Who had the worse 5th set collapse in terms of converting straightforward breakpoint opportunities?

[calitennis127]

This is a very tough one, but I re-watched the breakpoints Medvedev had on Nadal, up 1-0 in the 5th set, and man did he blow it. Broken's analysis of it was off-the-mark and lame. Medvedev had 3 of them and really was weak on all three:

1) The first at 15-40: he stupidly stood very far back on the return and gave Nadal a glaring opportunity to come in and make an easy volley. There was no reason to stand that far back, especially on the deuce court.

2) The second at 30-40: this was probably the worst. Medvedev hit a great return and then 2 shots into the rally missed a very straightforward forehand long. No excuse for that because Nadal did nothing special. The shot that drew Medvedev's error was a regular CC backhand.

3) The third at AD-Nadal: Medvedev gets the return back but hits it so short that Nadal was able to easily step in and hit a deep inside-out forehand to draw an error. Medvedev not only failed to get that return in deep, he failed to just get it to a normal range.

On all three points he failed to do nearly as much as he could have. Very disappointing.

 

[brokenshoelace]

2) The second at 30-40: this was probably the worst. Medvedev hit a great return and then 2 shots into the rally missed a very straightforward forehand long. No excuse for that because Nadal did nothing special. The shot that drew Medvedev's error was a regular CC backhand.
.

This is factually incorrect and you know it. It's OK to be full of shit, we're used to it, but this can literally be discredited by posting a simple video of the point in question. The forehand was by no means straightforward and the Nadal CC backhand that drew it literally landed smack on the line in the corner. Not saying it was impossible to put in play but that doesn't even go down as an unforced error.

The rest of the analysis is laughable because it fails to take context into question. You make it sound like Medvedev standing so far back to return was this random occurrence when he literally did it all match. Yes, all match. His return positioning was the same.

Of the three points you described, Medvedev's biggest mistake was his return on the last point. It was way too harmless and Nadal's serve wasn't great.

Of course, all of this ignores, once again, context. It was a long match. It was the fifth set. There is no way anyone is going to be perfect. If Medvedev's biggest mistake was a relatively short return in the fifth set on break point after a Herculean effort to get back in the match, it's far from a "collapse" the way your laughable title tries to portray.

Funniest part, and prepare yourselves for some major Cali arbitrary tap dancing here, is the fact that this is the same guy who argued that Federer did nothing wrong on the match points at Wimbledon, and didn't describe that as a collapse. He even defended the awful approach shot Federer hit, and refers to that approach as a good one, while Nadal's above mentioned backhand was "regular."

That's why it's hard to take your opinions about certain topics seriously. You're way too inconsistent.

 

[calitennis127]

This is factually incorrect and you know it. It's OK to be full of shit, we're used to it, but this can literally be discredited by posting a simple video of the point in question. The forehand was by no means straightforward and the Nadal CC backhand that drew it literally landed smack on the line in the corner.

Yes, it was straightforward. The shot hit the line but it also was a vintage Nadal moonball that gave Medvedev plenty of time to get to it. Under the circumstances there was no excuse for Medvedev not to make that forehand. Medvedev had all the time in the world to get to it and get it back in play. It wasn't even close to one of the tougher shots Medvedev was forced to hit during the match. Not even close. And I don't think that was the first time in Medvedev's career when someone hit a line against him in a rally shot. Do you?

Also, if we can expect Nadal to raise his level on big points, why do you consider it such a big ask for other players to do the same? Why am I being unreasonable in asking Medvedev to play one of his better points in the match in that moment, especially considering how everyone around tennis knows the importance of taking advantage of breakpoints in close matches with Nadal?

The rest of the analysis is laughable because it fails to take context into question. You make it sound like Medvedev standing so far back to return was this random occurrence when he literally did it all match. Yes, all match. His return positioning was the same.

On the ad court. He was not always standing that far back on the deuce court. There is some justification for standing that far back on the ad court because Nadal does it hit well out wide to the backhand in the ad court. But there is nothing similar to fear when he is hitting on the deuce court. So standing that far back is just plain stupid.

What's funny is you want to credit Nadal for being some high-IQ tennis genius for coming in at 15-40 (and 0-30 for that matter, since the two points were very similar), but I think you are giving him way too much credit. Medvedev was standing so far back that coming in was an entirely obvious play. Medvedev gifted him each of those points by standing unnecessarily deep.

Of the three points you described, Medvedev's biggest mistake was his return on the last point. It was way too harmless and Nadal's serve wasn't great.

Lmao, yeah sure. You are just saying that because you want to make what Nadal did on those two other points sound much better than it was. The fact is, Medvedev stood way too far back on the deuce court at 15-40 and then at 30-40 he missed an entirely straightforward forehand that wasn't even close to being one of the more difficult shots he was asked to hit over the course of the match. Nadal's crosscourt backhand was not hit flat, it was not hit at a short angle, and it was not hit far away from where Medvedev was positioned. The only thing about it that made it slightly tricky was that it hit the line but that wasn't the first time in Medvedev's career where someone hit a line against him. Plus he had all the time in the world to set it up.

Of course, all of this ignores, once again, context. It was a long match. It was the fifth set. There is no way anyone is going to be perfect.

Oh please.....I'm not asking him to be perfect. I'm asking him to play those breakpoints somewhere close to as well as he played numerous other points throughout the match.

If Medvedev's biggest mistake was a relatively short return in the fifth set on break point after a Herculean effort to get back in the match, it's far from a "collapse" the way your laughable title tries to portray.

I mean, this just shows how ridiculously bland and out-of-touch you can be with competitive psychology. You are literally a clone of Paul Annacone, the worst coach Federer ever had because of his cheesy, dry, timid mode of analyzing tennis.

Let me break this to you: Daniil Medvedev is a professional tennis player. He knows who Rafael Nadal is. He has seen Rafael Nadal play numerous times, in particular at Grand Slams in classic matches. Everyone in tennis knows the importance of putting him away and not giving him second chances to take a match, given his stamina and opportunism. So when you have breakpoints in the 5th set to go ahead a break, you can't treat it like you're playing your neighbor in a friendly game of tennis on a Sunday night before going home to watch a movie with your family.

"If I lose these breakpoints by playing well below my potential, no biggie; I worked really hard to make the match close and I'm just out here to play the percentages and get some exercise." - Paul Annacone aka Broken Shoelace

"Oh, and btw, Rafael Nadal is simply IMPOSSIBLE to play effectively on clay. Roger, there is nothing you can do against him. You just have to accept losing to him." - Paul Annacone aka Broken Shoelace before Federer won 5 straight against Nadal

Funniest part, and prepare yourselves for some major Cali arbitrary tap dancing here, is the fact that this is the same guy who argued that Federer did nothing wrong on the match points at Wimbledon, and didn't describe that as a collapse.

You're confusing me with Mike pal. I never said that he "did nothing wrong." What I said is that Djokovic's passing shot considering the circumstances was insanely impressive.

He even defended the awful approach shot Federer hit, and refers to that approach as a good one, while Nadal's above mentioned backhand was "regular."

Lol.....show me where I said it was good. What I said was it wasn't horrible. And yes, Nadal's CC backhand was nothing special. You are being absolutely ridiculous so you can tell yourself that Nadal wins these kinds of matches because of superior tennis IQ and shotmaking when those are not the reasons. But for the sake of your intellectual ego you want to believe that so you insist on it.

That's why it's hard to take your opinions about certain topics seriously. You're way too inconsistent.

There is no inconsistency here. And your obliviousness to competitive psychology as well as excessive romanticizing of very basic things that Nadal does in key moments makes it hard to take your opinions seriously.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes, it was straightforward. The shot hit the line but it also was a vintage Nadal moonball. that gave Medvedev plenty of time to get to it. Under the circumstances there was no excuse for Medvedev not to make that forehand. Medvedev had all the time in the world to get to it and get it back in play. It wasn't even close to one of the tougher shots Medvedev was forced to hit during the match. Not even close. And I don't think that was the first time in Medvedev's career when someone hit a line against him in a rally shot. Do you?

OK, let's examine this:



The point in question takes placce at 35:50 of the video:

This is in no way a moon ball. It's a ball struck with pace and spin. We all have eyes. You can pull a Trump and lie, but to even make this debate worth having, you first have to admit that you're full of shit about what you're trying to portray. Medvedev was preparing to cover the open court, he adjusted, tracked it down, but got there a split second late as the ball was very deep. At no point did he have "all the time in the world."

Anyway, this was in no way a moonball. If you're starting with that hypothesis, nothing else about that point is worth discussing.

Also, if we can expect Nadal to raise his level on big points, why do you consider it such a big ask for other players to do the same? Why am I being unreasonable in asking Medvedev to play one of his better points in the match in that moment, especially considering how everyone around tennis knows the importance of taking advantage of breakpoints in close matches with Nadal?

Nobody said Medvedev shouldn't be capable of raising his level. Newsflash, he did. Otherwise he wouldn't get back in the match. And by and large, he played the big points far better than Nadal (more on that later). However, not raising his level on those points in question and "collapsing" are in no way the same. But then again, I had to explain to you what a choke means the other day so I'm not shocked you're creating a false dilemma. I understand it's your brand to be sensationalist but portraying this as a collapse is absolutely laughable.

On the ad court. He was not always standing that far back on the deuce court. There is some justification for standing that far back on the ad court because Nadal does it hit well out wide to the backhand in the ad court. But there is nothing similar to fear when he is hitting on the deuce court. So standing that far back is just plain stupid.

Ah let's examine. I'll point out to every point in the extended highlight in which Nadal is serving on the deuce court.

At 1:04 in the above-linked video: Deuce court. Medvedev returns from miles back.

At 7:45: Deuce court. Medvedev returns from miles back (they didn't show any point in between those two that fits the criteria, in case you think I've conveniently omitted anything).

10:20: Medvedev stands far back but in fairness, takes a couple of steps forward before returning.

10: 40: Again Medvedev stands far back.

10:56: Second serve, Medvedev stands miiiiiiiiiiles back.

14:16: Ditto.

I can go on forever but I think it's already established you're wrong.

So again, nothing Medvedev did on that point is new. He was doing it all match. You can argue it's a bad strategy, but it doesn't make for a collapse, no matter how sensationalist you want to be.

What's funny is you want to credit Nadal for being some high-IQ tennis genius for coming in at 15-40 (and 0-30 for that matter, since the two points were very similar), but I think you are giving him way too much credit. Medvedev was standing so far back that coming in was an entirely obvious play. Medvedev gifted him each of those points by standing unnecessarily deep.

Nadal is a genius but not for that reason. At no point did I claim he was with the way he saved those two points. But Nadal's tactical adjustments throughout the match were great. Of course, you want to discredit his shot making, and his IQ, and say he wins due to stamina, as he did in a straightforward win over Berrettini (and let's ignore Medvedev looked much fresher in the fifth set).

I mean, this just shows how ridiculously bland and out-of-touch you can be with competitive psychology. You are literally a clone of Paul Annacone, the worst coach Federer ever had because of his cheesy, dry, timid mode of analyzing tennis.

You literally don't know what the word literally means.

There is no inconsistency here. And your obliviousness to competitive psychology as well as excessive romanticizing of very basic things that Nadal does in key moments makes it hard to take your opinions seriously.

Now this is the part where you slowly open your mouth as I take a gigantic shit in it:

24:52 in the video:

it's 4-4 in the 3rd set. Nadal has a break point. If he converts, that's it, match over in straights. Nadal defends, turns the point around, is completely on the front foot, and despite having probably the best overhead on tour, misses it into the net.

But yes, please talk about your consistency and non bias. Why not make a thread about that point, with your amazing psychological expertise, an explain why Nadal missed it? But you'd probably misrepresent that point anyway, as you did the points above, and would get disproven with video evidence...

So yeah, when quite literally, your whole hypothesis is wrong (Nadal moonball, Medvedev's service return), the least I can do is wipe my ass with your this thread and your whole analysis.

 

[Fiero425]

I don't even remember seeing Djokovic match, but I'll venture Nole wasted some break points! That's nothing new with history showing he challenges every serves game, has his opponent surrounded by break pts, but allows them to escape again & again! :whistle:

 

[calitennis127]

Broken really is a masochist.....he just loves getting housed and trampled on for some reason.....so I'll go ahead and give him more of those pleasures.

OK, let's examine this:



The point in question takes placce at 35:50 of the video:

This is in no way a moon ball. It's a ball struck with pace and spin.

With pace? Lol. There was nothing special about the pace of the shot. I will grant that it wasn't NEARLY as much of a moonball as the numerous forehand moonballs that Nadal hit during the 24:52 point you cited below, but it still had more arc than the average shot, which left Medvedev plenty of time to get to it. Also, there was nothing about it that was exceptionally fast. And merely having spin does not mean it wasn't a moonball. By your definition, only the most high-arcing mis-hits (like Nadal's insane return against Berretini down set point!) would qualify as moonballs.

I think the reason you got so offended by this is that you don't like the idea of Nadal being called a moonballer under any circumstance. Were all those people who called him a moonballer in his early days wrong because his loopy forehands had "pace and spin"? By your restrictive definition, of course they were.

We all have eyes. You can pull a Trump and lie, but to even make this debate worth having, you first have to admit that you're full of shit about what you're trying to portray.

Oh sure, Mr. Poseur of Objectivity. You mean "pull a New York Times and lie"? Most of what the media morons call Trump "lies" are either true or at least partially true. It is his critics who lie far more often than he does - as the Russia hoax exposed. But you don't know anything about that because you have been brainwashed by the American media. As I have said many times, you are a SLAVE to the American media.

At any rate, what I am "trying to portray" is a scenario in which Nadal hit a relatively high-arcing shot that Medvedev had time to get to, in a situation where Medvedev needed to raise his level and be very sharp. And I maintain that Medvedev missed a very makeable shot in that moment. So no, I am not going to say that I am full of shit about that.

Nobody said Medvedev shouldn't be capable of raising his level. Newsflash, he did. Otherwise he wouldn't get back in the match. And by and large, he played the big points far better than Nadal (more on that later). However, not raising his level on those points in question and "collapsing" are in no way the same.

Not in your dry Paul Annacone world, you're right. But that is not the entirety of human reality, as much as you may want it to be.

You, Mr. Annaclone, don't like the use of the word "collapse." Well, let's look at the big picture: Medvedev had just ended the fourth set with an awesome winner to break Nadal. He had all the momentum on his side. He then definitively held serve to go up 1-0 and then went up 15-40 on Nadal's serve. A few minutes later, he was down 5-2 after being broken twice (with 1 of those breaks coming after going up 40-0). But no, that wasn't a collapse at all. That was just Broken's favorite player being better because of superior tennis.

That info alone from this particular match makes a strong case that it was a collapse. What makes it look even more like a collapse is that everyone in tennis has seen plenty of marathon Nadal matches and they know the importance of converting breakpoints on Nadal in a decisive set. To be passive with the Broken/Annacone Sunday night-at-the-park attitude in that situation is almost incomprehensible.

But then again, I had to explain to you what a choke means the other day so I'm not shocked you're creating a false dilemma. I understand it's your brand to be sensationalist but portraying this as a collapse is absolutely laughable.

Absolutely laughable to you because of your pro-Nadal bias. But going from up 1-0, 15-40 on Nadal's serve to being down 2-5 a few minutes later is a collapse and arguably a choke, especially when you consider the broader context of Nadal's history in such matches, which Medvedev is as aware of as anyone, being that he is an ATP professional.

Ah let's examine. I'll point out to every point in the extended highlight in which Nadal is serving on the deuce court.

I can go on forever but I think it's already established you're wrong.

So again, nothing Medvedev did on that point is new. He was doing it all match. You can argue it's a bad strategy, but it doesn't make for a collapse, no matter how sensationalist you want to be.

On those particular points (which I haven't looked at yet) Medvedev may have stayed that far back on the deuce court but he was far more frequently moving forward on the deuce court than the ad court throughout the match. I would like to see exact numbers on that because it was very noticeable in the latter sets that he was standing closer to the service line on the deuce court than the ad court.

(and let's ignore Medvedev looked much fresher in the fifth set).

Nadal was in some pain but he was fine.

Now this is the part where you slowly open your mouth as I take a gigantic shit in it:

It's so disappointing to see you stoop to this level of discourse. Don't you feel like Trump when you say something like that? You should have better values than that. That's not who you are.

24:52 in the video:

it's 4-4 in the 3rd set. Nadal has a break point. If he converts, that's it, match over in straights. Nadal defends, turns the point around, is completely on the front foot, and despite having probably the best overhead on tour, misses it into the net.

Lol.....so much to say about this point. First of all, Nadal's forehands were brutally ugly moonballs throughout that point (since we were talking about moonballs). But, most importantly, how can you omit that Nadal's overhead attempt occurred at the baseline after a brutally long rally? You make it sound like he was standing 10 feet from the net and simply tanked it. That isn't even close to being the case.

But yes, please talk about your consistency and non bias.

You mean the kind of non-bias you just demonstrated by omitting where Nadal attempted the overhead from? Lol

Why not make a thread about that point, with your amazing psychological expertise, an explain why Nadal missed it?

Long rally with pummeling groundstrokes from Medvedev and Nadal attempted the overhead from right by the service line.

But you'd probably misrepresent that point anyway, as you did the points above, and would get disproven with video evidence...

You're the one who misrepresented the 24:52 video by a very dishonest omission.

So yeah, when quite literally, your whole hypothesis is wrong (Nadal moonball, Medvedev's service return), the least I can do is wipe my ass with your this thread and your whole analysis.

Come on Broken, let's try to avoid this kind of Trump rhetoric. Can't you show "civility" like Obama's golf buddy Stephon Curry when he threw a mouthpiece at a ref one month after his coach condemned Trump for incivility?

 

[Moxie]

I don't think you understand the definition of a "collapse." You're talking about some missed BP opportunities. Which still wouldn't have decided either match, btw.

I guess enough has been said about the Nadal-Medvedev match, in which you, as is usual for you, over-estimate the rookie, because he's playing Nadal. That he was even into a 5th was heroic enough. Obviously, the Thiem d. Djokovic was tighter, and involved an upset. Final score: 6-2, 3-6, 7-5, 5-7, 7-5. That 5th hinged on a few points, but Djokovic didn't "collapse." He'd been making UFE's across both days of that match.

Of course, the outcome of each match was important, as one was actually a final, and one determined the finalist of a Major, so perhaps it explains why you want to reexamine the critical points in the 5th. But the big collapse of the year was Roger at Wimbledon. Thiem beating Novak was an upset, but he won the stats on the match. Medvedev losing to Rafa was far less surprising than him even taking it to 5, and then nearly crawling back. The game you mention in that one is not DM failing, by any stretch.

 

[brokenshoelace]

With pace? Lol. There was nothing special about the pace of the shot. I will grant that it wasn't NEARLY as much of a moonball as the numerous forehand moonballs that Nadal hit during the 24:52 point you cited below, but it still had more arc than the average shot, which left Medvedev plenty of time to get to it. Also, there was nothing about it that was exceptionally fast. And merely having spin does not mean it wasn't a moonball. By your definition, only the most high-arcing mis-hits (like Nadal's insane return against Berretini down set point!) would qualify as moonballs.

This is not for you to grant. Moonballs in tennis have clear and a specific meaning. This wasn't close to being the case. This was a bit loopy, yes. A moonball is a ball that's hit almost as though it were a lob (not quite but close). Period. And you clueless buffoon, of course having spin does not meaning it wasn't a moonball, in fact, moonballs require spin.

I think the reason you got so offended by this is that you don't like the idea of Nadal being called a moonballer under any circumstance. Were all those people who called him a moonballer in his early days wrong because his loopy forehands had "pace and spin"? By your restrictive definition, of course they were..

No, not offended, just pointing out something that is factually incorrect. I know you live in your own world but some things like "choke" and "moonball" have a meaning. If you misuse them to characterize a situation, you're factually incorrect.

Oh sure, Mr. Poseur of Objectivity. You mean "pull a New York Times and lie"? Most of what the media morons call Trump "lies" are either true or at least partially true. It is his critics who lie far more often than he does - as the Russia hoax exposed. But you don't know anything about that because you have been brainwashed by the American media. As I have said many times, you are a SLAVE to the American media.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

At any rate, what I am "trying to portray" is a scenario in which Nadal hit a relatively high-arcing shot that Medvedev had time to get to, in a situation where Medvedev needed to raise his level and be very sharp. And I maintain that Medvedev missed a very makeable shot in that moment. So no, I am not going to say that I am full of shit about that..

Except this was not what you said, and you took a far more sensationalist and factually incorrect approach.

You, Mr. Annaclone, don't like the use of the word "collapse." Well, let's look at the big picture: Medvedev had just ended the fourth set with an awesome winner to break Nadal. He had all the momentum on his side. He then definitively held serve to go up 1-0 and then went up 15-40 on Nadal's serve. A few minutes later, he was down 5-2 after being broken twice (with 1 of those breaks coming after going up 40-0). But no, that wasn't a collapse at all. That was just Broken's favorite player being better because of superior tennis...

First of all, your usage of the words collapse in this thread is strictly limited to the missed break point opportunities in the fifth set. It's literally there in the title "in terms of converting braek points."

And again, I ask, what part is using the exact service return positioning he did all match to which Nadal took advantage of with a serve and volley (as he did all match) constitute a collapse? So he collapsed because he missed a makeable forehand? lol sure...

Absolutely laughable to you because of your pro-Nadal bias. But going from up 1-0, 15-40 on Nadal's serve to being down 2-5 a few minutes later is a collapse and arguably a choke, especially when you consider the broader context of Nadal's history in such matches, which Medvedev is as aware of as anyone, being that he is an ATP professional....

Ah...OK so explain to me what do you call a guy being up two sets and a break, get broke back, have break points again at 4-4 in the third, miss a makeable overhead after he was on top in the rally, fail, lose the set, then fail to convert on break points in the fourth set again and lose it, and find himself break points down in the fifth? Why did none of that constitute a collapse? By your definition the match should have never gone on that long anyway.

On those particular points (which I haven't looked at yet) Medvedev may have stayed that far back on the deuce court but he was far more frequently moving forward on the deuce court than the ad court throughout the match. I would like to see exact numbers on that because it was very noticeable in the latter sets that he was standing closer to the service line on the deuce court than the ad court.....

"Those particular shots" are literally every point shown in the video off that side up until I stopped bothering...

It's so disappointing to see you stoop to this level of discourse. Don't you feel like Trump when you say something like that? You should have better values than that. That's not who you are......

No, Trump's thing is golden showers, not brown.

Lol.....so much to say about this point. First of all, Nadal's forehands were brutally ugly moonballs throughout that point (since we were talking about moonballs). But, most importantly, how can you omit that Nadal's overhead attempt occurred at the baseline after a brutally long rally? You make it sound like he was standing 10 feet from the net and simply tanked it. That isn't even close to being the case..

So moonballs invalidate a missed overhead? Also, the overhead coming after a "brutally long rally" (described by the same person who argued with MikeOne for 4 pages that the Nadal-Thiem first set at Roland Garros was NOT brutal) is different to Medvedev's fifth set break points coming after a brutally long match how?

And by any definition, that overhead should have been made. Clean winner or not, it should have been made. Period. If you're telling me this is a guy a professional tennis player with Nadal's abilities, particularly off an overhead, is expected to miss, then there's no point to this conversation.

So again, why not focus on that part of the match? Where Nadal blew break points?

Again, this thread is by the same guy who argued Roger Federer's Wimbledon loss was not a collapse. Apparently Medvedev should be expected to raise his level but not Federer on match points.

 

[mrzz]

If someone collapsed on the Thiem x Djokovic match it was Thiem. He was COMPLETELY outplaying him and it should have never went to 5 sets. At the very very least, if we are in shoulda coulda woulda territory, he should have had a 2 sets lead and an far easier score on set 1. And we would have had a quite different final then.

 

[Moxie]

You literally don't know what the word literally means.

Since this has come up a couple of times in recent weeks, and as a public service, I thought I would offer this famous example of the misuse of "literally": Prince Edward was once quoted as saying, "My grandfather, King George VI, who had literally been catapulted onto the throne...." Well, no, he had been figuratively catapulted onto the throne. I find this gives a wonderful visual image, and so makes a great mnemonic. The error tends to come in that people use "literally" to add emphasis, which is simply wrong. [PSA over.]

 

[mrzz]

Since this has come up a couple of times in recent weeks, and as a public service, I thought I would offer this famous example of the misuse of "literally": Prince Edward was once quoted as saying, "My grandfather, King George VI, who had literally been catapulted onto the throne...." Well, no, he had been figuratively catapulted onto the throne. I find this gives a wonderful visual image, and so makes a great mnemonic. The error tends to come in that people use "literally" to add emphasis, which is simply wrong. [PSA over.]

But I would like to see someone literally catapulted out of the throne. (which is far easier, because to catapult someone onto the throne requires a good aim, and some seriously padded throne.

Can you imagine? Some old monarch barely screaming just before he splashes into a wall and becomes just crushed bones, meat and blood? Wow!

 

[Moxie]

 

[calitennis127]

Since this has come up a couple of times in recent weeks, and as a public service, I thought I would offer this famous example of the misuse of "literally": Prince Edward was once quoted as saying, "My grandfather, King George VI, who had literally been catapulted onto the throne...." Well, no, he had been figuratively catapulted onto the throne. I find this gives a wonderful visual image, and so makes a great mnemonic. The error tends to come in that people use "literally" to add emphasis, which is simply wrong. [PSA over.]

But if what Broken really is Paul Annacone? Then use of the word "literally" would be appropriate. And I think he may actually just be Paul Annacone.

 

[calitennis127]

I don't think you understand the definition of a "collapse." You're talking about some missed BP opportunities. Which still wouldn't have decided either match, btw.

Medvedev breaking to go up 2-0 would have made a huge difference and made it much more difficult for Nadal to come back. Nadal knew that and that's why he treated those points like match points.

I guess enough has been said about the Nadal-Medvedev match, in which you, as is usual for you, over-estimate the rookie, because he's playing Nadal.

You overestimate the significance of experience, especially for a guy who had just played Nadal in a Masters final and won another Masters event after that. Federer and Nadal both won the first Slam finals they reached. I believe great opportunities like that should be seized when you have them because you don't know if they will come around again. Look at Dan Marino in the NFL.

That he was even into a 5th was heroic enough.

Yes, if you overrate Nadal and make it sound like winning a set against him is nearly impossible for an ATP professional.

Obviously, the Thiem d. Djokovic was tighter, and involved an upset. Final score: 6-2, 3-6, 7-5, 5-7, 7-5. That 5th hinged on a few points, but Djokovic didn't "collapse." He'd been making UFE's across both days of that match.

He collapsed in the sense that he was ahead early in the 5th set and had a chance to run away with the set but did not take advantage of it.

But the big collapse of the year was Roger at Wimbledon.

That was a collapse but not because of failing to convert breakpoints. Federer in general is just not very good at closing out tight 5th sets. We've seen it against Safin, Nalbandian, Del Potro, Nadal, Djokovic, and numerous others. It is something he just isn't very good at.

Thiem beating Novak was an upset, but he won the stats on the match.

Not by much, and had Djokovic seized the breakpoints early in the 5th set he likely would have run away with the set and the stats would have looked different.

Medvedev losing to Rafa was far less surprising than him even taking it to 5, and then nearly crawling back.

How is a top 5 player winning two sets against Gnatal on a hardcourt in any way surprising? Cheese are you delusional.

The game you mention in that one is not DM failing, by any stretch.

Yes it is. You just don't want to call it a failure because you want to make Nadal sound unbeatable.

 

[tented]

Since this has come up a couple of times in recent weeks, and as a public service, I thought I would offer this famous example of the misuse of "literally": Prince Edward was once quoted as saying, "My grandfather, King George VI, who had literally been catapulted onto the throne...." Well, no, he had been figuratively catapulted onto the throne. I find this gives a wonderful visual image, and so makes a great mnemonic. The error tends to come in that people use "literally" to add emphasis, which is simply wrong. [PSA over.]

... which is simply literally wrong.

 

[Moxie]

Medvedev breaking to go up 2-0 would have made a huge difference and made it much more difficult for Nadal to come back. Nadal knew that and that's why he treated those points like match points.

Does it take a brain surgeon to understand that was a critical game? I think we all know that. You just choose to portray it as all Medvedev for failing to convert, which has been debunked, even, now, by you...saying that Nadal treated those points like "match points." (And anyway, I don't know why you say it as if it were a knock on Nadal.) Well, anyway, he took them seriously and played hard to win that game, and did, mostly through his own winners, not because Medvedev choked.

You overestimate the significance of experience, especially for a guy who had just played Nadal in a Masters final and won another Masters event after that. Federer and Nadal both won the first Slam finals they reached. I believe great opportunities like that should be seized when you have them because you don't know if they will come around again. Look at Dan Marino in the NFL.

If Medvedev were Federer or Nadal, I'd have been less surprised, then, if he'd won. When they won their first ones, though, they played Phillpippousis and Puerto, respectively. Daniil was playing Rafa. Big difference.

Yes, if you overrate Nadal and make it sound like winning a set against him is nearly impossible for an ATP professional.

Actually, this is you underrating Nadal, as usual. He was up two sets to love on the rook, a guy he'd crushed in a final only a few weeks prior. A leap in form that quick and that huge isn't common, you have to admit.

He collapsed in the sense that he was ahead early in the 5th set and had a chance to run away with the set but did not take advantage of it.

This is factually incorrect. Thiem won the first game of the 5th and nearly broke in the 2nd. Then he held and broke and was up 4-1. It was actually Thiem who nearly collapsed. If you have trouble remembering, you can review the match here: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/l...c-v-dominic-thiem-french-open-semi-final-live

That was a collapse but not because of failing to convert breakpoints. Federer in general is just not very good at closing out tight 5th sets. We've seen it against Safin, Nalbandian, Del Potro, Nadal, Djokovic, and numerous others. It is something he just isn't very good at.

I'm not sure why, just because you put it in your OP that "failing to convert breakpoints" is the main indicator of a collapse. I don't think either match you cite here qualifies as a "collapse." You're trying to make a case for why the loser might have otherwise won either match, but it's a weak one, particularly in the Nadal match. In the case of the Wimbledon final, basically everyone, including Djokovic fans, agree that Federer was the better player over the course of the match. Credit to Djokovic for keeping him close and making the most of the big points and TBs, but Federer having CPs is much more of a collapse than anything in those other two matches, in terms of the loser.

Not by much, and had Djokovic seized the breakpoints early in the 5th set he likely would have run away with the set and the stats would have looked different.

This is classic Cali. You're so sure you know what would have happened "if/but," even with the reality of what happened staring you in the face. Given how much it was Thiem running away with the set, until Djokovic fought back, and given Thiem's ranking and clay chops, I'm not sure you can be so sure about this particular claim. Especially as it was still a windy day, and Novak is not a great wind player.

How is a top 5 player winning two sets against Gnatal on a hardcourt in any way surprising? Cheese are you delusional.

You're just showing your anti-Nadal bias here. Rafa has a much better HC resume than the vast majority of players, including the Top 5, especially a newly-minted one.

Yes it is. You just don't want to call it a failure because you want to make Nadal sound unbeatable.

I'm just saying what most people can see for themselves. However, long experience tells us that dissuading you from your opinions, however divorced from reality, is a losing game.

 

[brokenshoelace]

"Overstating the significance of experience" because a guy played Nadal in his first ever Masters 1000 event final is quite something, when the other side of the coin is this guy is in his first ever major final, while it was his opponent's 27th...especially when said final is in the fifth set and it's known that his opponent is one of the clutchest, most mentally tough players in the history of tennis.

"He collapsed in the sense that he was ahead early in the 5th set and had a chance to run away with the set but did not take advantage of it."

Ah, so "it was a collapse in this arbitrary sense that is in no way a collapse but I'll use the word anyway."

 

[calitennis127]

"Overstating the significance of experience" because a guy played Nadal in his first ever Masters 1000 event final is quite something, when the other side of the coin is this guy is in his first ever major final, while it was his opponent's 27th...

Big f-ing deal. Experience is one of the most overrated factors in sports. It's overrated by cheesy dolts like yourself. When Carmelo Anthony won a national championship at Syracuse, he did so as a pure freshman. Everyone spent the whole year talking about how he and their other freshman (Gerry McNamara) were too young to lead a team to a national title, but they did it anyway. All of the Broken2Faces were proven WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Better yet.....in 2015 the Seahawks played the Broncos in the Super Bowl. The Seahawks players were young and most had never played in a Super Bowl. By contrast, Peyton Manning had played in dozens of playoff games and had been to a Super Bowl. What happened? The Seahawks humiliated the Broncos.

I would also add that great opportunities to win a big game don't come around too often and it's a huge mistake to think that they are guaranteed to repeat. Among dozens of examples I could cite, look at OKC going to the Finals in 2012. Everyone said that Durant, Westbrook, and Harden were only in their early 20's and that they had amazingly bright futures ahead of them, individually and as a group. Well now it's 7 years later and what do we know? OKC has not been to the Finals since, and the only 1 of those 3 who has gotten to the Finals is Durant, and he did it by pulling the biggest bitch move in sports history by joining the Warriors. I guess the future wasn't so bright for OKC after all.

Another example would be Aaron Rodgers.....he won a Super Bowl in 2011 and everyone was comparing him to Joe Montana, predicting a Packers dynasty and suggesting that he would eclipse Tom Brady. What has happened instead? He hasn't been back to a single Super Bowl and the Packers have actually struggled to make the playoffs.

And yet another example would be the Jacksonville Jaguars two seasons ago.....in the AFC Championship game they were beating the Patriots by 10 points in the second half. They ended up losing the game and last year they did not even make the playoffs. To make matters worse, this year is off to a terrible start with their star player demanding a trade.

especially when said final is in the fifth set and it's known that his opponent is one of the clutchest, most mentally tough players in the history of tennis.

Who has also lost plenty of close matches and has struggled mightily on hardcourts at various points throughout his career. You are making a weak excuse for Medvedev.

"He collapsed in the sense that he was ahead early in the 5th set and had a chance to run away with the set but did not take advantage of it."

Ah, so "it was a collapse in this arbitrary sense that is in no way a collapse but I'll use the word anyway."

Lol.....of course you are using collapse in the most limited, dry, Paul Annaconish sense possible in which a player with a sturdy and experienced reputation has a firm lead and then surprisingly loses a grasp of it. I would expect nothing less from Paul Annaclone.

For all your posturing against Trump (which is based on misinformation), it is quite funny how culturally white you are. You could never in a million years relate to the mindset of the Seahawks players who humiliated Denver when everyone said they weren't adequately "experienced" enough. In that sense, you are just like the white Democrat clowns in the Northeast who live in almost all-white states while condemning the South for being "white nationalist" when Southern states have by far the largest black populations in the country.

Louisiana and Georgia both have populations that are over 30% black, while Bernie Sanders' mentally retarded state of Vermont is 94% white and 1% black, yet Bernie and the other intellectually moribund dimwits in his state condemn Southern whites for being "white nationalists."

You are just like those people. If you ever move to the United States, you should move into an all-white Democratic enclave. You would fit right in with them, although - to your credit - you do know about tennis, which is much more than can be said for most of them.

 

[Moxie]

What a long and pointless comparison of team sports and inexperienced players with one very inexperienced player in an individual sport going h2h with a very experienced one. Also, you know how many 5 setters DM has even played in his life? 5. Wanna know how many he's won? 0. Rafa is 22-12 career in a 5th set. Sure, Medvedev had a chance to win, as he was in the final, and he gave himself a great chance by coming back from 2 sets down. He failed to convert in a very early break chance, but that hardly constitutes a collapse. In fact, he kept pressing and did get a break back. That he didn't win is no shame. The effort he turned in was amazing. But he in no way "collapsed."

You've picked out 2 matches that you seem to wish had gone differently, identified a break opportunity missed, and have spun a tale that if but for those particular missed break chances, things might have gone the other way. Sure, they might have, but that's a lot of assuming, as per your usual. Opportunities to break go begging all the time in tennis. I still don't think anyone would describe either of those 2 matches as a "collapse" by the loser. Um, except you, of course.

 

[brokenshoelace]

So Cali debunking the significance of experience by using a bunch of examples from team sports...Says it all.