Is Nadal Now The Wimbledon Favorite?

First topic message reminder :

Last year Nadal felt unable to compete at Wimbledon but this year he's feeling a little better

"I want to try to play well again in Wimbledon," he said. "I'm healthy. That's the most important thing."

"I hope my knee will have the positive feeling on grass, because I feel my knee is better than last year on the rest of the surfaces,"

"Grass always was a little bit harder for me after the injury. Last year I tried, but I was not ready to compete at Wimbledon.

"Let's see how my feelings are there this year, but it's a very important tournament."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/27757048

Is Nadal now the favorite to add to his Wimbledon trophy collection? Nadal always has to win Wimbledon the tricky way as part of a channel slam but despite this I reckon he is now the favorite  

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kneel_before_nadal wrote:Read the rule book. I did, and it says 20 seconds "or when the players have been ordered to play by the umpire". This means Nadal can take 25 seconds (or 200 seconds) and no rule has been broken if the umpire doesn't order him to play faster.

The ITF rule book says that? What section? Section 29, which covers continuous play does not say that at all.

He means the Nadal rule book

No worse type of fan on a forum than a blinkered fanboy. I support Nadal but jeez.....some of the stuff here is cringeworthy.

kneel_before_nadal wrote:The condition of the 20 second rule includes: "or the players have been ordered to play by the umpire"

If the umpire doesn't order the player to play faster, then no rule is being broken.

http://itf.uberflip.com/issue/237813/16

This link contradicts what you are saying. Umpire calls "Play" only at the beginning of the match or if the match is resumed (for example after a Roof closing at W).

mthierry wrote:No worse type of fan on a forum than a blinkered fanboy. I support Nadal but jeez.....some of the stuff here is cringeworthy.

You should post more often, otherwise such fans (as you have indicated) give the players and their respective fans a bad reputation.

I was quite nervous before todays match, and also before klizans

today in the second set with a break down and then in the tie break I was really thinking nadal was over with wimbledon

and now I am full of hope again.

in truth it cannot and shall not be one extreme or the other. nadal has indeed survived the most dangerous zone for him. still kukushkin is at the end of said danger zone (first week)
after that who knows... but lets go match by match

Kukushkin's first 2 matches vs Nadal were absolute disasters, but he may have improved since those. Either way, the draw from here on looks like a great opportunity for Nadal to win his 3rd grasscourt slam. I'm guessing he'd be the first player ever to have 3 slams on each surface (9 clay, 3 hardcourt, 3 grass).

Looking ahead, hopefully Raonic will not be upset before the QF, because Nadal loves to make him look clumsy (for example 6-2 6-2 at Canada Masters last year), so just imagine how clumsy Raonic will look on grass vs Nadal.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kneel_before_nadal wrote:Read the rule book. I did, and it says 20 seconds "or when the players have been ordered to play by the umpire". This means Nadal can take 25 seconds (or 200 seconds) and no rule has been broken if the umpire doesn't order him to play faster.

The ITF rule book says that? What section? Section 29, which covers continuous play does not say that at all.

He means the Nadal rule book

Actually I was referring to the ATP rulebook, so the condition I speak of would be applicable to non-slams only-

"Players have 25 seconds to strike the first serve from the moment the previous point has been decided (ball has gone out of play) or when the players have been ordered to play by the umpire [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97]."

Raonic is unlikely to make it past Nishikori on Grass, in fact, this is his best W performance so far.

Krygios and Vesely are coming through 5-setters and are younger. Krygios is a better player then Vesely, IMHO, and may not have much left in the tank.

kneel_before_nadal wrote:
Actually I was referring to the ATP rulebook, so the condition I speak of would be applicable to non-slams only-

"Players have 25 seconds to strike the first serve from the moment the previous point has been decided (ball has gone out of play) or when the players have been ordered to play by the umpire [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97]."

This is a slam by ITF, not ATP, and ITF has 20 seconds, as linked in the rule book. MThierry is correct.

laverfan wrote:

kneel_before_nadal wrote:
Actually I was referring to the ATP rulebook, so the condition I speak of would be applicable to non-slams only-

"Players have 25 seconds to strike the first serve from the moment the previous point has been decided (ball has gone out of play) or when the players have been ordered to play by the umpire [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97]."

This is a slam by ITF, not ATP, and ITF has 20 seconds, as linked in the rule book. MThierry is correct.

Duh, that's what I just said..... As I said, my condition is only applicable to non-slams.

Can you name a few players who play within ITF time rules as defined in Section 29, KbN?

laverfan wrote:Can you name a few players who play within ITF time rules as defined in Section 29, KbN?

No, as I don't time them.

kneel_before_nadal wrote:Duh, that's what I just said..... As I said, my condition is only applicable to non-slams.

Though, in fairness, you can see why people would have assumed you were talking about slams - both from the context of the discussion as well as from your statements:

kneel_before_nadal wrote:Just understand that when Nadal takes 25 seconds (his average time today) or 30 seconds or whatever, he is not breaking a rule.

The condition of the 20 second rule includes: "or the players have been ordered to play by the umpire"

I do not think Rafa is the favorite to win it all, but I am also puzzled by claims to the effect that he is "no longer what he used to be" and thus "much less feared" than in the past.  Out of the last three slams, he won two, and was in the final of the other - that is a better record than he ever had coming to Wimbledon.  Also, he is currently #1, again better than most years.

He must be right up there with the other favorites.  From among all the players in the draw, I would probably only give Nole better than even chance in the head-to-head match against Rafa at Wimbledon.

Djokovic has lost  his last 4 slam meetings with Nadal. 9-3 Nadal leads at slams. Nadal the clear favorite over Djokovic. Nadal even breadsticked Djokovic in the 4th set of their most recent non-clay slam meeting (2013 US Open).

Djokovic is good for a bunch of masters titles, but he's won ONE of the last NINE slam events....

I wouldn't even tip Djokovic to beat Nadal at Djokovic's beloved Australian Open. Back when Djokovic was on a roll in 2011-early2012, Djokovic needed 6 hours to beat Nadal at the Australian Open. And that Nadal was at an all-time low mentally.

But I appreciate ESPN and the bookmakers making Djokovic the favorite at every slam. It seems to be working.

kneel_before_nadal wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kneel_before_nadal wrote:Read the rule book. I did, and it says 20 seconds "or when the players have been ordered to play by the umpire". This means Nadal can take 25 seconds (or 200 seconds) and no rule has been broken if the umpire doesn't order him to play faster.

The ITF rule book says that? What section? Section 29, which covers continuous play does not say that at all.

He means the Nadal rule book

Actually I was referring to the ATP rulebook, so the condition I speak of would be applicable to non-slams only-

"Players have 25 seconds to strike the first serve from the moment the previous point has been decided (ball has gone out of play) or when the players have been ordered to play by the umpire [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97]."

I am glad you don't officiate.

As you can see by definition the players have 25 seconds between points to his the first serve. If they don't they can get punished by the umpire. That is a rule.

The condition you keep blabbering on about can be enforced if the umpire 1) wants the players to play quicker or 2) wants to slow play down if their are delays to serving outside of the players control.

So in summary the rule is broken if you exceed 25 seconds. No if's or but's about it.

kneel_before_nadal wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kneel_before_nadal wrote:Read the rule book. I did, and it says 20 seconds "or when the players have been ordered to play by the umpire". This means Nadal can take 25 seconds (or 200 seconds) and no rule has been broken if the umpire doesn't order him to play faster.

The ITF rule book says that? What section? Section 29, which covers continuous play does not say that at all.

He means the Nadal rule book

Actually I was referring to the ATP rulebook, so the condition I speak of would be applicable to non-slams only-

"Players have 25 seconds to strike the first serve from the moment the previous point has been decided (ball has gone out of play) or when the players have been ordered to play by the umpire [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97]."

 
The section on continuous play is on page 122
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx
Again, it's not worded the way you state.

kneel_before_nadal wrote:Djokovic has lost  his last 4 slam meetings with Nadal. 9-3 Nadal leads at slams. Nadal the clear favorite over Djokovic. Nadal even breadsticked Djokovic in the 4th set of their most recent non-clay slam meeting (2013 US Open).

Djokovic is good for a bunch of masters titles, but he's won ONE of the last NINE slam events....

I wouldn't even tip Djokovic to beat Nadal at Djokovic's beloved Australian Open. Back when Djokovic was on a roll in 2011-early2012, Djokovic needed 6 hours to beat Nadal at the Australian Open. And that Nadal was at an all-time low mentally.

But I appreciate ESPN and the bookmakers making Djokovic the favorite at every slam. It seems to be working.

I agree with you there in that how can Nadal not be the favourite to win. In every slam I always put him as the favourite. Nadal does not need to be playing well to win a slam. He can just grind his opponents down and physically/meantally tire them out.

As for that 6 hour match, statitsically if BOTH he and Djokovic stuck to the time between points that is acceptable that match would have been shorter by an hour! Also, don't forget when those two play is endless baseline points until one of them makes an error.

Just voted a "no" to a Rafa win, as I think Djoko is less likely to slip up before the final. But Rafa, having already won twice as many matches at Wimbledon than in the previous two years (an amazing stat, that) now has a very good chance as well.
Always feel that Rafa can get completely blown away in a GS match. It doesn't happen often,and it may not happen at SW19 this year, but the possibility remains.

But is Djokovic capable of winning a slam final anymore? Its meaningless that he is consistent if he can't actually win the final match. Whereas Nadal has such a definitive mental edge over Federer, Murray and Djokovic (unlike 2011 vs. Djokovic) that Nadal really only had to get past the early rounds and might as well hand him the trophy.

I can't see an opponent left in Nadal's draw that presents any danger. I mean, Raonic for all his power, is a dream match for Nadal. Nadal loves playing him because he's so clumsy (even though he's not too bad for his height). Nadal makes a fool out of Raonic, and after that we have an even more favored match-up in Federer.

Its like 2010, Nadal played 2 five-setters in the 1st week and then cruised the rest of the way (except this time there was no five-setters). That's why Uncle Toni said "people have very short memories". Toni knew Nadal was in much better shape this year than 2012/2013, so 2010 is the best guide (I'd say 2011, but Nadal injured his foot vs. Del Potro that year).

kneel_before_nadal wrote:(I'd say 2011, but Nadal injured his foot vs. Del Potro that year).

LOL

K-before-N . Rog and Rafa have not, to my knowledge, played on grass since THAT final in 08. Of course, Rog has not beaten Rafa in a GS match since Wimbledon in 07 but surely, even at his age, has more chance against Rafa on grass than anywhere else, so the bad match-up may not actually be so bad.
Mind you, I wouldn't put money on Rog beating Rafa in the semi.

sirfredperry wrote:K-before-N . Rog and Rafa have not, to my knowledge, played on grass since THAT final in 08. Of course, Rog has not beaten Rafa in a GS match since Wimbledon in 07 but surely, even at his age, has more chance against Rafa on grass than anywhere else, so the bad match-up may not actually be so bad.
Mind you, I wouldn't put money on Rog beating Rafa in the semi.

Nadal beat Federer in straight sets this year at the AO. That is the first time Nadal has ever beaten Federer in straight sets at a non-clay slam (and the only straight sets win at Roland Garros was 2008). So the gap is widening. But I agree a meeting at Wimbledon should be closer than the AO meeting. But these things don't always go logically. Nadal beat Djokovic more emphatically (6-1 in 4th set) at the US Open than he did at 2012, 2013 and 2014 Roland Garros.

When you talk about Federer, you must get up and respect the guy.

Jahu wrote:When you talk about Federer, you must get up and respect the guy.

  

Everyone is free to respect or disrespect anyone they choose.
But Federer has played Nadal 11 times at the slams.
Federer has won 2.
And the margin of victory in their 3rd AO meeting, was large (despite Nadal being hampered by blisters).
Federer could win a set at Wimbledon.
That's the reality......and that's what I'm talking about.

kneel_before_nadal wrote:Everyone is free to respect or disrespect anyone they choose.
But Federer has played Nadal 11 times at the slams.
Federer has won 2.
And the margin of victory in their 3rd AO meeting, was large (despite Nadal being hampered by blisters).
Federer could win a set at Wimbledon.
That's the reality......and that's what I'm talking about.

Nadal prime on grass against Federer prime on grass I'd always go for Federer.

Don't matter KbN. Nadal can win 30 GS, maybe 18, but he will never be the magician Fed was for 10 years.

No one cares for dry numbers, tennis connoisseurs always will remember the beauty of his game and the free flow motion he had on the court.

Nadal has brought stamina and power moonballing play, part-time competing on tour and taking months off play most years.

While I respect Nadal, for being the original power pusher, he is plain. Even Djoko has more variety.

Magic buddy magic, thats all it matters, not numbers.

laverfan wrote:

Jahu wrote:When you talk about Federer, you must get up and respect the guy.

  

LF, do I have a spare Joker now, to be used when I get nasty?   

Federer is a really good textbook player. He's a good example. That's why we have a "baby-Fed" on tour now, in Dimitrov.

But we have no baby-Nadal. Nobody has a forehand with the magic of the Nadal forehand.

Nadal's backhand passing shots, also magic beyond Federer's backhand.

Maybe you can say Federer's serve is magic, or his volleys. Although McEnroe has repeatedly said Nadal has the best volleys, not Federer.

True, but in 5 years we will have 17y player pumped with bovine/human/alien growth hormone, who sleeps at the Gym and will be kicking @ss with left and right hand.

Will knock all records and same story again, who was better, blla blla blla.

I'm not sure of your goals on this forum kneel. It is just to basically shove your opinions on how great Rafa is down everyone's throats over and over again.
Are you a tennis fan, or did it just start (and will end) with Rafa?

^ I was only replying to Jahu's "interesting" post.

My favorite players of all-time are Pat Cash, John McEnroe, Andre Agassi, Martina Hingis, Rafael Nadal.

You can sometimes see what they mean when they say Simon is ultra-boring. Thankfully Djoko is now two sets to love up. Presumably Simon has got as far in the game as he has by making most opponents die of ennui.

Kbn : I'm sure there are any number of niche-interest forums where you could preach to the converted, rather than spend your time in vain trying to convince a more broad-minded audience here on 606 that Rafa Nadal is god's gift to the tennis world.

But I must give credit for the sheer variety of explanations proffered for any perceived failings on the part of your otherwise perfect hero, whether those failings relate to his inability to defend non-clay titles, or indeed any significant defeats.

In this one thread alone we have had an injured foot suffered in a match v Del Potro at Wimbledon 2011 (but not so bad an injury that he couldn't win two more matches before being beaten convincingly by Djokovic in the Final)

Then we had Nadal "was at an all-time low mentally" when beaten by Djokovic at AO 2012

And then we have Nadal "hampered by blisters" during this year's AO semis, the clear implication being that he would not have otherwise subsequently lost to Wawrinka in the Final.

I always find it interesting when Rafa fans make so much more of his injuries and alleged mental problems than he himself does.

Whilst there are obvious question marks & doubts over the degree to which the injured foot, blisters etc etc, may or may not have contributed to his losses, I can at least accept that he was in some genuine mental difficulty during defeat to Djokovic at AO2012 - not least because it turned out to be the seventh straight loss suffered by Nadal at the hands of Djokovic.

I would repeat that Nadal remains for me the clear favourite for this Wimbledon title. He looks in great form so far and physically (and, presumably, mentally) untroubled. BUT I do hope you have a suitable injury-related explanation at the ready kbn - just as a contingency in case he doesn't make it.

^ I just report the facts.

kneel_before_nadal wrote:^ I just report the facts.

Except when you get the rule book wrong.

Many a politician have reported 'facts'

laverfan wrote:Raonic is unlikely to make it past Nishikori on Grass, in fact, this is his best W performance so far.

Krygios and Vesely are coming through 5-setters and are younger.  Krygios is a better player then Vesely, IMHO, and may not have much left in the tank.

I am actually impressed with this Krygious guy, 19 year old took out a good grass court player in Gasquet at 5 sets, thats pretty impressive, but haven't watched the match yet, is he an attacking player or another attrition non-grassy player?   

Both Kei and Raonic suck at grass, we saw how easy an average Fed took him out at Halle, Roanic might hold the edge in this counter given his serve, but otherwise Kei vs Rafa could be interesting.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kneel_before_nadal wrote:^ I just report the facts.

Except when you get the rule book wrong.

Yeah that was the 2008 ATP Rulebook, but still a fact.

kneel_before_nadal wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kneel_before_nadal wrote:^ I just report the facts.

Except when you get the rule book wrong.

Yeah that was the 2008 ATP Rulebook, but still a fact.

But it's not in the 2014 Rulebook hence it is not a fact.

kneel_before_nadal wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kneel_before_nadal wrote:^ I just report the facts.

Except when you get the rule book wrong.

Yeah that was the 2008 ATP Rulebook, but still a fact.

That's a joke right? It made me chuckle, so I think it must have been.

It was only six years old .......

Close enough surely ......   

^ I didn't know the year when first I read it, it was a pdf file of the rules.

lags72 wrote:

I would repeat that Nadal remains for me the clear favourite for this Wimbledon title. He looks in great form so far and physically (and, presumably, mentally) untroubled. BUT I do hope you have a suitable injury-related explanation at the ready kbn - just as a contingency in case he doesn't make it.

+1

The day Nadal fans agree he was completely beaten on his day is the day that would never be born its the day the world will crumble its the day volcanoes will erupt with warning its the day Sun will run out of gas its the day my ears will be blown off from hearing the truth.   

kneel_before_nadal wrote:^ I just report the facts.

The biggest fact is Nadal never lost when he is 100% fit, he is the greatest athlete of the Universe of all time. The Aliens are afraid to visit earth after seeing Rafa's 9th successful FO win, Rafa is our "Man of Steel" as he saved our planet from Aliens.   

^ Are you capable of identifying the truth? That is the question. For example, it is a fact that Nadal was injured at 2011 Wimbledon vs Del Potro. Yet someone here claimed he wasn't injured. That person, either refuses to admit the truth, or is incapable of identifying the truth. But it also comes down to logic. That person tried to tell me that Nadal couldn't have been injured, because he continued to play matches after the Del Potro match. I guess they had never heard of an athlete 'playing hurt', something Nadal is renowned for. This year Nadal won 6 matches at the AO with the worst hand blisters of his career.

^ do you see my above posts, it clearly answers your preceding question.

kneel_before_nadal wrote:This year Nadal won 6 matches at the AO with the worst hand blisters of his career.

So?