It's Not Always Easy Beating An All Time Great

By "easy" I'm not talking about anything to do with the actual match itself but the emotions involved after a win. Found these pictures of Nadal taken just after his semi final win over Federer. Not his usual celebrations after a big match at all.

http://cdn.tennis.com/uploads/img/2013/11/10/201311100942349662248_o/article.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYuKwFlCcAE3tj-.jpg

Maybe it isn't as much fun as doing the chasing from behind and trying to catch up?

Yes, but is it much of a compliment to Fed ? If beating him was such a big deal then may be Rafa would have made more of it. Mind you, he's always been very respectful towards Rog.

"It's not always easy beating an all time great"

I suppose, but I'd back myself against Rod Laver nowadays.

A long hard season I suppose.  But as others have said Nadal has often taken an apologetic / embarrased attitude to beating Federer (e.g. AO 2009).

Danny_1982 wrote:"It's not always easy beating an all time great"

I suppose, but I'd back myself against Rod Laver nowadays.

I wouldn't Danny, I have seen some old guys who can really play. Remember that Bobby Riggs when he lost to then world #1 Billie Jean King was almost sixty Assuming that laver can still move ok for 70 year old and is not pretty much crippled, he would beat the tar out of you and I. Unless you are a very good amateur. I mean I am good player, 5.0 easy by USTA standards I wouldn't want to play laver assuming like I said that he is not semi crippled.

too much analysis

socal1976 wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:"It's not always easy beating an all time great"

I suppose, but I'd back myself against Rod Laver nowadays.

I wouldn't Danny, I have seen some old guys who can really play. Remember that Bobby Riggs when he lost to then world #1 Billie Jean King was almost sixty Assuming that laver can still move ok for 70 year old and is not pretty much crippled, he would beat the tar out of you and I. Unless you are a very good amateur. I mean I am good player, 5.0 easy by USTA standards I wouldn't want to play laver assuming like I said that he is not semi crippled.

Arrange it then. I'll kick his ass!

Any decent top level club player would have no chance against any old ex-top50 pro up to the age of around 60 I'd say. At doubles just forget it, you'd never beat two ex-pros at any age if they can hold a racquet and move.

lydian wrote:Any decent top level club player would have no chance against any old ex-top50 pro up to the age of around 60 I'd say. At doubles just forget it, you'd never beat two ex-pros at any age if they can hold a racquet and move.

Hey Lydian nice to chat with you again, absolutely agree with your above post and we are not talking about any pro either we are talking Laver assuming that he is not crippled he would even a great club level player.

I'm gonna play the first set against Laver, then if he's still as mobile as you guys think I'm gonna injure him during the sit down, then whoop his ass in sets two and three.

Sorted.

He did not have to have a huge celebration probably because he knew, in his mind, he was always going to win that match. Maybe 12 months ago he may have thought differently and celebrated getting past the man who has been a stumbling block here and during the masters cup years. Let's face it, after the year Federer has had, nothing short of a miracle or misfortune would have got Federer the win. .

When Nadal steps on the court to play Fed he know he will almost always win purely because he knows he is a bad match up for Fed.

hawkeye wrote: Maybe it isn't as much fun as doing the chasing from behind and trying to catch up?

I had to blink, but I agree with HE.

In the past Nadal has nearly always been at his best when working towards No. 1, or when as No. 1 he's not defending the big slews of points he earned to get him to No. 1. It will be fascinating to see how 2014 pans out, and in particular whether he does something for the first time at 27/28 that he's not yet managed in his career, namely a full year during which he can excel at the Australian Open and see that form through to the Autumn hard-court season. If there's one thing that Nadal excels at it's confounding expectations.

FedsFan wrote:He did not have to have a huge celebration probably because he knew, in his mind, he was always going to win that match. Maybe 12 months ago he may have thought differently and celebrated getting past the man who has been a stumbling block here and during the masters cup years. Let's face it, after the year Federer has had, nothing short of a miracle or misfortune would have got Federer the win. .

When Nadal steps on the court to play Fed he know he will almost always win purely because he knows he is a bad match up for Fed.

First of all Nadal knows how to win Fed
Secondly Nadal on a great comeback mission and Fed completely declined this year
Finally the courts where not as fast as it used to be, which rulese out Fed even winning a set.

The best match was the Cincy one, if Fed somehow managed those 2 points in the 2nd set to win the match he would have been a different man end of this season.

Thinking of the lack of fun Nadal gets from beating Federer made me wonder about his reaction to beating Djokovic. Maybe subconsciously he quite likes it that the H2H is a bit closer? Otherwise who can Nadal beat and feel a bit like he's climbed a mountain and then jump about in celebratory joy? Not that I'm saying he deliberately lost to Djokovic... or not deliberately anyway....  

I expect he's look forward to the challenge of playing against someone who he hasn't beaten for over 2 years and who handed him a bagel in the last set they played  

^ Ha ha! If your talking about Murray poor Rafa can't take much pleasure there. He's handed out so many painful beating to him that one commentator was forced to plead with him after yet another win at Wimbledon "But Andy's nice couldn't you just let him win?"

(Julius. Before you ask this is true!)

Was that Sue Barker? There's no way you'll convince me she's a commentator!

^ No it wasn't Sue Barker that I heard but wouldn't be surprised if she said something similar. It was in the interview that is done just after the players come off court and shown on the BBC. It was a man (not sure who) but someone who often does these interviews.

Also I'm sure Sue Barker would prefer to be known as a slam champion rather than a mere commentator. In studio discussions often makes it clear that he is more than a little envious because the slam she won was the French...

JuliusHMarx wrote:Was that Sue Barker? There's no way you'll convince me she's a commentator!

Cliché ridden, ill prepared, deals in vagaries, frequently incorrect... seems exactly like a tennis commentator to me!

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Was that Sue Barker? There's no way you'll convince me she's a commentator!

Cliché ridden, ill prepared, deals in vagaries, frequently incorrect... seems exactly like a tennis commentator to me!

You have got to be KIDDING me! How did he even GET to that riposte, let alone make a winning post out it?!

hawkeye wrote:... Also I'm sure Sue Barker would prefer to be known as a slam champion rather than a mere commentator...

Why might that be. If she were a Fred Perry people would be lauding her, putting her on a pedestal, reminding everyone she were a slam champion etc. Instead she is forgotten as a slam winner - hence all the hullabaloo with Andy Murray "first Brit to win a slam singles titles since Fred Perry 77 years ago". It's the patriarchal society I tell ya - If my auntie had a Willie (check your political history) she would be called Maggie Thatcher.