Nadal Win Proves Nothing!

It seems like only yesterday that I was asking what Nadals win over Djokovik meant in terms of their rivalry. Stephanie Myles has the answer. Sorry Rafa winning Monte Carlo for an unpecedented, probably unrepeatable 8th time and crushing the present number one in the final means nothing. So don't get your hopes up about collecting any more trophies in the near future unless Federer is prepared to do you a small favour...

After seven straight defeats at the hands of the No. 1 player from Serbia, Nadal had finally managed to break the ice. "Thank you for letting me have this one," Nadal told Djokovic during the trophy ceremony.


But in terms of their recent one-sided rivalry, the win was fairly insignificant..... Djokovic wasn't even 50 per cent there on Sunday.
The Serb's beloved grandfather, Vladimir, passed away earlier in the week. And while Djokovic was publicly stoic after leaving the court in tears following his firstround win, he missed the funeral in Belgrade Saturday.


The only ray of light for poor Rafa is the alternative would have been dire.


But the victory, however obtained, will do Nadal some good if only because the alternative would have been absolutely soul-crushing. Just imagine if he had lost to Djokovic again, at the tournament he has owned his entire career, with his opponent a long way from his best.


http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Nadal+proves+nothing/6506760/story.html

About sums it up. I don't want to say that the win doesn't mean anything, it does but it is a very small battle in a large war. It will not erase the memory of 3 straight slam losses, it is monte carlo for god's sake. But hawkeye makes a salient point in that the biggest plus for Nadal is that he didn't lose under these circumstances, in this respect the match meant much more for Nadal. If an offsong Djokovic beats you at your favorite tournament then you really do have problems.

We seem to forget that a tournament is not just about a final - he needs to get to the final first - there were five competitive matches he needed to come through to get to the final. Murray wasn't "even" able to make it to the semi-final.

Nadal hasn't lost a single match at the Monte Carlo tournament - 8 times entered, 8 times won.

My simple response to that statement is that I dont agree... I think it will prove more important than you know. As I have said it wasn´t ANY old Masters it was MC and the most prestigious of all Master events... it would I agree have been dire had Rafa lost.. but he didn´t and I think it will do wonders for Rafa´s self belief.. Rafa´s mental strength and his will to win is the tool of his trade. The pressure on both of them at the FO will be immense. But we wont have to wait long to find out will we

Haddie-nuff wrote:My simple response to that statement is that I dont agree... I think it will prove more important than you know. As I have said it wasn´t ANY old Masters it was MC and the most prestigious of all Master events... it would I agree have been dire had Rafa lost.. but he didn´t and I think it will do wonders for Rafa´s self belief.. Rafa´s mental strength and his will to win is the tool of his trade. The pressure on both of them at the FO will be immense. But we wont have to wait long to find out will we

Monte Carlo is the most prestigous of all Masters Events?! It's not even a mandatory masters........... The whole field doesn't play it.. Sorry that's an unsusual statement.

t

I would certainly not agree that MC is the most prestigious Masters as Ruffin has pointed out. They have wanted to drop it from the rotation for a couple of years now.

That being said it is just too soon to speculate whether this is the start of a trend or not. By itself this win doesn't mean much, if however it makes a significant impact on nadal's season then it could be very important. I don't think it is that much of a blow to Novak, or that much of a plus to Nadal at this point. If he goes on to build a lot of momentum going into RG and Wimby that is another thing. But frankly, I didn't see anything from Nadal in this tournament different from the level he has shown from last year or the start of this year. That level was simply good enough at this tournament which suits him exceptionally well.

Lets hope it does mean that he is playing well, my personal opinion that even on clay and even if Nadal is playing well, if Novak plays well he wins. But that is yet to be determined and like I said this is at best a minor skirmish in the war. Nadal had to have it and was the hungrier and more focused of the two.

TRuffin wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:My simple response to that statement is that I dont agree... I think it will prove more important than you know. As I have said it wasn´t ANY old Masters it was MC and the most prestigious of all Master events... it would I agree have been dire had Rafa lost.. but he didn´t and I think it will do wonders for Rafa´s self belief.. Rafa´s mental strength and his will to win is the tool of his trade. The pressure on both of them at the FO will be immense. But we wont have to wait long to find out will we ;)

Monte Carlo is the most prestigous of all Masters Events?! It's not even a mandatory masters........... The whole field doesn't play it.. Sorry that's an unsusual statement.

You may consider it an unusual statement . .. however I suggest you try telling Bjorn Borg that he said it in his interview at Monte Carlo .. no one said it was mandatory so hence the whole field wouldn´t necessarily play it would they ? But I think you will find that Djokovic coveted that title . Whatever the case I still stick with my initial response that this was an important win IMO

socal1976 wrote:... By itself this win doesn't mean much ...

So you're a nihilist? If this win doesn't mean much, then by the same rationale, if Nadal had lost, it wouldn't have meant much.

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:... By itself this win doesn't mean much ...

So you're a nihilist? If this win doesn't mean much, then by the same rationale, if Nadal had lost, it wouldn't have meant much.

Of course if Novak had won it would be highly significant. He would have won it for the first time. But Nadal winning it for the eighth time? Blaa... It means next to nothing.

When people talk about mental strength and pressure and being able to win under these conditions look no further than this Sundays final.

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:... By itself this win doesn't mean much ...

So you're a nihilist? If this win doesn't mean much, then by the same rationale, if Nadal had lost, it wouldn't have meant much.

No not necessarily, I don't know how you get a conclusion of nihilism from my posts. Nadal needed the match more because he hadn't won a title since RG of last year. So it isn't a big stretch to say that this match meant more to Nadal than it did to Djokovic. Still the match in the long run doesn't mean that much. It is a nice tournament and big win over his rival, but it isn't a slam, and as far as the ranking points are concerned Novak actually increased his lead over Nadal by making the finals of Monte Carlo and having not played last year. It remains to be seen if this is an indication that their rivalry is back to more even footing. As i said above and stick to, we have to see more than one match or one tournament to see if this is a trend or a one off. And it is clear that this match meant a great deal more to Nadal with Fed closely chasing him for the #2 seed and having not won a tournament in so long. I don't see the nihilism anywhere in the rationale.

Socal

In the final analysis it is all conjecture.. there is not a single fact that backs the argument either way. Opinions are what they are opinions. There is an unknown quantity that is like a little "bubble" between those two after and since that match.... the matter of psychology .. what each of them thinks and believes NOW.and how much that will affect them consciously or unconsciously. next time they meet ..that is what will make the difference.

Oh yeah I agree, it's super significant that it took a death in the family for Nadal to beat Djokovic.

I wondered when someone was going to stoop low enough to come up with a remark like that reckoner. This was a non-mandatory event which Nole did not have to play .. he chose to continue knowing that his grandfather had died... he chose not to go home for the funeral which was on the Saturday... his choice.
Ive heard it said on here (with Nadal in mind) that injury or no injury when you go out on court you deem yourself fit to play... whatever those conditions may be. Djokovic deemed himself to play albeit he was grieving... personally I cant speak for anyone else and neither am I judging his decision... for my part I would have withdrawn from the tournament and gone home to his funeral and my family... and took my brother with me who was watching the match.
I think it unfortunate that you made that excuse for Djoko because try as he may he didnt and therefore says more about you than him. .

I'm just stating the facts.

Try to smear me with your insinuations all you like but the fact remains that Djokovic was well below par and for obvious reasons.

I might add that crowing over such a victory says a great deal about you.

Do you know whaty reckoner Im not going to stoop to your level... Ill pick up precisely nothing.. Thats precisely it facts are what you are not stating.... I know what you are trying to do but it sure isn´t going to work.go and play in someone else´s playground Im sure Ill survive what ever opinion you have of me

Well, I find it very curious that because Novak is too sporting to say that losing his grandfather affected his play, to refer to this obvious fact is somehow "low".

In fact, labelling people as "low" seems to be a good way of ending the discussion when one doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I'm sure you will survive my opinion of you, that's the spirit!

But you didn´t address the comment... why do you think he didn´t withdraw from the tournament... just curious... would like to know your opinion.

Oh and by the way you will soon discover I have more than one leg to stand on Spirit is what I have in abundance

Obviously because Nole is not the type of player to withdraw from a tournament he has committed to because of personal adversity. a rather laudable quality.

Well we have gone full circle reckoner.. It was Nole´s decision thus he deemed him self fit to play as you say it was laudable.. and thus not an excuse.. So can we leave it there ???

Personally "I" would have withdrawn from the tournament, and been at the bedside - knowing how gravely ill the family member was, and certainly withdrawn from the tournament once the family member had passed on - to support those others and to mourn - assuming there was a strong bond between DJokovic and grandfather. Really, playing a game of tennis takes second fiddle to something like this. One could even rationalise it by saying its "a long season and he didn't need to be at this tournament".

The fact that he started and stayed in this tournament was entirely his decision and I see nothing "laudable" about that decision (i.e. for or against).

There is a difference between deciding to continue in a tournament and being 100% there, emotionally, because of recent bereavement. Bit simplistic to see this as an "excuse".

Of course it was his decision, I say it is laudable because it is difficult to maintain a commitment in those circumstances, much more so than walking away and thus shows strength of character.

Nore Stat

That too is my PERSONAL feelings However he did stay and as I say in doing so deemed himself fit. The match was played under those conditions but knowing what an emotional person Nole is I wonder how much of the decision remained with his camp.

Looks like we're all agreed that this was an exceptional set of circumstances and we need to see how Nadal and Djoker match up next time before drawing any conclusions.

My additional view is that Djokovic was good enough to get to the final of this tournament, but wasn't good enough to beat Nadal in the final. In fact Djokovic received a "good stonking" in the final.

People claiming that the final was "meaningless" are being unnecessarily disingenuous. As I mentioned earlier it could have worked both ways - an inspired Djokovic trying to win for his "grandfather" so that he can dedicate the win to him - but that is unnecessary speculation. What is certain is that he stayed in the tournament, got to the final and was "stonked" in the final.

Let's see what the rest of the clay season brings, it is certainly looking exciting / interesting.

PS: fair play to the OP for stimulating banter - but it is just that, banter.

It really is my view that this final told us nothing useful.

Nore, Djokovic didn't look inspired all week. Whilst you are correct in that events "could" have inspired him, they patently had the opposite effect. He dropped sets on route to the final and there was a noticeable dip in his level of play in the tournament as a whole and in the final in particular.

Uncharacteristically passive play, much higher error count than we've been used to seeing, clearly and understandably his heart wasn't in it. Nadal got the result, good for him, but in my opinion one can't extrapolate anything about their recent rivalry from this. It's like Murray fans counting Nadal's withdrawal in AO as a "victory" over Nadal - come off it!

reckoner wrote:... Djokovic didn't look inspired all week. ... clearly and understandably his heart wasn't in it. ...

In that case I feel sorry for Berdych (and Murray ).

Berdy's a bit of a lost cause in my book, too quick to get into a bit of a dither (no, not like that lol).

Murray, well I still think Lendl can bring something to the table, but it takes time, hopefully we'll see improvements by USO.

Djokovic has withdrawn from his home tournament:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g5ZbqflPlwpNIGi9jUvxmMeSx0mg?docId=CNG.b93af852de6d30e4b86c78a05fe4b7e2.3f1

Quote from the article:

"I have decided not to take part in the Serbian Open to try get some much needed rest. This is probably one of the most difficult decisions I have made in my career," Djokovic said in a statement on his website.

"But it is impossible for me to play in the coming days and think of tennis when other things are on my mind."

Djokovic lost to Spain's Rafael Nadal on Sunday in the Monte Carlo final, where he said he had trouble concentrating after the death of his grandfather last week.

reckoner wrote: It's like Murray fans counting Nadal's withdrawal in AO as a "victory" over Nadal - come off it!

dont agree with that at all. Murray outplayed rafa in that match for two sets when rafa looked fine and was speeding around the court per usual.
deffo one of murrays best GS performances to date.

Thanks for news reckoner (been out of action for a couple of days)...not a surprise really I guess. Plus he had a brutal 3 weeks coming up...and doing Madrid/Rome back to back will be hard enough without adding the "Djokovic Open" (well pretty such so!) to it as well.

Luvsports, agree, but that was probably the last time Murray played well against Nadal in a major event? You feel he really has to achieve something slam-wise this year or the clock is ticking...he's nearly 25 now...and others will be coming along...Tomic, Raonic, etc.

lydian wrote:Thanks for news reckoner (been out of action for a couple of days)...not a surprise really I guess. Plus he had a brutal 3 weeks coming up...and doing Madrid/Rome back to back will be hard enough without adding the "Djokovic Open" (well pretty such so!) to it as well.

Luvsports, agree, but that was probably the last time Murray played well against Nadal in a major event? You feel he really has to achieve something slam-wise this year or the clock is ticking...he's nearly 25 now...and others will be coming along...Tomic, Raonic, etc.

No worries lydian

and Luvsports - yes Murray played well I agree. However clearly Nadal wasn't at his best, right? OK a win is a win but you can't use such a match to then say player A has now caught up with player B, that's the point I'm making. You musn't extrapolate from outliers!

thats not the point i was just responding to your class remark which i think was completely wrong, rafa did play well but was just outplayed, one of the few times against murray

you're saying the injury that caused Nadal to withdraw didn't affect his level of play at all?

if you watch the match, by the way you are talking about it it seems you havent for a while, rafa only seemed impeded by it after he was 2 sets down and in that time rafa was outplayed

You're right I haven't seen it for a while, fair comment. What I do remember is Murray's genuine disappointment that the match couldn't continue and how concerned he was for Nadal.

i recommend checking it out it was a good match.

2008 US Open Semi-final Murray beats Nadal 6-2, 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-4
2010 Australian Open Quarter-final Murray beats Nadal 6-3, 7-6(2), 3-0 RET

Why do you think Murray hasn't pushed on since those wins against Nadal LuvSports? Nadal won the AO in 2009 and the USO in 2010.

It's a tough one NS, he seemed a different person in those two victories. He was able to stay focused for so long in those matches and if he did get broken he didnt let it affect him and roared straight back.
Like i thought he would do it at wimby '11 after taking the 1st set but then missing that easy forehand he imploded horrifically and the moment he didnt i thought of the aus 2010 match and saw the fight here go out of him, which wasnt the case in aus.
The belief wasn't there and hasnt been there for quite some time i think i hope it will come back and stayy there for good!

Personally I feel he has stagnated since after the AO2010 to about End of 2011 (I am hoping Lendl makes a difference, agreed he had a good 2011 slam wise but he didn't make much of an impression against Nadal, Federer and Djokovic).

I think he has shown himself to be "mentally" weak at the highest level, both in terms of his training (too much surrounding himself with his mates) and in competing at the highest level. His second serve weakness is a combination of his "mental weakness" plus his "relative laziness" in not making the serve totally solid and dependable in training. He said the biggest contribution Lendl made in his very much improved performance of AO2012 was that he had to go through the "pain barrier", to keep up with these guys. He would have definitely beaten Djokovic in the Semi-Final if his serving had been rock solid - that's the technical issue creeping in at the highest level.

His fall off after the AO2010 and AO2011 finals were due to Murray not having a clear strategy in his development. When others lose, they think about what needs to be done to be better the next time round. Murray just went into a depressed mood. He needed someone strong minded with a strategic view on his "team" - but his mates were too scared or weak-willed to kick Murray up the posterior.

John Lloyd of course didn't help with the farce associated with the British Davis Cup team (where Murray was unappreciated even though Murray injured his wrist playing for John Lloyd - you know about that). The British Press weren't kind to Murray during this period as well.

Ps the Wawrinka third round loss at the USOpen 2010 and his total bewilderment as to what went wrong (everything felt good beforehand but then his legs soon felt like lead as the match progressed), strongly suggested problems with training and preparation.

good post NS agree with that.
btw why do you think he was able to play so freely and well against rafa in those two victories? nothing to lose? i cant put my finger on it

LuvSports! wrote:good post NS agree with that.
btw why do you think he was able to play so freely and well against rafa in those two victories? nothing to lose? i cant put my finger on it

When he was climbing up the rankings he would always play down his chances against the top players - "I don't expect to win", "I've not really got much of a chance" etc - that would indicate he always felt happier as the underdog. Perhaps, at times, being the favorite to win a match, or even having a real chance to win a slam (i.e. being in the final) affects Murray mentally more than it does the other big 3.

By the shrieking socks of Sharapova that is a very good post Nore.

It's been a while since Murray was so self-deprecating, JHM, he tends to big himself up a fair bit these days.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:good post NS agree with that.
btw why do you think he was able to play so freely and well against rafa in those two victories? nothing to lose? i cant put my finger on it

When he was climbing up the rankings he would always play down his chances against the top players - "I don't expect to win", "I've not really got much of a chance" etc - that would indicate he always felt happier as the underdog. Perhaps, at times, being the favorite to win a match, or even having a real chance to win a slam (i.e. being in the final) affects Murray mentally more than it does the other big 3.

I think Murray was in a very good position when he beat Roger Federer in the 2008 World Tour Final, to reach the final - where he was beaten in the final by Davydenko - because he had expended all his energy beating Federer. He had already qualified for the WTF final when he came to play Federer in the round robins but he said that playing against Federer, even though it was meaningless in terms of the tournament (he had already qualified), was a "final" in itself, and that he had to at some stage try to impose his game on him. That was the perfect attitude to take.

He had a very good year in 2009 winning many tournaments (Masters etc), and then got that wrist injury (making it worse when playing for John Lloyd etc). He had reached his highest ranking of two in the world but after the wrist injury and the recovery period he dropped down to number four (losing in the fourth round of the USO).

In 2010 it looked like he had returned to top health and focus and got to the AO2010 final, showing a lot of confidence for the final. But he had got ahead of himself, and went into meltdown playing Federer in the final, and that meltdown continued post AO2010.

That was the key point of his career when he needed a strong character in his team to kick him up the posterior and to force him to think strategically, to tell him he had done great etc, that he had been guilty of over confidence, and that there were a few technical weaknesses that needed ironing out (such that when he was under severe pressure he could rely on the "muscle memory" in delivering technique). However, Murray didn't have the people around to tell him that (or he didn't listen) and I think after that Murray went into his shell, wanted people around him that were his mates, wanted to take an easier / comfortable attitude to training etc.

He had had his rewards from tennis, he was a multi-millionnaire, after his AO 2010 final loss, he sought perhaps too much comfort perhaps to live a little (beyond tennis), wallowing a little in his disappointment. His results in non-slam tournaments started to fall off (not as good as his 2009 year) etc, and I don't think he has really recovered - it was quite a critical period where there was time for him to work on his technical weakness (and mindset) at the very very top level.

ps: the AO2012 performance has given some hope that he has renewed his vigour and focus.

Great knotted knickers of Nadal, another fine post!

We should totally do a Game of Thrones pastiche of the ATP, what do you say Nore? Are you with me?!

(not to distract from your fine analysis, but y'know, it might be fun)

Nore Staat - ref Murray's 2008 WTF campaign. Don't think he actually reached that Final (?). Wasn't it won by Djokovic, who beat Davy...? Murray must have gone out to Davy in the semis.

lags72 wrote:Nore Staat - ref Murray's 2008 WTF campaign. Don't think he actually reached that Final (?). Wasn't it won by Djokovic, who beat Davy...? Murray must have gone out to Davy in the semis.

Yes you're right - he lost in the semis.

With Murray, I "have moved beyond him," if he wins a slam great, if he doesn't well he just didn't quite "have it." His move with Lendl has reinvigorated excitement - but if he is not using Lendl in his day to day training well, there are still the technical issues to sort out. I have been looking beyond Murray and waiting for the avalanche of hot British talent that useless bustard Roger Draper once promised us. What I have in fact seen in British tennis (beyond Murray) are players who are dispirited and not well guided (looking at young British players retiring aged 21 (Cavaday), 25 (O'Brien)etc in the women's game for instance).

Cheers NS.

Should add that I hope you don't feel I was nit-picking just for the sake of it - quite the opposite, I felt your post was well-constructed with many good points