Rafael Nadal’s decision has left us without a semi-final, and another long-awaited one. Rafa had to accept the reality imposed on him by his body: a 7mm tear in the abdominal muscle, which would have worsened if he continued playing. However, I think he was balancing the fact that his level of play wasn’t enough to get a real shot at.
Would it have been better if Rafa retired from his quarter-final match with Taylor Fritz, when it was already clear that he could no longer serve at normal ability? For the tournament, yes. For the pay-per-view spectators at Center Court, who today got a men’s semifinal instead of two, yes. For those like me, who haven’t killed themselves after the Nick Kyrgios show, and don’t necessarily want to see him in the Slam final, yes. But it was not the decision of the tournament, nor those who have tickets today in the central court, nor who
Mine. I was resolution Nadal: It was his match, his championship and his belly value. And Rafa did what he usually does, what he did to get all those titles in his illustrious career: fight to the end and win the battle. But this time it was not the war.
The only person who had a word to say about the match class in the quarters was his opponent, Taylor Fritz. Wake up again, as already in vu, in case of playing a quota match against a physically helpless Nadal. The previous occasion was in the final at Indian Wells, when Fritz beat Nadal tormented by trouble.
In general, playing against an injured player is a situation that no one wants – because it is mentally destabilizing. First of all, because the whole focus is transmitted to the injured player. Secondly, since the opponent wakes up in an uninteresting “evil” position, a negative character must “kill” a weak person. He is not at all pleasant, and even if the opponent somehow manages to maintain focus and win, it is half the victory, which will always have the star. Yes, he won, but against a dwindling opponent.
تمكن فريتز من التغلب على هذه العقبات النفسية في إنديان ويلز. She was at home, supported by the public, and may have helped. في المحكمة المركزية ، كان نادال لديه العديد من المؤيدين. Also, the share of the match was, as I say, as large, if not greater than the title of Master: qualification in
The semi-finals and the chance to play for the slam final, perhaps the most famous of all.
قال فريتز إن هذه الهزيمة كانت الأكثر إيلاما في حياته المهنية. A balanced five-set match, she was very close to victory, but she just couldn’t make the jump. It will haunt him for a while, no doubt.
Lucky failed or a bad loser?
After the press conference in which Nadal announced his retirement, Christopher Cleary, a longtime New York Times journalist, put forward the hypothesis of extending the “lucky loser” system throughout the tournament.
Remember that the “lucky loser” system is used before the tournament begins: if a player withdraws from the home board for medical reasons, he is replaced by a player who lost in the last qualifying round. Cleary made the proposal that Taylor Fritz play the semi-finals with Kyrgios, after Nadal retired.
Quickly, voices rose on both sides: some found an interesting proposal to extend the system Bad luck. Pam Shriver, a former great double player, and now commentator, doesn’t think it’s a bad idea. In fact, it’s a bit disappointing to wake up, both as a fan and as a champion, without attending a men’s singles semi-final. But others considered it stupid: These are the dangers of the tennis elimination regime, they said. Yes, it’s weird to wake up without making it to the semi-finals, but it’s weird to have a title winner lose in the quarter-finals (in Fritz’s case).
Andy Roddick, a staunch opponent of the idea, claims that it’s one thing to use the “lucky loser” rule to fill the board before the tournament, it’s another to use it during the tournament. “Sometimes sports are hard. The fact that there are no guarantees, there is nothing that gives you free and no second chance, it all belongs.
Sport purity. To risk this for an extra three hours of entertainment, it’s not worth it.”
Of course, this is all speculation. We know how hard it is to introduce rules or remove rules in tennis. It took a pandemic for players to take their own towels between points. It took a final six hours and something (AO12) to finally move the wheels to set a 25-second limit between the dots. It has taken Wimbledon 12 years since that brutal three-day bout between Isner Mahut to deliver a decisive tiebreak, only this year. I don’t expect any change now, after the lost semi-final. Perhaps if the event repeats in every slam tournament from now on for at least a year, it’s unlikely.
In addition, for such a change, the players must be asked. And Fritz was definitely: “I don’t deserve to be in the semi-finals. If I can’t beat Rafa, I have nothing to do there. I don’t want anything out of pity.” As for Rafa, some accused him of not retiring even though he knew he would not be fit
For the next match. But I don’t think he can know how serious the problem is. Roddick also noted that “it is not realistic to ask players to make a correct medical diagnosis during a match.” Nadal did what any player would do: shoot him to win, hoping the problem in
البطن ليست خطيرة ويمكن استعادتها في الوقت المناسب لنصف النهائي. But it was, as subsequent radiographs showed.
An unexpected conclusion
So here we are in the unique position of a heated discussion of the implications of a match never seen before. To date, the only beneficiary of this lost semi -finals is Nick KyrgiosThose who woke up in his final in the four championships. Will it be good, will it be bad? Depends on who you ask.
Kyrgios complained of shoulder pain in the match against Nakashima, and his physical condition is not the best on the track. from this point
Sight, extra days will not spoil them. On the other hand, something like this can knock him out of the rhythm, out of his daily routine, and most importantly give him time to think about the magnitude and opportunity that fell into his arms.
On the other hand, he will be waiting for Novak Djokovic, who, despite his impressive record (in the final of the thirty-four tournaments out of 68 participations), has never defeated Kyrgios. كانت نتيجة اللقاءات المباشرة 2-0 للأسترالي ، دون خسارة مجموعة ، كلا المباراتين في عام 2017 ، على الصعب. However, it is difficult to consider Kyrgios a favorite on Sunday. But exactly this kind of situation motivates him: anywhere underdogin front of a great player, on a prestigious stage.
من المفارقات ، أعتقد أن لدى كيريوس فرصًا أكبر للفوز ضد ديوكوفيتش مما كان سيحصل عليه ضد نوري (الذي ، بالمناسبة ، لديه 1-2 في H2H – على الرغم من أن فوزًا واحدًا لنوري تم تحقيقه بالانسحاب ، فإن الآخر كان قاطعًا تمامًا و في الآونة الأخيرة , in 2021). In addition, Novak is no longer impenetrable: this year at Wimbledon he only had two
Matches won in the fewest number of groups.
So we have a very unexpected and volatile final, which contains all the data to make up for the lack of a semifinal. Will it be good, will it be bad? We will see on Sunday.