Roger's reaction to Djokovic defeating Nadal at Wimbly

First topic message reminder :

https://2img.net/h/i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/Emily-b/3-1.jpg

speaks volumes...

Federer does it, he is the king of making sideways comments in press conferences. And I would posit that Fed tried gamesmanship with Nole at the 11 AO by yelling at him in a changeover and telling Novak that he is "bouncing the ball too much". It is a huge breach of tournament etiquette to yell at your opponent in a change over and not direct your comments to the official. Mentally, Roger was trying to put Novak in his place. And it didn't work, Novak just focused on the job at hand and didn't react negatively to Roger's attempts at psyching him out.

"The King is Dead! Long live the King".

Tenez wrote:There is evidence. Lat time Nadal played a 5 setter within the 20s rule he ran out of steam losing the last 6 games. Amazing from the player who as the best 5 setter record of the history of the game.

Only Lydian and a few other biased posters would not want to "see" this as evidence.

And sure enough out comes Tenez with his hackneyed and stock in trade 2005 Miami match response.
Of course in his selectivity Tenez fails to state the other 'evidence'...
- Nadal was just 18 at the time
- Nadal coming of the back of a huge clay run in 2005
- Before Miami 05 he had only played 3 five-set matches ever (so hardly experienced - however he had won 2/3 of previous ones when presumably he was also within time limits but Tenez doesnt refer to those of course)

So the usual nonsense and selectivity from Tenez when it comes to discussing Nadal.

Tenez builds giant cases around small anecdotes like Miami of 2005 and as Lydian has pointed out it is completely selective not indicative of the arguments he makes. This entire physicality argument is non-sensical especially in light of the incredible fitness and speed that Roger has and has used to accumulate 16 slams. Nadal's crime is that he beats Tenez's favorite player repeatedly. No amount of evidence anyone produces will shake him. These tortured arguments with little to no logic are just simple cover stories and post hoc justifications of why Nadal kicks fed's tail with such regularity.

socal1976 wrote:These tortured arguments with little to no logic are just simple cover stories and post hoc justifications of why Nadal kicks fed's tail with such regularity.

Yep

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:There is evidence. Lat time Nadal played a 5 setter within the 20s rule he ran out of steam losing the last 6 games. Amazing from the player who as the best 5 setter record of the history of the game.

Only Lydian and a few other biased posters would not want to "see" this as evidence.

And sure enough out comes Tenez with his hackneyed and stock in trade 2005 Miami match response.
Of course in his selectivity Tenez fails to state the other 'evidence'...
- Nadal was just 18 at the time

3 weeks later, at still 18, Nadal wins gruelling long 5 setter matches versus Coria.....

- Nadal coming of the back of a huge clay run in 2005

No. The huge clay season is ahead of him not before Miami.

- Before Miami 05 he had only played 3 five-set matches ever (so hardly experienced - however he had won 2/3 of previous ones when presumably he was also within time limits but Tenez doesnt refer to those of course)

Doesn't that contradict your point about Nadal being only 18 therefore winning 5 setters while being even younger...

So the usual nonsense and selectivity from Tenez when it comes to discussing Nadal.

So clearly the nonsense and false information is from you once again.

Give it up tenez, you haven't come up with anything new or any evidence that rebuts that clear and concise article provide by lydian from a very knowledgeable source. Additionally, none of your 6 year old anectdotes about how Nadal played a match in miami in 2005 can counter what we have witnessed with our own eyes. Roger doesn't lose to Nadal because Nadal is too fit and physical, he loses because technically Rafa is a nightmare matchup for Roger. Your theories just don't pass muster in the rational and logical world. Honestly, if you were making a lacking fitness argument with anyone but Roger federer, you might have me convinced by now on sheer vociferousness. But Roger, please I think he could run a marathon and not even change his shirt. The guy runs like a gazelle, has the lungs of a kenyan long distance runner, and moves as effortlessly as a ballet dancer. The guy is an athletic freak, just like Nadal. And he doesn't lose to Nadal because his lungs and age give out. He loses to Nadal because Nadal is a bad matchup and Nadal plays the big points better than federer.

Tenez wrote:3 weeks later, at still 18, Nadal wins gruelling long 5 setter matches versus Coria.....

Yes, on clay, his natural surface. Nadal was a still a clay specialist then remember?
He hadnt fully adapted his game and movement to H/C at the highest level. He lacked experience.
Infact his clay run that year resulted in him having won 38-2 on that surface by end of French Open and a 24 consecutive match streak, breaking Andre Agassi's open era record of consecutive match wins for a male teenager.
By contrast his 2005 HC record to that point was 10-4. So not quite adept on HC by that stage I would say.
Therefore, losing to Federer in Masters 5 sets on HC at 18yo is no disgrace whatsoever.
Trust you to pick holes in that!

Tenez wrote:No. The huge clay season is ahead of him not before Miami.

No way, really Tenez, I didnt know that!
I presume you knew that Nadal played a different schedule back then and played the spring South/Central American clay season straight after the Australian Open, which he dominated. The spring clay run left him too exhausted to play Indian Wells which he withdrew from.

Tenez wrote:Doesn't that contradict your point about Nadal being only 18 therefore winning 5 setters while being even younger...

No, not at all. It contradicts YOUR point!
You say (in your own fasntasy-land) that Nadal lost Miami 2005 because he was sticking to the time limits, and simply ran out of steam by the 5th set.
Yet he played other matches before this to 5 sets, presumably also sticking to time limits (because your mad-cap theory is that he changed his approach and started stretching time AFTER Miami), so why didnt he run out of steam in those matches?
Is it not because your theory is complete rubbish (as usual) and holds no water. Plus you have ZERO evidence of any specific changes of strategy for the reasons you suggest.
Is it not that Nadal just lost Miami simply due to lack of hardcourt experience at the very highest level as a 18 yr old. But again what an amazing result to have almost beat Federer on his favourite surface over 5 sets.

Tenez wrote:So clearly the nonsense and false information is from you once again.

Yeah whatever Tenez, like I said on the other thread, you saying that is like being called socially inept by Mr Bean.
Rather than congratulate Nadal on his amazing early achievements all you can do is pick holes and talk negatively.

Your agenda as usual is clear for all to see
Stroll on...

So breaking the rules is gamesmanship?

No, actually gamesmanship is another thing entirely. Jimmy Connors was the master of it but he was serving in time and so on. What he did was whip up the crowd, create arguments etc. That isn't against the rules, that's gamesmanship.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gamesmanship

Not playing to time is breaking the rules.

Really simple to understand, no need to obfuscate.

Rules are only as good as the enforcement mechanism. For example, Holland has laws on its books that have never been repealed barring prostitution and pot, yet those laws have been chosen not to be enforced, so effectively it is almost like they don't exist as any stroll through amsterdam will tell you. Same principle here if the agency responsible for governing chooses itself to ignore a rule and not enforce it said rule in practice doesn't exist. Its up to the ATP make the rules, and what is gamesmanship would be to recognize that a certain rule isn't enforced, and that it is to your advantage to be one of those who ignores the rule the most. I don't even claim Nadal does it out of gamesmanship, I think frankly that is his routine and he has these little odd ticks. BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT EVEN IF IT WAS PURPOSESFUL, "SO". Who cares, you can't let your opponent psyche you out like that, then you are a mental midget and probably don't deserve to lift the trophy.

socal1976 wrote:Rules are only as good as the enforcement mechanism. Its up to the ATP make the rules, and what is gamesmanship would be to recognize that a certain rule isn't enforced, and that it is to your advantage to be one of those who ignores the rule the most. I don't even claim Nadal does it out of gamesmanship, I think frankly that is his routine and he has these little odd ticks. BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT EVEN IF IT WAS PURPOSESFUL, "SO". Who cares, you can't let your opponent psyche you out like that, then you are a mental midget and probably don't deserve to lift the trophy.

"Third set: Rafael Nadal* 7-6, 3-6, 4-4 Juan Martín del Potro Only a double fault on his first game point denies Del Potro another love game of his own. The second is taken when Nadal cuffs his return of serve wide. "When are people going to admit that Nadal is guilty at best of gamesmanship and at worst of cheating," demands Simon Adelman in San Francisco. "Time warnings galore, time outs for "injuries" that miraculously heal themselves and don't impede his play in the least and occur seemingly when he is under the most pressure. Let's call it as it is!" Hmm, don't agree with you about the injuries - Nadal really did look hurt earlier on and whilst he broadly managed to handle it I would say there were certainly points where it seemed to be affecting his game. Certainly he can be guilty of pushing his luck with the time he takes between points, but then he's hardly the only one at the top of the game. I'd argue that Djokovic is at least as big a culprit."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jun/27/rafael-nadal-juan-martin-del-potro-live

Be careful. This is a can of worms.

"Q. Did you think the time violation warning was stupid?

RAFAEL NADAL: I think is always the same umpire to do this. So I don’t know if is stupid or not. But the match today was quick. Wasn’t this kind of matches that you have slow between points, you have very, very long points, and you are tired and you rest a lot between points. Wasn’t my feeling.

I came here 100 times, and I said when the umpire give me time violation, I say, Well, if I was slow is my fault; it’s not the fault of the umpire. I am the first one to recognize my faults when I do.

Happened in Roland Garros I think few weeks ago. Somebody give me a time violation. I say, Okay, yes, that’s true, I was slow.

Was not my feeling today."

http://www.nadalnews.com/2011/06/27/wimbly-4th-round-presser/

Exactly Laverfan, Nadal isn't by a long stretch the only player who does this sort of thing. Its incumbent on the ATP to enforce its own rule, if it doesn't than we have the current situation were lots of players abuse the rule not just Nadal. And again who really cares, in the Nba the give the scorer an extra half step often without calling a traveling violation and giving the ball to the other team. The play is still called alot but if the officials didn't use discretion it would be called 30 times a game so they end up just giving the offensive player an extra half step before having to release the ball.

I say lets go with the Federer fans and even accept that Nadal does this out of calculation and gamesmanship, my answer is so what. It rarely changes the outcome of many matches and the few here and their it does change well that has always been part of the game. Psyching someone out is a huge part of top notch tennis.

NBA/FIBA already has a shot clock. Waiting for ITF to put it in the rules and slams should be a lot more fun.

socal1976 wrote:I say lets go with the Federer fans and even accept that Nadal does this out of calculation and gamesmanship, my answer is so what. It rarely changes the outcome of many matches and the few here and their it does change well that has always been part of the game. Psyching someone out is a huge part of top notch tennis.

You seem really confused between the concept of taking rests contrary to the rules of the game because you don't have the physical capacity to play to the rules, and psyching out.

Both are debatable topics but they are not the same topic, and conflating them is wrong.

socal1976 wrote:
I say lets go with the Federer fans and even accept that Nadal does this out of calculation and gamesmanship, my answer is so what. It rarely changes the outcome of many matches and the few here and their it does change well that has always been part of the game. Psyching someone out is a huge part of top notch tennis.

This is nothing to do with being fans of one player or another. Also, there is only one outcome in this time line of the universe. Not sure if you can access the 'parallel' universes where the results are different?

Bogbrush, for the hundredth time it is up to the ATP to enforce the time rule. They choose not to because they are player's tour and don't want to upset the apple cart. The responsible party is the ATP. Nadal is not the only culprit, all the players have realized that the time rules just don't get enforced. Therefore, once the rule violation aspect has been neutered and really removed from the analysis in light of the governing body responsible abdicating authority, well now we enter the realm of gamesmanship. Taking too much time on the ATP tour between points is about as illegal as smoking pot in amsterdam. If Nadal consciously chooses this little act and the time between points to unnerve his opponents, well then that is gamesmanship especially since it is obvious that the ATP rule in question isn't enforced, and in fact hasn't been strictly enforced in anyone's recent memory. In short if the ATP itself doesn't care about the time between points rule, well why should we?