ATP 500/250: Dubai, Acapulco, Buenos Aires

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:the level difference between Dubai and this is enormous. The court and conds certainly don't help.

Yes! Hard to believe we are watching a 14 slam winner here...

The court turned from sandpit into mudpit.

They are taking away bags and bags of it. It should never have been as thick with clay. This is terrible.

The court looks unplayable in close-ups

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's one of the first time I hear Nadal having a off micro conversation (here with Monaco) and he doesn't sound a very bright guy.

Why so ?

His spanish is quite "simple".

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's one of the first time I hear Nadal having a off micro conversation (here with Monaco) and he doesn't sound a very bright guy.

Why so ?

His spanish is quite "simple".

?

He, he, at least the rain provided some drama...

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's one of the first time I hear Nadal having a off micro conversation (here with Monaco) and he doesn't sound a very bright guy.

Why so ?

His spanish is quite "simple".

In English - rudimentary!

Poor crowd..I did not watch it.....just the last game.....seemed terrible.

I saw a little.
All signs of high physicality still there with Nadal.
He'll be ready for RG.

noleisthebest wrote:I saw a little.
All signs  of high physicality still there with Nadal.
He'll be ready for RG.

I doubt it. Seriously doubt it. In Europe clay is a bit faster and players are more complete.

I wish I could be as optimistic.
He'll be beatable in the best of 3, as usual, but in the best of 5...on THAT court...he'll have plenty of time to fix his footwork in the next three months and then a gentle draw to prevent any surprises.
Nole can't match him there physically. He is not the same as in 2011.

Maybe someone else?

It would be great for Nadal to drop out of top 4.

I want to see Nishi Rafa again. 
He was brilliant against him in Madrid before getting injured. Made Rafa look silly, more so than Djoko can.

Nishi may have a theoretical chance it straight sets.

Btw, when was the last time Nadal had Nishi in his half/quarter of the draw?

Truffin, I'm sorry I think you've taken your quoting of me out of context, and people can't even see that as you've done it across forums (from OTF into v2). Maybe clarify with me to avoid misrepresenting my position and misleading others in future. 
You said on v2:

"Amri still says he's "never seen Nadal with this much hair on his head". He sees only what he WANTS to see when it comes to Nadal."

That is in the present tense, and you even used the word 'still says' which further emphasises how I am saying it in the present tense. 
But I said something to that effect in January, after seeing a photo of him in the exhibition event in Abu Dhabi. Now it may have been he lost hair after that, OR that he was wearing his bandana differently which means at a frontal camera angle it looks like you have a lot more hair. Either way, I remember even you agreeing with me on the photo I was talking about. 
I would not say that now today, as during his match it was clear that he had lost some hair. So it's totally wrong to use the present tense as you did, it would obviously give the wrong impression. 


So quoting me like that would pretty much be unacceptable, as you've taken me out of context to such an extent it's misleading. But what makes it even worse is that you're doing it from one forum onto another. This means that apart from people who post on both forums, posters don't even have the chance to check or verify what you're saying. It's a double whammy of misrepresentation and misleading people. 
Either don't cross reference me, or if you do, make clear of the timings (i.e. don't use the wrong tense) or even ask me to clarify. 


Whatever your opinion in the debate, which may or may not be different to mine, I don't mind... however I do mind being taken out of context and across different forums so people can't even see what you've done. 

noleisthebest wrote:I wish I could be as optimistic.
He'll be beatable in the best of 3, as usual, but in the best of 5...on THAT court...he'll have plenty of time to fix his footwork in the next three months and then a gentle draw to prevent any surprises.
Nole can't match him there physically. He is not the same as in 2011.

Maybe someone else?

It would be great for Nadal to drop out of top 4.

I am not sure best of 5 will be a good thing for him from now on. He looks dead after 3 sets nowadays....let alone 5.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I wish I could be as optimistic.
He'll be beatable in the best of 3, as usual, but in the best of 5...on THAT court...he'll have plenty of time to fix his footwork in the next three months and then a gentle draw to prevent any surprises.
Nole can't match him there physically. He is not the same as in 2011.

Maybe someone else?

It would be great for Nadal to drop out of top 4.

I am not sure best of 5 will be a good thing for him from now on. He looks dead after 3 sets nowadays....let alone 5.

It's all fine though, he's 6 years away from his peak which will be when he's 35 !!! Onward and upwards till then

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I wish I could be as optimistic.
He'll be beatable in the best of 3, as usual, but in the best of 5...on THAT court...he'll have plenty of time to fix his footwork in the next three months and then a gentle draw to prevent any surprises.
Nole can't match him there physically. He is not the same as in 2011.

Maybe someone else?

It would be great for Nadal to drop out of top 4.

I am not sure best of 5 will be a good thing for him from now on. He looks dead after 3 sets nowadays....let alone 5.

It's all fine though, he's 6 years away from his peak which will be when he's 35 !!! Onward and upwards till then

Watching him this week he certainly is a slow learner. He certainly looks very tired having to make up for such poor natural skills.

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I wish I could be as optimistic.
He'll be beatable in the best of 3, as usual, but in the best of 5...on THAT court...he'll have plenty of time to fix his footwork in the next three months and then a gentle draw to prevent any surprises.
Nole can't match him there physically. He is not the same as in 2011.

Maybe someone else?

It would be great for Nadal to drop out of top 4.

I am not sure best of 5 will be a good thing for him from now on. He looks dead after 3 sets nowadays....let alone 5.

It's all fine though, he's 6 years away from his peak which will be when he's 35 !!! Onward and upwards till then

Watching him this week he certainly is a slow learner. He certainly looks very tired having to make up for such poor natural skills.

Slow learner ? Tenez he is clearly past his prime and on the decline, it's almost beyond parody you're not accepting this.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:
Slow learner ? Tenez he is clearly past his prime and on the decline, it's almost beyond parody you're not accepting this.

Is Nole also past his prime?

Tenez wrote:
I am not sure best of 5 will be a good thing for him from now on. He looks dead after 3 sets nowadays....let alone 5.

Who do you see beating him in RG?

It's difficult to see which form he will be in but For nadal winning on clay is getting tougher and tougher and that means he is more likely to arrive even more tired at the French as he will try to play as many clay tournaments as possible.

I woudl not be surprised if he were to save himself in IW and Miami....but with the tough clay season schedule he gives himself...not sure.

At least from what I saw of his SA tour, he coudl have been beaten by quite a few players.

I agree, if RG was played today, he'd have no chance of winning it.

His ball-striking had a lot of bite, though only his footwork was behind.
To he, he looked closer to his RG form in Buenos Aires this than last year.

Last year on European clay he lost to Almagro, Ferrer, Djoko and only managed to scrap through Nishi cause this one was injured.

This year I can see as much trouble if not more.

Yes, he looks vulnerable and beatable in the best of 3, but do you remember how he utterly demolished Ferrer (QF 4:6, 6:4, 6:0, 7:1) and Murray (SF 6:3, 6:2, 6:1) in RG?

I don't think I ever saw such a display of physicality.
I have no idea how he manages to transform like that.

Nole really had him in the ropes in the final, but the heat sapped him of energy fast.

I know his reign there has to end one day and would love to be there when it happens.

noleisthebest wrote:Yes, he looks vulnerable and beatable in the best of 3, but do you remember how he utterly demolished Ferrer (QF 4:6, 6:4, 6:0, 7:1) and Murray (SF 6:3, 6:2, 6:1) in RG?

I don't think I ever saw such a display of physicality.
I have no idea how he manages to transform like that.

Nole really had him in the ropes in the final, but the heat sapped him of energy fast.

I know his reign there has to end one day and would love to be there when it happens.

No. I had forgotten!

I am certainly curious to see how he is going to fare this year again. 28 or 29 should be entering his peak years, but the problem is that his game has not evolved much, which means he has to fight harder every single match and last year already showed very obvious limitations. he certainly managed to physically peak once again for the FO.....but even that was hard work. This year I can see plenty of players making it very hard for him,.

My hope is that he falls below 4 in the rankings (I think it's reasonably realistic), then he'll have to play Nole in the SF and maybe even QF (I really can't see organisers having him in Fed's half) and that should be Nole's best chance.

Also, fewer and fewer players are scared of him and that can make a difference, too.
Where is Robn Soderling when we need him!

Here is the latest ranking.

1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 13,165 0 18
2 Federer, Roger (SUI) 9,205 0 19
3 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 5,675 1 20
4 Nishikori, Kei (JPN) 5,415 1 21
5 Murray, Andy (GBR) 5,370 -2 21
6 Raonic, Milos (CAN) 4,980 0 24
7 Wawrinka, Stan (SUI) 4,595 0 21
8 Ferrer, David (ESP) 4,535 1 24
9 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 4,340 -1 24
10 Cilic, Marin (CRO) 3,450 1 20
11 Dimitrov, Grigor (BUL) 3,055 -1 21
12 Lopez, Feliciano (ESP) 2,325 1 25
13 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) 2,255 -1 17

Surprised to see F.Lopez so high.

So, quite a few players have a chance of number 4 spot between now and RG: Murray, Stan, Ferrer, Raonic - all good on clay.

realistically I think only Murray and Nishi can overtake Nadal by then....Ferrer an outside chance as Stan is going to lose further ground with MC to defend.

Lopez..another one aging well.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Truffin, I'm sorry I think you've taken your quoting of me out of context, and people can't even see that as you've done it across forums (from OTF into v2). Maybe clarify with me to avoid misrepresenting my position and misleading others in future. 
You said on v2:

"Amri still says he's "never seen Nadal with this much hair on his head". He sees only what he WANTS to see when it comes to Nadal."

That is in the present tense, and you even used the word 'still says' which further emphasises how I am saying it in the present tense. 
But I said something to that effect in January, after seeing a photo of him in the exhibition event in Abu Dhabi. Now it may have been he lost hair after that, OR that he was wearing his bandana differently which means at a frontal camera angle it looks like you have a lot more hair. Either way, I remember even you agreeing with me on the photo I was talking about. 
I would not say that now today, as during his match it was clear that he had lost some hair. So it's totally wrong to use the present tense as you did, it would obviously give the wrong impression. 


So quoting me like that would pretty much be unacceptable, as you've taken me out of context to such an extent it's misleading. But what makes it even worse is that you're doing it from one forum onto another. This means that apart from people who post on both forums, posters don't even have the chance to check or verify what you're saying. It's a double whammy of misrepresentation and misleading people. 
Either don't cross reference me, or if you do, make clear of the timings (i.e. don't use the wrong tense) or even ask me to clarify. 


Whatever your opinion in the debate, which may or may not be different to mine, I don't mind... however I do mind being taken out of context and across different forums so people can't even see what you've done. 

I accept your apology :-)

I edited out the word still..  Since if it was natural hair loss- a few months would not change anything that would be noticeable- I assumed you still stood by your stance.  You now see presently that he has lost huge amounts of hair-  mistakenly think that it's natural male pattern baldness- which it is clearly not,  but at least you acknowledge he's losing it.

You sadly fib in your post on the other forum that you never used the words "never seen".   I copy and pasted your exact post- I did not alter it in any way.


"Thirdly I don't know if you've noticed but he has lots of hair on his head at the moment. I can give you pictures, but I've never seen his head with so much hair for a while."

So you do owe me an apology by making a big point that I put words in your mouth- 

I would hope you haven't gone back and edited your original post to remove those words, as that would- quite frankly- be pathetic. I've not gone back and looked, but assume you haven't, and you will acknowledge that is indeed what you said.

I'm tired getting sucked into these goofy debates with you and hijacking tennis threads, so I'll just end on this.  do a little research on male pattern baldness and the pattern that it falls out- every single time.   Then look at what is happening to Nadal. Then do a little research on patterns of hair loss created from things such as peds, chemo, toxicity. Look at what's happening to Nadal.  I would hope you would care enough about him as a fan to wish that he stops doing what he's being doing all these years and saves his body from permenant damage.

Truffin wrote:I edited out the word still..  Since if it was natural hair loss- a few months would not change anything that would be noticeable- I assumed you still stood by your stance.

You shouldn't be making assumptions like that on what I believe over time, looking at photos it looks like Nadal has lost hair since January, or the photo we were looking at hid his hair due to the position of the bandana (I think that's the theory you had at the time). 
Either way first making a false assumption, and then posting it on a different forum so people can't even see the context (i.e. no one there can even see the photo I was referring to, or even knew the timing of what I said) is unacceptable. 

Truffin wrote:"Thirdly I don't know if you've noticed but he has lots of hair on his head at the moment. I can give you pictures, but I've never seen his head with so much hair for a while."

So you do owe me an apology by making a big point that I put words in your mouth-

Even the most cunning politicians would be proud of this misrepresentation Truffin...
You missed out the words 'for a while'- which obviously change the context of the whole sentence- by missing out those words you gave a misleading impression of what my viewpoint was. That's really unacceptable tbh

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Truffin wrote:I edited out the word still..  Since if it was natural hair loss- a few months would not change anything that would be noticeable- I assumed you still stood by your stance.

You shouldn't be making assumptions like that on what I believe over time, looking at photos it looks like Nadal has lost hair since January, or the photo we were looking at hid his hair due to the position of the bandana (I think that's the theory you had at the time). 
Either way first making a false assumption, and then posting it on a different forum so people can't even see the context (i.e. no one there can even see the photo I was referring to, or even knew the timing of what I said) is unacceptable. 

Truffin wrote:"Thirdly I don't know if you've noticed but he has lots of hair on his head at the moment. I can give you pictures, but I've never seen his head with so much hair for a while."

So you do owe me an apology by making a big point that I put words in your mouth-

Even the most cunning politicians would be proud of this misrepresentation Truffin...
You missed out the words 'for a while'- which obviously change the context of the whole sentence- by missing out those words you gave a misleading impression of what my viewpoint was. That's really unacceptable tbh

it doesn't change the meaning to me--  the fact that you think he had regained hair from the past (for a while) shows you have no idea what you are talking about with male pattern baldness.   If he had regained in January- then it was artificial hair loss in the first place. as I pointed out.

You once again ignore you made this grand statement that I lied that you had said "never seen"   Your posting earlier said nothing about the "for a while " part-  you just make a big statement than you never said "never seen"..   

 but you did say that- which you admit by showing us that was indeed the statement, but you conveiniently ignore by concentrating on a new phrase.    It's not I that am cunning with the misrepresentation.

Again- I'm sure we can take this private if you insist on your typical minutia of every word said-    the fact is- that Nadals hair loss is not naturally progressing, is not a natural pattern and is the umpteenth sign he is showing of classic Peds abuser symptoms. At some point- you need to get your head out of the sand.   His hair loss- especially in a tiny two month window is a serious sign that his body is rejecting what they are giving him, or it's to to point of toxicity from all the years of abuse. Either way- it's a bad bad sign-  I don't like his tennis, but I don't want to see him destroy his liver and other organs with this nonsense.  He should give it up and live a long life with his millions and millions vs. trying to squeeze out a few more wins with peds.

Truffin wrote:You once again ignore you made this grand statement that I lied that you had said "never seen"   Your posting earlier said nothing about the "for a while " part-  you just make a big statement than you never said "never seen".. 
...you conveiniently ignore by concentrating on a new phrase.

You really are clutching at straws here, obviously if you leave out half my sentence which changes the meaning of the sentence, you are still misquoting me.