2014 Davis Cup

[Kieran]

Let's wait and see, eh? If he withdraws from India - for example - citing his back, then obviously he's not "fully" healthy yet.

If he cites the back for any injuries in the new year - the same.

However, as things stand, neither of these has happened and as a Rafa fan who's lived through enough heartache regarding injuries, I wouldn't wish it on him. We have less years ahead with Roger, than we have behind. I wish him good health and a nice trip to India...

1. I don't think he will withdraw from the Circus. He gets paid a million bucks a night and that too for playing one set of exo tennis with no-ad scoring. It surely cannot aggravate his injuries. He
has greater danger of getting injured by eating the spicy food out there.

2. There will probably be an occasion next year where he will cite back injury. This is because he has been having back issues since 2003. Not continuously. But it is a reoccurring issue. You cannot make any conclusions (about his state in DCF) based on a potential withdrawal from some event some time next year.

1. You're kidding, right?

2. You're kidding, right?

Question: do you believe that Federer was "fully" recovered from his back injury on Friday against Monfils?

Please bear in mind that the man has only three times in his career of 1200 matches been so incapacitated that he couldn't even play - and one of those was the previous Sunday. Do you think he had "fully" healed so quickly?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Comments made by Federer AFTER the Davis Cup win:

"The body needs time to heal and recover. So we gave that time to the body," he said.

"At the same time Monday, Tuesday, I didn't feel like I was going to play three days, no way.

"After Friday I thought there was a chance, for sure. That's when I felt most confident. But up until the match, I didn't think that three days was actually possible, to be quite honest."

If he seriously made a full recovery by Sunday, I'll get in line with the majority of Fed fans who think he's god, cause he might be.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Fed's back issues were longstanding. He had back problems before he won the first GS itself.
It is not a product of his old age. Since people don't seem to believe he had back issues back in
2003 itself, I am posting a article from 2003 (incidentally this is how winning despite back injury looks). Of course, they are not continuous. But, it is a regularly reoccurring issue for him over the years. Since it is a reoccurring issue, the question of whether he "fully recovered" (as in it will not occur future in general or next year in particular) does not make sense.

In fact, Fed was given an exemption from mandatory serving in Military as he was deemed unfit
due to back issues.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The following sentence is take verbatim from Wikipedia.

Like all male Swiss citizens, Federer was subject to compulsory military service in the Swiss Armed Forces. However, in 2003 he was deemed unfit because of a long-standing back problem and was subsequently not required to fulfill his military obligation.

Now, don't tell me that he used his influence to get out of this as he is famous. This happened in 2003 before he won his first grand slam. He could not have that much influence at that time.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

To Game Set and Math:

Since you're acting like a wise-ass, please explain to me the following:

How does an article describing Fed's victory over Gasquet prove that he wasn't injured against Monfils?

Keep in mind, this was literally all I was arguing. The argument about Roger's back injury was after the Monfils match. Of course, you still thought it would make you look smart by making the "so much for Fed's back injury" comment, but if I were to subscribe to your magic healing theory, then can't it mean that Fed's back healed AFTER the Monfils loss (I still don't think it did, but I'm following your "logic")?

I wonder why you haven't offered any "proof" in the shape of some newspaper article talking about Fed's performance in THAT match, and how well (read: poorly) he moved.

But no, you're right, I AM the one stubbornly holding on to an opinion.

Thank you for the compliments. No wonder new posters want to crawl back into a hole in this forum.

Fed has clearly explained the situation. He could not play well against Monfils as he did not have
sufficient practice, especially considering the surface change. Of course, the lack of practice was
caused because he wanted to give time for the back to heal. Of course, he needed to give that time
as his back was injured. Fed's statement was that his bad play against Monfils is more due to lack of practice than due to bad back in that match. I don't see where is the fallacy or inconsistency here.
In fact, if the primary reason for bad play is not match practice (but back issues), he surely could not have played so well on Saturday and Sunday. Both you and Kieran were questioning his claim.

Even in that match, he kept playing better as he went on. That served as practice for his doubles match where he played better (but obviously did not have to cover so much court). With the added practice gained in doubles, he played really well against Gasquet. The point of the article describing his match against Gasquet was to emphasize the fact it was not a gimme match and Fed had to play well to win it and he did so.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Guys, keep in mind, we are talking about back issues here.
Sometimes you have a spasm that feels like you will never be able to breath properly again. Yet, a couple of muscle relaxants and massages later, you are up and running in 3-4 days. But you are hesitant first time around to fully commit to everything, and slowly you test your limits and finally go all out.

That to me explains what happened with Roger.

A week ago, Roger was someone who was struggling with back injuries since 2003 according to one poster, and 2008 according to another. Now it's just a spasm that magically healed.

I guess I'll ignore the 19201010 times Roger brought up his back issues last year.

I have mentioned it before, there are a million things that can go wrong with a back, and they can show similar symptoms. My scenario up there is a likely one. He might have had a spasm, that has got nothing to do with his back issues of the past.

I have been dealing with a bad back for over 20 years. A lot of things can happen to a back that you think will cripple you for a month and sometimes it does but other times, even though you think you are out of commission for long time, you might be up and running in a couple of days. Obviously Roger did not suffer from a slipped disk or something. It could not have been that serious. But a serious spasm will make you feel like you are dying and it can go away in 3-4 days.

I am just guessing just like everyone else. Roger's bad play in the first match could very well be explained by him being hesitant to push himself because he did not know how the back was going to respond. He got better I think, as the match went along.

 

[Haelfix]

Back injuries/spasms are strange creatures. The spasms sometimes can be readily treated and managed with painkillers/muscle relaxers and sometimes they simply can't. They can be short duration injuries or chronic long term problems. You just don't know without more information.

Its a bit like a neck crick. One day you are in a world of hurt that you think will last forever where nothing works and then 12 hours later you are perfectly ok.

For what its worth, I think he was ok when he played Monfils. He just looked like he hadn't had any practise and was probably still a bit stiff. But credit to Monfils, he definitely took it too him. Two days later against Gasquet he was back to near his full capabilities and Gasquet didn't put up as much of a fight.

I'm not entirely sure why everyone is so apt to question proffessional tennis players and their injuries all the time. I tend to take them at their words unless there really is a compelling reason not too.

 

[Federberg]

Did Roger bring up his back issues last year or did he explain his improvement in form this year by talking about the issues? I'm not quite sure what the agenda is here but I do find this funny. Behaviour over 1200 matches cannot be set aside because of one incident.

I'll say this though... If there had been no DC I suspect Roger would have taken his lumps in the WTF final. I feel bad for the fans, but at the same time I can appreciate he put country before individual glory. If there wasn't so much fandom on these boards I suspect most would secretly applaud that

 

[Kieran]

I'll say this though... If there had been no DC I suspect Roger would have taken his lumps in the WTF final. I feel bad for the fans, but at the same time I can appreciate he put country before individual glory. If there wasn't so much fandom on these boards I suspect most would secretly applaud that

Actually, we're explicitly applauding that, and remarkably, it's fandom that's denying it. Neither myself nor Broken have criticised Federer at all. In fact, we've been saying that he played through an injury he's still recovering from to bring glory to his country. And we've both said he's obviously getting better, but is he "fully" fit?

I dunno about Broken, but I'm impressed at how offended Fedfans are getting over this. It's fandom, indeed.

It's instructive to read back through the thread during the Monfils match and notice how casually the injury is mentioned as a reason for his loss, and his bad movement.

There's no big issue here, but there is one important thing to realise in the 1200 matches you mentions: Federer has only been so incapacitated that he could not come out and play 3 times. The last one was Sunday - in the second biggest final of his season.

This, in other words, is not a trivial thing. That he didn't practice at all during the week further proves this. The man is 33 years old and has played a whopping 85 matches this year, and we're expected to believe he's able to shrug off the effects of such an injury in the space of a few days?

And please, GSM, let's not have a new myth regarding Federer, that he's had back injuries since 2003, because you know that this will become the new perceived truth. "Uh, he's like Tommy Haas with injuries, just he played through them cos he's a soldier."

And speaking of soldiers, please, rich kids have been dodging military service for centuries with convenient doctors notes. It's the Swiss army, FFS. They dress up in harlequin costumes and protect the Pope from over-zealous iPhones photos. Federer has played 60 straight GS tourneys, he dressed in a fricking sailor suit to win Wimbledon, I think he'd have been able to dress as a clown for the Swiss army and their sandwich making duties, don't you? :snigger

 

[mrzz]

Broken and Kieran, I really don't know what we are arguing here. Everyone seems to agree that:

1) Yes, there was an injury (that was the easy one).
2) No, he wasn't PERFECTLY fit on DC finals.

Most people, no matter who they favourite player is, were just trying to stick to a common sense view, against an extreme conspiration theory (no injury at all, adamantium exoskeleton surgery on thurday night, etc).

I particularly like Murat's view of things (which seem unbiased to me), and I would guess GSM is trying to point out that those back issues appear (to go away even for years) since pre-2003.

So the only point of actual debate IMO is HOW much the guy was affected by it on the weekend. I personally think he was a completely different player from friday to sunday, and that it takes much more than his opponent to explain that.

P.S. I am not Swiss, but the guys are historically serious about their army. Anyway the rich kid's argument is a good one... but someone will come up with ball boy story and here we go on a wonderfull new argument.

 

[Federberg]

Broken and Kieran, I really don't know what we are arguing here. Everyone seems to agree that:

1) Yes, there was an injury (that was the easy one).
2) No, he wasn't PERFECTLY fit on DC finals.

Most people, no matter who they favourite player is, were just trying to stick to a common sense view, against an extreme conspiration theory (no injury at all, adamantium exoskeleton surgery on thurday night, etc).

I particularly like Murat's view of things (which seem unbiased to me), and I would guess GSM is trying to point out that those back issues appear (to go away even for years) since pre-2003.

So the only point of actual debate IMO is HOW much the guy was affected by it on the weekend. I personally think he was a completely different player from friday to sunday, and that it takes much more than his opponent to explain that.

P.S. I am not Swiss, but the guys are historically serious about their army. Anyway the rich kid's argument is a good one... but someone will come up with ball boy story and here we go on a wonderfull new argument.

Well said. I'm not even sure what the relevance of a player being "fully fit" is. We all accept that professional sportspeople often play with niggles. If Roger has been playing for years with a fragile back, does that mean that he's been playing injured all this time? I doubt it! Does this enhance his legacy? Not at all in my view... this is what professional sportsmen do. I'm a little disappointed that this has come out into the public domain to be honest. When it comes to excuses or giving yourself a plausible out for why you might have lost a match I am an equal opportunities disapprover. Just get on with it! I would be disappointed if that becomes a part of the narrative around the Federer legend, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are some who want to make that association :cover

 

[Kieran]

Broken and Kieran, I really don't know what we are arguing here. Everyone seems to agree that:

1) Yes, there was an injury (that was the easy one).
2) No, he wasn't PERFECTLY fit on DC finals.

Most people, no matter who they favourite player is, were just trying to stick to a common sense view, against an extreme conspiration theory (no injury at all, adamantium exoskeleton surgery on thurday night, etc).

I particularly like Murat's view of things (which seem unbiased to me), and I would guess GSM is trying to point out that those back issues appear (to go away even for years) since pre-2003.

So the only point of actual debate IMO is HOW much the guy was affected by it on the weekend. I personally think he was a completely different player from friday to sunday, and that it takes much more than his opponent to explain that.

P.S. I am not Swiss, but the guys are historically serious about their army. Anyway the rich kid's argument is a good one... but someone will come up with ball boy story and here we go on a wonderfull new argument.

Good post, mrzz, and I agree, he can't have fully recovered from the injury by DC time. That's all we've befn saying, but you would be surprised to find not everyone agrees and in fact, some people think we're insulting Mr Federer. :cover

And yes, he most definitely was injured. Federer was playing well in the WTF and he'd have no reason to avoid Novak other than his back gave out. This doesn't really need to be restated. I can't believe that anyone would argue seriously against it... :nono

As for the other stuff, the Swiss army etc, none of it relates to any of this...

 

[brokenshoelace]

To Game Set and Math:

Since you're acting like a wise-ass, please explain to me the following:

How does an article describing Fed's victory over Gasquet prove that he wasn't injured against Monfils?

Keep in mind, this was literally all I was arguing. The argument about Roger's back injury was after the Monfils match. Of course, you still thought it would make you look smart by making the "so much for Fed's back injury" comment, but if I were to subscribe to your magic healing theory, then can't it mean that Fed's back healed AFTER the Monfils loss (I still don't think it did, but I'm following your "logic")?

I wonder why you haven't offered any "proof" in the shape of some newspaper article talking about Fed's performance in THAT match, and how well (read: poorly) he moved.

But no, you're right, I AM the one stubbornly holding on to an opinion.

Thank you for the compliments. No wonder new posters want to crawl back into a hole in this forum.

Fed has clearly explained the situation. He could not play well against Monfils as he did not have
sufficient practice, especially considering the surface change. Of course, the lack of practice was
caused because he wanted to give time for the back to heal. Of course, he needed to give that time
as his back was injured. Fed's statement was that his bad play against Monfils is more due to lack of practice than due to bad back in that match. I don't see where is the fallacy or inconsistency here.
In fact, if the primary reason for bad play is not match practice (but back issues), he surely could not have played so well on Saturday and Sunday. Both you and Kieran were questioning his claim.

Even in that match, he kept playing better as he went on. That served as practice for his doubles match where he played better (but obviously did not have to cover so much court). With the added practice gained in doubles, he played really well against Gasquet. The point of the article describing his match against Gasquet was to emphasize the fact it was not a gimme match and Fed had to play well to win it and he did so.

I don't know how many times I have to explain this:

Losing due to an injury DOES NOT MEAN you lose due to pain. That's what none of you guys seem able to grasp.

You guys think that if something doesn't look too off (and he looked like GARBAGE against Monfils, by the way. It takes way more than lack of practice for this to happen) then a player is fine.

When you're injured, you don't practice sufficiently, you don't recover the same way, you don't go through the same routines, you alter your practice methods, you make a few tweaks to your game, the amount of effort you exert, etc...

But of course, I'm talking to someone who subscribes to a black-or-white logic where you're either injured and can't play, or you're healthy. No middle ground, ever, despite evidence hitting you in the face.

Also, the poster who wanted to "crawl back" did so because he got corrected for a piece of misleading information. That's it.

If you want to do the same over a mild shot taken at you, then maybe you should develop thicker skin, otherwise the internet is really not the place for you. People here have been called, way, way, worse. Toughen up.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Did Roger bring up his back issues last year or did he explain his improvement in form this year by talking about the issues?

Is this a serious question? Yes he did. About 5 times, at least.

PS: Who the hell IS NOT applauding Fed? If anything, my insistence that he WAS injured means I'm saying he played, and won, injured. Explain to me how you take that as a negative, please.

 

[brokenshoelace]

PPS: The new narrative that Fed has been a trooper who's had to overcome back issues since 2003 is amusing.

 

[Federberg]

PPS: The new narrative that Fed has been a trooper who's had to overcome back issues since 2003 is amusing.

Lol! If people are saying that, then I'm with you!

 

[Federberg]

Did Roger bring up his back issues last year or did he explain his improvement in form this year by talking about the issues?

Is this a serious question? Yes he did. About 5 times, at least.

PS: Who the hell IS NOT applauding Fed? If anything, my insistence that he WAS injured means I'm saying he played, and won, injured. Explain to me how you take that as a negative, please.

I'm glad you're applauding :shy: It's not clear to me he was injured, but the important thing was that he did a professional job and got the W!

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

amusing alright, but not just that bit. i think what is clear though, is that there are no gray areas here.

if you're not agreeing that Federer was 100% fit, like a 21 year old terminator fresh from a checkup at the doctor/mechanic, you're saying he was a cripple on the edge of death.

if you're claiming that his back might have been slightly irritated (say, pain levels as intense as a bruised shin from getting kicked by a little girl/whiny fan), but that he simply preferred to say it's fine because of the psychological factors, you're basically calling him the worst liar ever known to man.

fortunately, the black and white nature of this world is also recognized in other threads: if you're not bettting your house and your children's college funds on Novak winning the calendar slam next year, you're a horrible person, a narrow-minded Fedalist, and will never respect Novak even though his 2011 season was better than everything Borg, Laver, Federer and Albert Einstein ever achieved.



as for the swiss army: wouldn't underestimate them - they ain't been independet through two world wars for nothing (and if only for the fact of the gold, it doesn't make it any less relevant, because after all it means people around the world trust the swiss to take good care of that). as for his back and the army - yes, there are many ways to get that doctor's note (pretty much par for the course to find a way out these days if you really want to).

in Fed's case, though, they're getting a good deal (which is why the commission that checks if you're fit for service might not have been inclined to look too close at that junior wimby champ) : if a swiss citizen is not serving in the army, he has to pay a sort of compensational tax in relation to his income - about half a million Swiss Franken annually for the fedster...

 

[brokenshoelace]

amusing alright, but not just that bit. i think what is clear though, is that there are no gray areas here.

if you're not agreeing that Federer was 100% fit, like a 21 year old terminator fresh from a checkup at the doctor/mechanic, you're saying he was a cripple on the edge of death.

if you're claiming that his back might have been slightly irritated (say, pain levels as intense as a bruised shin from getting kicked by a little girl/whiny fan), but that he simply preferred to say it's fine because of the psychological factors, you're basically calling him the worst liar ever known to man.

fortunately, the black and white nature of this world is also recognized in other threads: if you're not bettting your house and your children's college funds on Novak winning the calendar slam next year, you're a horrible person, a narrow-minded Fedalist, and will never respect Novak even though his 2011 season was better than everything Borg, Laver, Federer and Albert Einstein ever achieved.



as for the swiss army: wouldn't underestimate them - they ain't been independet through two world wars for nothing (and if only for the fact of the gold, it doesn't make it any less relevant, because after all it means people around the world trust the swiss to take good care of that). as for his back and the army - yes, there are many ways to get that doctor's note (pretty much par for the course to find a way out these days if you really want to).

in Fed's case, though, they're getting a good deal (which is why the commission that checks if you're fit for service might not have been inclined to look too close at that junior wimby champ) : if a swiss citizen is not serving in the army, he has to pay a sort of compensational tax in relation to his income - about half a million Swiss Franken annually for the fedster...

Good to see you back.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Did Roger bring up his back issues last year or did he explain his improvement in form this year by talking about the issues?

Is this a serious question? Yes he did. About 5 times, at least.

PS: Who the hell IS NOT applauding Fed? If anything, my insistence that he WAS injured means I'm saying he played, and won, injured. Explain to me how you take that as a negative, please.

I'm glad you're applauding :shy: It's not clear to me he was injured, but the important thing was that he did a professional job and got the W!

He won. Nobody can do anything but applaud, regardless of whether he was injured or not. I just happen to think he was, making his win more impressive in my book, especially given that he played 3 matches in as many days. Regardless, nobody is discrediting Federer in this thread...not even Kieran!