How Does Rosol's Victory Over Nadal Look Now?

Remember all the shock, horror, excitement, disbelief, Bored "I told you so" comments and even laughter (cough... Roger!) when Nadal lost to Rosol all that time ago at Wimbledon. Lucas Rosol was hailed by some as a new amazing talent. Others viewed Rosol's match tactics as a lesson to Federer and all the other players who had difficulty getting wins over Nadal (basically ALL other players apart from Davydenko). The lesson was simple. Just take those high loopy balls that Nadal consistantly drops inside the service line and hit them hard for winners...

But on reflection what was all that excitement based on? Now that it is clear that coming into Wimbledon Nadal had knee problems that have forced him out of the Olympics, Toronto, Cinncinati and now the US Open. How does Rosol's victory over Nadal look now?

Rafa was moving fine from what I remember.

Sometimes players just lose.

I was waiting for something like this. Knee problems or not that was a ridiculous performance from Rosol, remember the last game? Nadal hardly touched the ball, thats nothing to do with injury.

He won the French Open just a week earlier as well, of course it was probably surfacing but he wouldn't have played Wimbledon had it been as bad as it is now

It is STILL impressive that someone ranked 100 could produce a match of that quality to oust the world number 2. Rosol playing the way he did that day would have definitely taken out anyone in the top 4. It was him on a good day. Maybe his game neutralised Nadal's game. Just as Federer lost to Guillermo Canas twice in succession. Sometimes a lower ranked player's game could be kryptonite.

Nadal had just won the French a couple weeks ago in ruthless fashion. He didn't look as if he would even lose a set and I think if not for the weather he would not have either to Djoko. Halle was okay as he didn't put much effort into it as it was merely 'practice'. He had a wobble in the first round at Wimbledon but pulled through fairly comfortably too.

So I really do not think Rosol's win should be looked upon as something which occurred due to an injury. This is long after that loss. If Nadal lacks confidence and feels he is not ready to win that is his choice. If he does not play even one match how is he to know where his game is at?

Rosol's victory over Rafa is still a victory, because in my opinion, Rafa's style of play and his injuries are not mutually exclusive variables. His style of play places a lot of pressure on his body and it is almost inevitable that he is paying the price physically for it. Thus, he lost to Rosol because of the, in my opinion, unwise approach that he adopts to his game. Of course, this approach has resulted in eleven slams, but it is not without its physical risks and consequences.

Sensational.

Looks how it did when the chair umpire called "game, set, match Rosol" a stunning victory.

His current injury does nothing to take the gloss of what was an amazing victory.

Rosol played unbelievably well and nothing should take the gloss off that victory.

I must admit that the following article sums up my slight cynicism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/sports/tennis/rafael-nadal-withdraws-from-us-open.html?_r=3

I seem to remember, but can't find now, that Nadal was at pains to say that his knees were 'better than ever' at RG, Now maybe that was not allowing his opponents to know that he had niggling injury to weaken him in front them, it's hard to know and I feel that Team Nadal have only themselves to blame for some disbelief sometimes because of the mixed messages that are constantly put out.

I know from my own eyes that he did not limp off court nor did he move gingerly around it, despite revisionist accounts.

[b]I also don't understand why he was so difficult with Rosol, bumping him at change of ends and arguing with the umpire if he was injured - you'd think he would be less frustrated with Rosol and more with his own body?

Furthermore, they are plenty of pictures on the internet of him practicing in Mallorca prior to the last missed tournaments. Now tendinosis is reasonably easy to diagnose with MRIs and I don't understand why he wasn't prescribed a long rest before resuming training rather than apparently 'ending each practice session in pain' now according to Toni. It just never really makes sense. My only theory is that maybe Nadal, who talked about wanting to be able to enjoy skiing and playing golf with his friends when he retires, and not being prevented because of his knees is maybe beginning to show signs of a little bit of disenchantment with the tour while Toni has not lost his appetite in the slightest? Thoughts?

Anyway don't worry HE apparently he is going to be fine for DC:


http://sports.ndtv.com/tennis/news/item/195277-rafael-nadal-should-be-fit-for-davis-cup-semi-final-coach

'possibly he will have no more problems' says Toni - I don't think tendinosis works quite like that!!! I don't want to speculate on the 'possibles' that might cause a degenerative condition to reappear, or more accurately, the possibles that mean it won't. I don't take anything that Toni Nadal or that PR guy take as fact because the 'facts' have proved to be a very moveable feast in the past.

They should just have made one announcement about the injury without dark suggestions that it 'was something different', said that it would take a few months and that they were aiming to begin training in late August - like everyone else on the tour seems able to do!

TP, a great post but I don't think it goes in sync with the OP. This thread is supposed to be a place where you talk down a sensational victory by a world 100 as a mere fluke because his opponent was... you guessed it right, injured.

I remember similar posts from you about a month ago on the same topic. I don't think they will change some posters' opinions in the slightest. It's all about PR spin according to me...

Hi spuranik - I am really sorry to think that Nadal is not able to play the US Open - it would be a shame to miss any of the top guys - but that's sport.

I don't accept any injury was debilitating at Wimbledon though - I think Nadal served something like 18 aces during the match ( off to check) not usually the sign of someone unable to trust their legs!

Lest we forget just how inspired Rosol was for one night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cjKxPPaMSc&feature=related

Okay he may never play like that again, but we should all applaud the sheer nerve of the performance nevertheless imo.

time please wrote:

Okay he may never play like that again, but we should all applaud the sheer nerve of the performance nevertheless imo.

Nail. On. The. Head.

Let's not play Rosol down- he deserves all the credit for that. But as TP and Lydian have said, I don't think Rosol will keep it up and get into top 10 etc.

I need to write an article about Chardy beating Roddick and Murray which has resulted in taking the 'shine' off Cincinnati or Djokovic bagelling Davydenko last night. Why should injury withdrawals be the sole reason for this loss of shine?

hawkeye wrote:But on reflection what was all that excitement based on? Now that it is clear that coming into Wimbledon Nadal had knee problems that have forced him out of the Olympics, Toronto, Cinncinati and now the US Open. How does Rosol's victory over Nadal look now?

Are you trying to justify Nadal's loss? Why? He lost a match, nobody asked him return his titles yet, correct?

Lucas Rosol was hailed by some as a new amazing talent. Others viewed Rosol's match tactics as a lesson to Federer and all the other players who had difficulty getting wins over Nadal

Don't believe anyone said this actually. Figment of your imagination.

laverfan

I wouldn't use the word "justify" but knowing what we know now and knowing the condition that Nadal was in when he entered Wimbledon it does rather explain how Rosol got the win. If he hadn't chances are Nadal's next opponent would have. Then they would have been hailed as the sensational victor. Was his next opponent Kohlschreiber?

I don't buy this at all. Rafa moved fine in that match and wasn't injured at the time. This is just wishful thinking and trying to put a bit of spin on that loss.

reckoner

Nadal was having problems prior to Wimbledon. He had MRI scans and knew he was not completely fit. Most journalists were aware of this prior to the Rosol match. You may have "seen" him move fine during that match but many saw him playing poorly.

hawkeye

I don't agree with that. Nadal himself said he was simply outplayed on the occasion, I think he'd know better than you would!

What a load of nonsense!

If Nadal was injured prior to Wimbledon, then he wouldn't have attempted his by hook or by crook tactics in the final set which included complaining to umpire, forcing a point to be replayed when the ace was good and blaming the roof!

I think it's without doubt to most (dare I say unbiased) tennis fans that Rosol just clicked that day and blew Nadal off court. It's just sour grapes to point at an injury incurred well after the match as the "reason" for that defeat.

Rosol was never hailed as being sensational - he was hailed as having played sensationally on the night. It is a subtle but very great difference!

Even if everyone were to accept that Rafa's injury had something to do with the victory (which if I am to trust the evidence of my eyes watching the match, I find difficult to do) - it still wouldn't take anything away from that one night for Rosol and it is very mean spirited, and unsportsmanlike to try to do so.

It would be like me claiming that Murray won OG because Fed was knackered. Now I know I posted before the match that Murray had a great chance and really should do it as he was giving 6 years to Fed and had not had a gruelling semi. I know CC thought I was making excuses in advance, but I was being objective in the same way you would assess form before making a bet. It is only a player of Murray's quality that could have capitialised just as Fed as captiliased in the same way against Murray in the past. At the end of the day, Murray came through the tournament the best and made sure by winning his semi easily that he was the freshest and the best for the final, which is what the winner of a tournament most usually does - he deserved it for the way he proved himself the best player in the tournament and quite frankly the way he played against Fed would very probably have resulted in a victory for him even without Fed's marathon. (sorry to wiggle around a bit on topic)

It's not that Fed and Nadal have never been beaten because they weren't their best and we should be able to comment on that, but most people watching that Rosol match were in awe at his temerity, his brutal ground strokes and his immaculate serving, and Nadal played pretty well himself. In another words, I don't believe that this defeat needs justification. Maybe Nadal's knees were sore after the late night final where he was stretched from corner to corner, but he sure didn't look as if he was feeling them on the night.

It would be interesting to know whether, if Nadal had squeaked through the fifth set, he would have withdrawn before his next match?

Ah time please - if I might venture a guess on that question - "hell no" comes to mind.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18642943

"You win, you lose. The last four months were probably the best of my career."

"I just played an inspired opponent."

Ah if only some of his fans could be that philosophical...

I believe alot of us went on to say prior to Rosol's 3rd round match with Kohli that this would be a step too far for him, he is still at best a 45-50 ranked player, the grass just happened to bring out the best of his weapons, same thing happened to Nadal playing Haase and Petzschner. I think you confuse having a laugh at Nadal losing with putting Rosol as some rising phoenix type player.

I believe after Nadals 1st round win you posted this article hawkeye https://www.606v2.com/t31702-nadal-is-such-a-tease

How does he go from being a tease to then being injured before the match?

hawkeye wrote:
I wouldn't use the word "justify" but knowing what we know now and knowing the condition that Nadal was in when he entered Wimbledon it does rather explain how Rosol got the win. If he hadn't chances are Nadal's next opponent would have. Then they would have been hailed as the sensational victor.

Nadal was very honest and is very open about discussing his injuries.

You arrive here, and a little bit of everything. You play against an inspired opponent and I am out. That's all. Is not a tragedy. Is only a tennis match.

Q. What surprised you most today about your own performance?
RAFAEL NADAL: Not much, seriously. Nothing special, no? I know before the match how I feel, and I know probably if the opponent plays the way he plays I will have problems. I had more than problems.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=81113

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yKoB1V2YKI

hawkeye wrote:Was his next opponent Kohlschreiber?

Yes.

Josiah Maiestas

Like other viewers I had no idea about Nadal's injury problems prior to and during Wimbledon. Part of the reason for me writing about Nadal being a "tease" in that first round match was due to the appalling commentary. The commentator was so excited every time Nadal lost a point and sounded like he was going to cry when Nadal eventually won.

laverfan

In hindsight Nadal's comment that "I know before the match how I feel, and I know probably if the opponent plays the way he plays I will have problems." is telling to say the least. Maybe Rosol with his career defining win deprived Kohlschrieber of his own career defining back to back victories over Nadal (I think Kohlschrieber beat Nadal in Halle?)

hawkeye wrote:
In hindsight Nadal's comment that "I know before the match how I feel, and I know probably if the opponent plays the way he plays I will have problems." is telling to say the least. Maybe Rosol with his career defining win deprived Kohlschrieber of his own career defining back to back victories over Nadal (I think Kohlschrieber beat Nadal in Halle?)

Finally, conclusive proof that Nadal has psychic powers??

hawkeye wrote:Remember all the shock, horror, excitement, disbelief, Bored "I told you so" comments and even laughter ... when Nadal lost to Rosol ... was hailed ... Others viewed Rosol's match tactics as a lesson ...

But on reflection what was all that excitement based on? ... How does Rosol's victory over Nadal look now?

The correct answer to the OP's question is that Nadal was playing Rosol half-cocked. If he had been fully cocked Rosol would have been on the receiving end of a hammering.

Often have we shouted Go Nads! Go Nads! But on this occasion it was not to be

How does Rosol's victory over Nadal look now?

Candidate for performance of the decade, no?

Nadal looked in superb shape at the Fo shortly before, and Rosol would have beaten God the way he was hitting the ball in the 5th set, so I think Rosol still deserves the credit.

I don't think he'd have beaten God. God has a terrific slice which Rosol would have struggled with.

I agree with tha majority though. There was nothing wrong with Rafa's movement in that match, not that I could see anyway.