playing conditins are slow and allow him all the time in the world to charge the ball with spin.
Foolproof design, anti-tennis, we can pull our hair in frustration...until his sellotaped body finally caves in...

So, tennis's future is in the hands of doctors, unfortunately!

Exactly.  It's all to do with the conditions.  As many have said before:  put Nadal in old conditions and he isn't near a top 10.  Without today's slow conditions (inc today's racquets of course_, he is nowhere.  Federer at his best beats Nadal at his best on all surfaces (modern or otherwise) excluding clay.  That's the reality of it.  

Nadal is a 1trick pony.

How could you possibly know?

If conditions were seriously different, Nadal would adapt and change his game, right now his game is good enough for pretty much all outdoor tournaments which make up the majority of the circuit.

You cannot adapt to talent, Amri,  you've either got it or you don't.
Hard work can indeed achieve much, but in tennis if you want to play like Federer, you've got to have talent.

Toni knows it, and so does Nadal...surprised you can't!

But for the talent to shine, you've got to have the conditions in which it can separate itself above the rest.
You  don't give times table questions to people if you want to find the clever cookies, you give them something tougher.

Firstly Nadal is talented, secondly why would he want to change anything in his game? It's making him pretty successful, already statistically up there as one of the greatest.

Tenez, scroll up to the top of the page, what does it say to the left of log out?

Anyway I'm off now, cheerio

bluenose wrote:Seems to me that if you go back over all the Fedal matches, all Nadal's drill patterns work more often than not.  He is very fixed for those matches, and when he fails he goes down fairly easily and without complaint.  He also has more spirit and drive in those matches than any other.  So I feel he is targeted to Federer.

And maybe his big failing is his lack of coping with the not-Federer.  He can't bring it to those matches in any way but grinding if he is challenged.  It was sad o see him try to stay close to the baseline vs Stan - he wanted to, knew he had to, but the drills weren't there.

And he's way too old to be ruled by his uncle, I don't care what Spanish culture says the time comes to be your own man.

I think his loss to a SHBH last week was his first loss to a SHBH bar Federer for probably 7 years? Very simply his games works very well versus everybody, especially SHBH,  and the only ones who can beat him are those with power from both wings (Delpo, Murray, Djoko). Had the non-clay surface stayed pacier, Fed's BH woudl have been pacy enough to keep Nadal on his toes as he showed a few times on slightly faster surfaces. This is why I do not think Federer was the target. The target for Toni and Nadal was the FO regardless who was there. And when teh conds kept on slowing down there was nothing to stop him to play that simple tactic against everybody else, everywhere else. He has the best record versus all other top players too....not only Federer. 

I do not see nadal changing tactic when he plays the rest of the field. His only solution is getting fitter which means hitting harder for longer until his body break ...like in that last AO.

Julia Santamaria wrote:He was slicing the ball in at below 100mph, and it was hardly even bouncing high, neither the kick or speed was like normal.

As for why his serve got faster (from 90 to 96 mph), painkillers start to kick in, so he can slightly more on serve.

Paul wrote:As I said he possibly had a kind of back strain, but that wasn't definitely limiting his serve speed

So you still believe it was a massive coincidence??
How can anyone believe that, and then say I know nothing about tennis just because I think there's a connection, it's beyond belief.

Surely your belief and that is right. Because you are not able to perceive tennis game, no knowledge from real tennis matches, therefore lacking the mental aspect of the tennis game. That was not a coincidence, but Nadal's intention to disrupt Stan's focus and got him out of his rhythm.

As I wrote if Nadal was seriously back injured he would have tried more shorten rallies and also should have taken more risk on his serve. He did just one DF within three sets with heavily injured back and two DF when was fully healthy. If a player is seriously injured then serves with high risk especially on his second serve. Nadal 1st serve avg speed in the third set was 160kmh and the second was about 130kmh. If he could serve the first serve about 160 (180 in the fourh set), surely he could have served the second about his standard 150kmh and go for higher risk.

If a player has a serious injury during the match, then he goes for one two shots at a point. Nadal rallied in the fourth set as he usually does. If you have a serious injured back then no way you can win such a match by relying on your legs as Nadal did, unless he is a complete moron.

Nadal 1st serve speed was over 180kmh in 4th and 8th game, which was about the same as in the first set. Nadal's serve was superbly highly kicked since the third set, so that you probably hasn't watched that match since the third set when you wrote that his serves were just rolled in. His kick was higher than usual, so that his swing wasn't affected by his heavily injured back.

As I referred to Stan's returns statistics, Stan made more returned errors each set since the second set than within the first set, when Nadal was fully ok. That is in the contrast to what you think that Nadal's serve under 100mph. You think that Stan benefited from that serve speed drop. Just the opposite is truth. I am sure that if Nadal served as he did in the first set, the match would have finished in straight sets.

So your position is that you believe that Nadal's serve dropped just due to his injury. I say that his serve speed drop was a tactical approach to disrupt Stan from his focus and his faking back injury was used like pretence for breaking up Stan's focus. Stan's return statictics shows that his return errors increased by three times since the second set. So that I clearly says that Nadal's theater and his slower serve speed surely helped him to take at least one set and just due to a great Stan's focus he couldn't have managed to turn around the match.
I looked at most of AO final again this evening and must repeat that this Nadal's back injury has been the biggest travesty show ever.

Oh for crying out loud... are you still trying to argue that his back injury and the slow serving was a coincidence...

paul wrote:Because you are not able to perceive tennis game, no knowledge from real tennis matches, therefore lacking the mental aspect of the tennis game.

How on earth would you know? Again, irrelevant personal attacks.

paul wrote:As I wrote if Nadal was seriously back injured he would have tried more shorten rallies and also should have taken more risk on his serve.

He did actually try and shorten the rallies, there was no point after the injury which was more than 20 shot rally.
As for 'taking more risk on serve'- well he couldn't serve fast, I mean as your own stats showed, he couldn't even average more than 100mph. If he could have, he would have served faster than that.

paul wrote:So your position is that you believe that Nadal's serve dropped just due to his injury. I say that his serve speed drop was a tactical approach to disrupt Stan from his focus

This is a direct and clear contradiction on what you said earlier.

This is what you said at: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:30 pm

paul wrote: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.

And at: Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:42 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.

I do not even need to argue against you... you are arguing against yourself... by constantly contradicting yourself as to why Nadal changed his service speed.

As to why Nadal won a set, it's pretty clear that it's because Wawrinka realised he was on the verge of the biggest victory of his career, and mentally lapsed for a period, before picking himself.
Not only was Nadal serving very very badly, rolling the ball in at 95mph, but he was also moving very badly.
I think your claim that Nadal's 'minor' back injury and drop in service speed (by the way, these sets were the first time in Nadal's career that he has averaged below 100mph) is a coincidence is simply irrational and illogical.

As for your return statistics, are you referring to this post by you:

Paul wrote:So, these figures show the return points. Interisting is the third set which says that Stan had just one third succesful returns 12/35, which is about the same as he had in the first set 8/22. So, where is the serve speed effect? Try to look at that. I need to go perhaps deservedly into horizontal position. Good night and keep open eyes.

This is an absolute load of nonsense. According to your statistics, Wawrinka only got 8 balls back into play in return games in the first set.
Do you just make stuff up as you go along?

Julia Santamaria wrote:Oh for crying out loud... are you still trying to argue that his back injury and the slow serving was a coincidence...

paul wrote:Because you are not able to perceive tennis game, no knowledge from real tennis matches, therefore lacking the mental aspect of the tennis game.

How on earth would you know? Again, irrelevant personal attacks.

paul wrote:As I wrote if Nadal was seriously back injured he would have tried more shorten rallies and also should have taken more risk on his serve.

He did actually try and shorten the rallies, there was no point after the injury which was more than 20 shot rally.
As for 'taking more risk on serve'- well he couldn't serve fast, I mean as your own stats showed, he couldn't even average more than 100mph. If he could have, he would have served faster than that.

paul wrote:So your position is that you believe that Nadal's serve dropped just due to his injury. I say that his serve speed drop was a tactical approach to disrupt Stan from his focus

This is a direct and clear contradiction on what you said earlier.

This is what you said at: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:30 pm

paul wrote: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.

And at: Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:42 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.

I do not even need to argue against you... you are arguing against yourself... by constantly contradicting yourself as to why Nadal changed his service speed.

As to why Nadal won a set, it's pretty clear that it's because Wawrinka realised he was on the verge of the biggest victory of his career, and mentally lapsed for a period, before picking himself.
Not only was Nadal serving very very badly, rolling the ball in at 95mph, but he was also moving very badly.
I think your claim that Nadal's 'minor' back injury and drop in service speed (by the way, these sets were the first time in Nadal's career that he has averaged below 100mph) is a coincidence is simply irrational and illogical.

As for your return statistics, are you referring to this post by you:

Paul wrote:So, these figures show the return points. Interisting is the third set which says that Stan had just one third succesful returns 12/35, which is about the same as he had in the first set 8/22. So, where is the serve speed effect? Try to look at that. I need to go perhaps deservedly into horizontal position. Good night and keep open eyes.

This is an absolute load of nonsense. According to your statistics, Wawrinka only got 8 balls back into play in return games in the first set.
Do you just make stuff up as you go along?

- You are mistaken by one clown who cried out himself in his own pretending theater part.

- Unfortunately there are no attacks, that is really clear and  obvious.

- There is no contradiction at all, and if you still think there is please write about  it directly where. I will explain it just for you. The serve speed  drop came from Nadal's clowning part  and after crowds  booed him  he didn't have other choice than pretend his back trouble and slowing down  his serve was just funny and for right eyes quite unsuccessful pretence. His intention was clearly just disrupt Stan and let him play.  But Stan’s focus was great and had no mercy for this theater and just smashed him in this second set. When Nadal saw that this theater does not help him, he suddenly could  serve over 180kmh again on the first serve, and the second was varied from slowness to extreme high kick/ side kick. His swing was ok, his back bending also ok, moved again well, all in all he just looked ridiculously all right except his startled face. For all former players that was a real fun to watch.

- I sent the link for this stats later here, so  if you weren’t so crippled  you could see that these ratio represent return points won out of return points. That shows how your mentality  work. If you feel that something can help your silly argumentation you just use it. That is the same crook approach as your hero uses. Just liars and cheaters, just cripples. Think  about yourself. There is no laziness in your case, so try to find at lest a bit fairness in your argumentation.

Paul wrote:- Unfortunately there are no attacks, that is really clear and obvious.

Really?

Paul wrote:I sent the link for this stats later here, so if you weren’t so crippled

Nope, turns out there are, you were lying.

Paul wrote:- There is no contradiction at all, and if you still think there is please write about it directly where.

I've shown you once... perhaps now for a second time:

paul wrote:So your position is that you believe that Nadal's serve dropped just due to his injury. I say that his serve speed drop was a tactical approach to disrupt Stan from his focus

This is a direct and clear contradiction on what you said earlier.

This is what you said at: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:30 pm

paul wrote: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.

And at: Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:42 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.

Contradictions, first say it was to not shorten points, then you talk about 'better to serve with kick' and now finally you say it's to disrupt Stan.
Which is it? Or is it all? It seems like you're just up with something new every post, all of desperate to be anti-Nadal.

As for your stats, it is clear Wawrinka had a dip in play because he realised he was on the verge of a huge win and mentally went walkabout for a while. Surely it's not that difficult to understand?

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Paul wrote:- Unfortunately there are no attacks, that is really clear and  obvious.

Really?

Paul wrote:I sent the link for this stats later here, so  if you weren’t so crippled

Nope, turns out there are, you were lying.

by paulcz on Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:06 am

Here are the return statistics as return winners and return unforced errors
http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day19/1701ms.html

Your are just something. I haven't seen anything so crippled minded ever, howgh!

Yes, and as I said, Wawrinka's played dipped in set 3 because he got nervous, on the brink of a huge win; nothing to do with Nadal outfoxing him with his serve...