As usual imjimmy, you talk about Nadal as if he has some kind of ethereal peak form that no one can touch, and any time he struggles you insist that he played terribly or was totally off his game. You are actually quite similar to DarthFed when he describes Federer’s performances as “horrible” or “pathetic” simply because he is in a close match.
Medvedev had an early break in the first set and only lost the set 7-5. Don’t talk like Nadal beat him 6-1. That is ridiculous. Medvedev was up a break and if he played half as well at the end of the first set that he did in sets 3 or 4 he would have walked away with the set.
Your bullshit narrative conveniently omits that Medvedev blew multiple break points at the start of the 5th set. Also, for you to say that Nadal played “some of the worst tennis” he has played in a Slam final is utter nonsense. He simply couldn’t hit through Medvedev and once Medvedev started turning his defense to offense Nadal became quite helpless.
I hate to break it to you, but Nadal has never been as good as you’ve made him out to be.
He is a great player in his own right, but not the tennis perfection you think of him as.
All Jimmy said was that Nadal was sub-par, which everyone except you said he was, and that he should have won in 3, which was also very likely. He's not making shit up, like you are, or eliding things. He's not the one with the "bullshit narrative." He didn't actually break it out into a narrative. But you are.
Let's look at it:
Set one: You keep trying to make much of DM's lead in the first set, but it came at 2-1 and was lost at 2-2. That was his last lead in the set, and no, he didn't play crap in that set.
Set five: You say he blew multiple break point chances. He had 2 in the 2nd game, but Rafa saved them. (A game that you like to call Medvedev's "collapse" in that set.) Nadal saved that game, and Medvedev had one more BP chance in that set. So you can say he had "multiple" BP chances in that set, but it doesn't really tell the story. Your version of the story, in fact, doesn't line up with most accounts.
Why should Medvedev not have won the first set? The way he lost the lead after going up 2-1 and the way his serve was broken after 5-5 was completely cheap and lazy on his part. If he played half as well at the end of the first set that he did in the 3rd and 4th sets, he would have run away with the set.
Medvedev absolutely should have won the first set.
Medvedev got one early break. Then he lost it in the next game. Then he got broken again. Then he lost the set to the then-18 x GS champion. "Cheap and lazy?" I don't remember him playing like that, and I just re-watched the match. As to your bolded above, that's classic Cali re-imagining the world. If anyone played a better set than the one they lost, they'd have won it. If wishes were horses, dude. It chaps your a** that Nadal won that set and that match, and it is not within your DNA to admit that Rafa played some shaky tennis to keep Medevev in that match. Doesn't make it true, though.
@Admins: Sorry to get into this with Cali, but it IS about Medvedev and last year's final.
