Yesterday, Nadal returned to the australian Open final four after a five-set battle with Shapovalov and will compete for the right to the final with Berrettini, who also beat Monfils in the same five sets. However, compared to the intense course of the game, the special situation on the court also makes the game more discussed.
In addition to Nadal's suspected gastrointestinal problems and his state of affairs fluctuating, Shapovalov also expressed dissatisfaction with the referee's decision on the time limit of the serve during the game, and he even shouted at one point: "You people are corrupt elements!" The Canadian youngster believes Nadal has received extra preferential treatment because of his status.
Judging from the course of the game, Nadal's state has declined rapidly after two sets, and although Nadal seems to have been affected by gastrointestinal problems from the application for suspension, if you have been paying attention to Nadal's matches for the past two years, it is very common for him to have physical fluctuations in the third set after winning two sets.
In response to this problem, Nadal even behaved very unkindly in this major battle. After achieving a break advantage at the opening of the decider, he stopped fighting for every point as before, almost let go of his opponent's serve, and focused all his energy and physical strength on trying to keep the serve game from being lost. In this regard, Nadal is also fully aware of the importance of physical fitness when playing against an opponent who is one round younger than himself.
I believe that Shapovalov's team will also be aware of this "winner-loser" of the situation before the game, so this is actually a competition outside the field. Nadal needs to save as much energy as possible, which also includes the need to make full use of his 25-second serve time limit to keep himself in better physical condition. Shapovalov, on the other hand, needs to compress the opponent's rest time as much as possible, so that the opponent can get more consumption.
The so-called "corruption" is certainly unlikely to happen. But it is also possible whether Nadal is likely to receive some "preferential treatment". The big names on the court often receive preferential treatment that the giver of these preferential treatments is unconscious. For example, big-name players will receive more attention from the organizers in an event, enjoy advantages in information, resources, and guarantees, and even the referees will bear the pressure from the supporters of live stars psychologically.
However, Shapovalov's so-called rights protection on the field does not seem to be so clear evidence, because most of the time Nadal himself will take the initiative to control the serve time limit to 25 seconds, but will step on the critical line to make full use of the time.
Even Shapovalov may be suspected of "using legal means to conceal illegal ends". It is indeed his right to defend his rights on the field, but he may also use this right to put pressure on the referee and opponent, so as to maximize the physical fitness of the opponent and interfere with the rhythm of the opponent.
This is more like a battle to rob Nadal of his physical strength, on the one hand, he thinks that the other party is "maliciously delaying", and on the other hand, he does not rule out that he is "malicious complaints".
Here I specifically mentioned the word malicious, in the social hotspot events on social media these two days, these two words appear frequently, and various verbs are combined into some bizarre new phrases - malicious XX, malicious XX, malicious XX...
You will find that these two words are particularly "easy to use", even if it is usually thought to be natural and reasonable, once the hat of malice is buckled, it seems to be less honorable.
When we embark on the road home in accordance with normal laws and regulations, fight for our rights and interests, rest, suspend, and appeal according to the rules of the stadium, these demands should be protected by rules. On the contrary, in the absence of effective evidence, it is necessary to over-speculate on the malice of the other party and put on the hat of malice. The real motivation behind it is to deprive others of their rights in the name of morality.
In real life, especially in the online world, it often only takes one sentence to convict people. This process of conviction may even be worse than what they perceive as "malice." Of course, compared to the idle keyboard man, Shapovalov's hat to the referee and opponent is excusable, after all, the parties are in a fierce competitive environment, which will indeed stimulate a lot of irrational components, and the young man is indeed forced to be anxious.
So Nadal's reply was also very mild: "I wish him all the best." He's still young, I think we all make mistakes in our careers, I made a lot of mistakes when I was younger. Maybe after he thinks about it, he will understand that he is probably wrong today. "Morality should be more strict with oneself and lenient with others.
But the flip side of the story is that there are a lot of speculators on the edge of the rules in the world. I prefer to believe in the rule of law than a morality that has no boundaries, is difficult to control, and is extremely easy to exploit.
After Tsitsipas's restroom suspension storm, ATP and Grand Slam changed the time rules for restroom suspensions, and although the players in this year's Australian Open had to relieve themselves in the countdown, the small improvements in the rules were obviously much more effective than the moral condemnation in previous years.