US Open 2019, Flushing Meadows, NY USA - Grand Slam (Men)

[Moxie]

We now have one finalist @USO

There is a lot to be played before the finals.

 

[atttomole]

Wow...you still willing to say that? That seems like a bitter way of looking at a great champion. Are you really a fan of tennis? Do you actually watch? Did you watch tonight? Or do you just puff up Roger on the internet?

I do watch tennis and I am aware that Rafa is a great competitor who fights for every point. His game is largely based on great movement and stamina, which allow him to wear down opponents. Every now and then he does produce excellent shots. I am afraid his shot making is not as significant to his success as his physicality. The most important thing is that his game is very effective, even though it is not beautiful to watch.

To that you add the guy's character. Honestly, I thought the guy had matured, but I was surprised by his behavior at the Wimbledon semifinal against Fed. The guy is so obsessed with the slam record that he is willing to use blatant gamesmanship to achieve it. What shocks me is how facetious TV commentators are with the guy's behavior. Brad Gilbert often complains when Nadal is given a time violation warning.

 

[Double Bagel]

I was trying to find your old post about Schwartzman, but I couldn't. I didn't want to respond before Rafa won, so as not to jinx it. I do think there is every chance that Diego will push Rafa into long rallies and into playing too long. I think this is a trap he has to avoid. Schwartzman will be game, and I don't think it will necessarily be a straight-setter, but Rafa has to take what he learned from losing that 2nd set to Cilic. Too passive, and you stay on the court too long. Also, serve a bit better.

I think you hit the right on. Long rallies against Schwartzman is no good for Rafa. He needs to pressure and take his chances in the rallies. He may lose some of the points, but he may win some of the points as well. That is the way he is going to win this match.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I was trying to find your old post about Schwartzman, but I couldn't. I didn't want to respond before Rafa won, so as not to jinx it. I do think there is every chance that Diego will push Rafa into long rallies and into playing too long. I think this is a trap he has to avoid. Schwartzman will be game, and I don't think it will necessarily be a straight-setter, but Rafa has to take what he learned from losing that 2nd set to Cilic. Too passive, and you stay on the court too long. Also, serve a bit better.

The thing about Nadal-Schwartzman matches is that when Nadal is really aggressive (both on serve and return of serve) then Diego can not really do anything about it. The problem with Nadal is that he likes to feel the ball too much and then he gets into these long rallies with Diego. He needs to attack the ball! They met this year at Indian Wells and Nadal won 6-3 and 6-1 because he was aggressive. If he can replicate that, it should be over in three sets.

 

[DarthFed]

Schwartzman is just a lightweight. Not a threat whatsoever for Rafa like Goffin vs. Fed. For sake of next gen I hope KS doll makes the semifinal. He will be a deer in headlight and get rocked but it's good experience and hopefully we actually see some decent young talent sometime this century. As for Fed I hope he realizes the situation. If he loses here his career looks like trash sometime soon. The jackass is relentless I have to admit...have to admire it.

 

[Moxie]

I do watch tennis and I am aware that Rafa is a great competitor who fights for every point. His game is largely based on great movement and stamina, which allow him to wear down opponents. Every now and then he does produce excellent shots. I am afraid his shot making is not as significant to his success as his physicality. The most important thing is that his game is very effective, even though it is not beautiful to watch.

To that you add the guy's character. Honestly, I thought the guy had matured, but I was surprised by his behavior at the Wimbledon semifinal against Fed. The guy is so obsessed with the slam record that he is willing to use blatant gamesmanship to achieve it. What shocks me is how facetious TV commentators are with the guy's behavior. Brad Gilbert often complains when Nadal is given a time violation warning.

Have you ever notice his forehand? The running one, too, or the one down the line? Or the bhdtl? Or his net play? His touch? Do you really think that he just "occasionally" produces an excellent shot? Do you really think it's just stamina and wearing players down? If that is so, I don't think you do watch carefully, or without bias goggles. The man has 18 Majors, ffs. Your notion that he is less than a stellar character is a Fed-fan trope. And it's ugly. I don't see any evidence that Nadal is "obsessed" with the Slam record. We do, however, have evidence that Roger is obsessed with his records v. Nadal, based on his pushes for the #1, especially. I don't see why you act like that's a moral failing to care about records. If it is, Roger is the more obviously on the down-side, and Novak is the most obviously craven.

 

[Moxie]

Schwartzman is just a lightweight. Not a threat whatsoever for Rafa like Goffin vs. Fed. For sake of next gen I hope KS doll makes the semifinal. He will be a deer in headlight and get rocked but it's good experience and hopefully we actually see some decent young talent sometime this century. As for Fed I hope he realizes the situation. If he loses here his career looks like trash sometime soon. The jackass is relentless I have to admit...have to admire it.

Goffin barely won a game, though I get that he was probably injured. Schwartzman, who is, I will mention, still in the tournament, is short, but game. I don't know why you're comparing him with a guy already out of the tournament. As to Federer's career looking like complete "trash" if he doesn't win this tournament, I'm with @brokenshoelace: Please stop.

 

[kskate2]

US Open Results for Round 4 Day 8 - Monday, September 2, 2019

 

[Fedal_fan]

Biggest take away from Rafa vs. Cilic for me was the impact made after Rafa decided to come up to the baseline for Cilic's second serve. Not sure why he does not do it more often against other players.

 

[brokenshoelace]

How easy is it to be aggressive on Federer's serve? If Roger serves decent Rafa isn't going to be in a lot of games. Roger won that match by returning Nadal's serve decent, and handling him pretty easily from the baseline with decent first strike tennis. it took Roger's return making Nadal look like Sampras and all around passive play for most of the match for the 2008 debacle to happen.

I really hate comments like these because they create a needless false dilemma stemming from insecurity and bias. Roger outplayed the shit out of him, but it doesn't mean there was nothing Nadal could have done. His approach and tactics were way off, and the returning was way too passive, even on second serves. Also, one of the biggest match-up issues for Roger in the past was that Nadal read - and returned - his serve better than anyone. How easy is it? Not very, but I reckon it's worth a try once a guy is handing your ass to you in 6 of your last 7 matches or whatever the stat is at this point.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Just like he didn’t play well at the Australian Open final. Outside of clay, Nadal is an underdog vs Federer or Djokovic.

Again, these comments are just so annoyingly silly. Yes, he is an underdog vs. both at this point. So what? 99% of the players are underdogs vs. Nadal and 100% of them are underdogs vs. him on clay yet that doesn't stop you guys from mentioning sub-par performances or things they should have done better.

Are you so insecure about your favorite player (who won 20 fucking slams btw) that you just can't handle a comment as simple as "hey, this guy, who's also pretty fucking good himself, won 18 slams and had previously owned him earlier in their careers for years, could have done a few things differently"?

 

[brokenshoelace]

His wins off clay are flukes.

/fluːk/
noun
noun: fluke; plural noun: flukes

1. an unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.

Either learn the meaning of the words you use, learn more about tennis, get smarter, or please do away with this nonsense and spare us shit posts.

Fed fans have been god damn unbearable all year and have firmly overtaken Rafa fans as the absolute worst, and at this point it isn't really close (mainly because Anti Pusher and Samson haven't been posting much to give you guys a run for your money as far as awful posting goes but that's a win in my book).

 

[brokenshoelace]

I do watch tennis and I am aware that Rafa is a great competitor who fights for every point. His game is largely based on great movement and stamina, which allow him to wear down opponents. Every now and then he does produce excellent shots. I am afraid his shot making is not as significant to his success as his physicality. The most important thing is that his game is very effective, even though it is not beautiful to watch..

This is shockingly ignorant and you're legit stuck in 2006.

But hey, I'll bite...

1- Tell me, which matches over the past 3 seasons have Nadal won due to physicality? Which tournaments? Which matches he won due to having superior stamina? Hell, let's stick with the US Open...he's won it 3 times. Which ones came due to physicality? Name them...

2- "Every now and then he produces excellent shots"? This happens multiple times a set, unless you don't understand how tennis works. How many shots are actually being hit on the run? How many rallies require physicality and stamina? In reality, the majority don't. The majority are simply won and lost with the stroke of a racket.

3- Who dominates the majority of the rallies against most opponents? Nadal or his opponent? How do you do that without great ground strokes?

4- And most importantly: Please name me the forehands on tour that are better than Nadal's. If you can list more than one, with a straight face, without sounding utterly crazy, I'll concede.

5- Does Nadal have a great backhand? Does he have a good slice? A good net game? Good variety? Does he not construct points better than literally everyone on tour (when it comes to shot selection nobody is better, but that was conveniently left out of the tennis IQ conversation because talking about coaching incidents from 10 years ago is apparently more relevant)? So Nadal has all those things yet he wins mainly due to physicality and stamina...which typically don't come into play significantly until much later in a match, despite the fact that he wins most of his matches way before this becomes a determining factor...how does that make any sense?

6- Name me the overall better shotmakers on tour. If you can name more than two without sounding ignorant, I'll concede.

 

[Front242]

Pretty funny to hear you complaining about someone dragging out old news to complain about a player that they don't like. Or blinded by illogical hatred and claiming things that aren't true, eh?

Actually wrong. Again. Nothing I say about Nadal isn't true with regards to his unsporting traits and I never bring up old examples without reason (eg someone discussing cheating/gamesmanship, time waiting etc.) and you can't prove or disprove the doping allegations which means they're neither true or untrue. I have absolutely zero problem with people complaining about players they dislike. It's a discussion forum after all. I just find it illogical when people post stuff that makes no sense when really he's (Federer) no different than any other top player, eg calling him arrogant. He's a lot more gracious and respectful than Nadal, for example but Isabelle is too blinded by silly hatred to see that. He doesn't have a crooked mouth scowl on his face the whole match and give a cold handshake in defeat but she's too busy calling Federer arrogant to notice. Makes no sense.

 

[brokenshoelace]

and you can't prove or disprove the doping allegations which means they're neither true or untrue.

This is one of the asinine pieces of logic I've heard in a while. As a lawyer my brain hurts. You understand the concept of the burden of proof right? It lies with the accuser.

Now, keep in mind and for the 100th time, I believe they all dope, however for the purposes of this conversation, there is more proof Nadal doesn't dope than proof he does: He never failed a drug test.

And just to further explain how inapplicably insane the "you can't prove or disprove it therefore they're neither true or untrue" logic, I can, following the same line of reasoning, call Federer a literal serial killer. If anyone here is up in arms about it, I'll simply respond by claiming they can't prove it nor disprove it, therefore it's neither true or untrue.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Actually wrong. Again. Nothing I say about Nadal isn't true with regards to his unsporting traits .

You've literally made up medical time outs that have never happened.

 

[Front242]

You've literally made up medical time outs that have never happened.

Namely which? Against Haase? Well, excuse me. Philipp Petzschner says hi btw. There were 2 from that pos against him and he wasn't winning the match without them and he knows it.

 

[Front242]

This is one of the asinine pieces of logic I've heard in a while. As a lawyer my brain hurts. You understand the concept of the burden of proof right? It lies with the accuser.

Now, keep in mind and for the 100th time, I believe they all dope, however for the purposes of this conversation, there is more proof Nadal doesn't dope than proof he does: He never failed a drug test.

And just to further explain how inapplicably insane the "you can't prove or disprove it therefore they're neither true or untrue" logic, I can, following the same line of reasoning, call Federer a literal serial killer. If anyone here is up in arms about it, I'll simply respond by claiming they can't prove it nor disprove it, therefore it's neither true or untrue.

I'm literally wetting myself at the he never failed a drug test. Lance failed just one ffs and it took his own fucking team to dob him in or he'd still have all his titles. Just be thankful drug testing in tennis is such a fucking joke. How the hell can anyone prove anything with the shit doping controls they have in tennis? I know what my eyes can see though and so do millions worldwide. There's also a reason Federer has vocally been asking for way more testing and retroactive tests including keeping samples for up to 10 years. Why do you think that is? 'Cos he doesn't want to go down second fiddle to the Lance Armstrong of tennis.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm literally wetting myself at the he never failed a drug test. Lance failed just one ffs and it took his own fucking team to dob him in or he'd still have all his titles. Just be thankful drug testing in tennis is such a fucking joke. How the hell can anyone prove anything with the shit doping controls they have in tennis? I know what my eyes can see though and so do millions worldwide. There's also a reason Federer has vocally be for way more testing and retroactive tests including keeping samples for up to 10 years. Why do you think that is? 'Cos he doesn't want to go down second fiddle to the Lance Armstrong of tennis.

First of all, if you're "literally" wetting yourself, I speak on behalf of everyone saying, we don't want to know.

Secondly, re-read my post carefully. By saying I believe they all dope, I'm already discrediting the value of a drug test. HOWEVER, I'm saying if this is all we have to go by on, it's proof towards him not doping, whereas you have ZERO that he does.

But glad to see you focused on this part of the post and not the one that takes apart your logic completely. So yeah, Federer is a serial killer. That statement is neither true nor untrue #FrontLogic

 

[brokenshoelace]

Namely which? Against Haase? Well, excuse me. Philipp Petzschner says hi btw. There were 2 from that pos against him and he wasn't winning the match without them and he knows it.

Wrong again. He only had one medical timeout against Petzschner. The trainer initially came in and worked on his elbow down the change of ends but it was NOT a medical timeout and play continued normally.