Read on Twitter
It's a weird match for Nadal fans to process.
It's easy to take the sympathetic view -- Stef played amazing the last 3 sets, Nadal wasn't 100% physically, something always goes wrong in Australia -- but with Djokovic not physically supreme, this was clearly a missed chance.
It's easy to take the sympathetic view -- Stef played amazing the last 3 sets, Nadal wasn't 100% physically, something always goes wrong in Australia -- but with Djokovic not physically supreme, this was clearly a missed chance.
What is also tricky about this match from a Nadal perspective: While Rafa was up 2 sets & made key mistakes, he never:
* led by a break in a match-deciding set
* served 4 the match
* had match point
* had a big lead in the 3rd-set breaker
* blew a break point he should have won
* led by a break in a match-deciding set
* served 4 the match
* had match point
* had a big lead in the 3rd-set breaker
* blew a break point he should have won
Nadal made his biggest errors on 0-15, 30-30, or deuce points in the final two sets, plus the 1-0, 3-3, and 3-4 points in the 3rd-set tiebreaker.
He never quite saw the finish line.
He never quite saw the finish line.
Nadal made a huge error in Stef's final service game, but it was a deuce point, not a break point. It's therefore hard to say he SHOULD have broken. That's speculative.
He *could* have broken. It's a "could" match more than a "should" match in many ways.
He *could* have broken. It's a "could" match more than a "should" match in many ways.
What ultimately stings for Nadal fans is the lack of the double Grand Slam, the big goal beyond this one tournament itself.
However, what is easy to let go of is how historically aberrational this loss was (223-2 up 2 sets at majors). You just shrug and say, "bound to happen."
However, what is easy to let go of is how historically aberrational this loss was (223-2 up 2 sets at majors). You just shrug and say, "bound to happen."
I compare this match for Nadal to Federer's loss to Raonic in the 2016 Wimbledon SFs.
Federer never served for the match or had a break lead in a match-deciding set. Going by history and reputation, he should have won, but the match flow suggested he *could* have won, not should
Federer never served for the match or had a break lead in a match-deciding set. Going by history and reputation, he should have won, but the match flow suggested he *could* have won, not should
In speaking about the Big 3 in full:
It's fascinating and humanizing to note that for all their dominance and brilliance, they have all gone through periods where majors improbably slip through their fingers. The enormity of what they have achieved makes losses more shocking.
It's fascinating and humanizing to note that for all their dominance and brilliance, they have all gone through periods where majors improbably slip through their fingers. The enormity of what they have achieved makes losses more shocking.
