Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 117 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,779 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
If Rafael Nadal doesn't play in the 2014 U.S. Open, the eventual winner's victory will all but have an asterisk next to it.

The wrist injury that forced Nadal to skip the Rogers Cup in Toronto and the Western and Southern Open in Cincinnati might keep him out of the U.S. Open as well, per Kelyn Soong of The Washington Post.

In 2013, Nadal won all three of the aforementioned tournaments.

Per Shannon Russell of the Cincinnati Enquirer, Nadal broke the news about his absence from Toronto and Cincinnati.


"Unfortunately I injured my right wrist yesterday during practice and after the tests I have undergone today in Spain, including an MRI, and checking with my doctors, I will have to stay out of competition for at least two to three weeks. I am sorry and wish the best to the tournament and thank all of the fans for their support."





Instead of risking further injury, Nadal chose to sit out the two major tuneup tournaments for the U.S. Open. In 2013, he won both events before winning the U.S. Open for the second time in his career.

Obviously, Nadal is one year older, and as he ages, he may wind up being a little more selective about the tournaments he plays in. The Rogers Cup and Western and Southern Open are both major events on the tennis schedule, so those probably won't be regularly omitted from Rafa's routine, but others could be.

As for right now, all the focus is on whether he can play in Flushing, New York.

Whether it be Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Andy Murray or someone else who wins with Nadal potentially absent from the bracket, many people will wonder if the winner would have beaten Nadal if he were there.




Joe Singh of the Huffington Post doesn't like the "asterisk" talk. He writes:



"Across sports, there's a tendency to put asterisks on certain events. Things like "this wouldn't have happened if so-and-so was healthy" or "he benefited from this event or this upset" or simply "he was lucky." It's worse in some sports than others, but the overarching idea is always the same: it's how we impose reason on chaos. It's how we spend entire seasons or fortnights believing something, and then rationalize being so very wrong."
Read the full article here:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2162507-rafael-nadals-absence-at-2014-us-open-would-diminish-winners-accomplishment



Please discuss. Do you think USO 2014 will be asterisked without the presence of the summer slam 2013 (Montreal/Cincy/USO) winner in it?

download.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
The 2012 winner was already booked in for back surgery when Nadal won it. You'd have to asterisk his own win if we are going down that route. In fact, you'd have to asterisk nearly every tournament, and not just in tennis, if you are that way inclined.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,716 Posts
Big chance for Young talent like Raonic
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,573 Posts
Not just one * but two **, because one * should be awarded automatically even if injured Factorito will play.

If Injurito wins USO 2014, it should be counted as two slams (on every serious tennis forum there) when comparing slam counts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,721 Posts
Yes, diminished because that well known HC beast, who always defends his HC titles, is absent :p

All of Nadal's wins at diminished due to weak competition (look at his 2010 draws) and the dirty tricks he pulled to win them.

He will play anyway, we all know it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,275 Posts
That could be said if RG was in the discussion but not a HC Slam! Get a grip.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,907 Posts
He will play, book it. He will once again come from an injury break, serve faster serves than he´s done all year and win the title. And that´s something you can put an asterisk next to...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,824 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,721 Posts
That could be said if RG was in the discussion but not a HC Slam! Get a grip.
Nadal fans think he is gorgeous and have no concept of reality. Their knowledge of tennis is beyond pitiful. It's been so long since I have seen his posts so maybe I am wrong, but wasn't GSMDull about 20? But he thinks he can call Roger's peak years a weak era? There is no logic to there madness.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,779 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Yes, diminished because that well known HC beast, who always defends his HC titles, is absent :p

All of Nadal's wins at diminished due to weak competition (look at his 2010 draws) and the dirty tricks he pulled to win them.

He will play anyway, we all know it.
So, you really think that the absence of a man who has won this tournament twice and been in the finals the last three times he's played it, and holds a grand slam record count in the double digits, does not diminish value from this tournament or its eventual winner?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,275 Posts
So, you really think that the absence of a man who has won this tournament twice and been in the finals the last three times he's played it, and holds a grand slam record count in the double digits, does not diminish value from this tournament or its eventual winner?
No, it does not.

/thread
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,779 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The 2012 winner was already booked in for back surgery when Nadal won it. You'd have to asterisk his own win if we are going down that route. In fact, you'd have to asterisk nearly every tournament, and not just in tennis, if you are that way inclined.
Let's get real now. Flukeray was never winning 2 years in a row. And chances are even if he reached the SF/final, he would have bent over to Rafa anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
Let's get real now. Flukeray was never winning 2 years in a row. And chances are even if he reached the SF/final, he would have bent over to Rafa anyway.
Oh so the rules only apply to Nadal then? How about Del Potro? Nadal won in 2010 when the defending champion didn't participate aswell.
 
1 - 20 of 117 Posts
Top