You cannot compare one injury with another.
I don't think you are grasping the full thing I am saying. An injury being it pre- existing or happen withing the time frame of the match can change in a matter of seconds of the seriousness of the injury and you or me or any fan in those stands have no idea what he was feeling at that moment. I suppose we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I just would rather be on the cautious side. Maybe that is due to that fact I work in the medical field.
It explains it really more. But for me still very poor behaviour Moxie.
I think you would make a mistake to draw broad cultural conclusions for a few small samples. Let's face it, in tennis terms, the French crowd is notoriously rude, too. They booed their own player off the court in Tsonga a few years back.
I am more in agreement with Double Bagel and Margaret on this one. Djokovic had a lot on the line in this Major, given the GOAT race. If he felt he could continue without doing further damage, I personally believe he'd have given it every shot. As I said about the crowd reaction, I think they didn't see that he had physical issues, and so wondered about him bailing. But we here know a lot about the stakes, and I find it hard to believe he simply didn't want to stay out and lose. If his shoulder could have taken it, I firmly believe he'd have pushed it.
Not only. They've been rough on Nadal and Serena, for example. All I'm saying is that they are a notoriously "opinionated" crowd, as is the NY one. Another point worth making is that Majors get pretty international crowds, so the US Open isn't all NYers or Americans, and RG isn't only French people or Parisians. And no crowd is made up of the exact same people on any given day. But there is a crowd mentality. IMO, as regards to the Majors, the crowds at USO and RG tend to be more vocal and opinionated, the Oz and Wimbledon ones a bit more genteel. You can argue with me on that, if you like, but what I'm also saying to Bonaca is that it doesn't necessarily tell you anything/much about the French, the Americans, the English or the Australians.
yes I can compare the persons though, one never quits and another has done more than I can remember...…….surely in at least one of those times it didn't bother him as much as one of Fed's yet he quit, while grandpa stayed on.
You have no idea what made Djokovic retire out of that match, so stop pretending you do, Barcalounger Warrior. And stop trolling my orgasms. At least I have them, you neutered involuntarily celibate bottom-feeder.
No logic in your post. Baseless assumptions.
both Nole and the old Swiss undewent surgery with long rehab after that...not Manacor's bull, it's a big difference. tendinitis are a pain in the ass but nothing to be compared with surgeryNadal has like 100 injuries in his career missing so many opportunities to win slams year after year underachieving so much and barely playing full seasons and his fans stay strong.
Federer and Djokovic have like 3 injuries during their whole careers, mostly playing to their full potential and barely missing slams for over a decade, and their fans are crybabies.
The funny thing is that despite having way more setbacks Nadal will still pass them both. He would have done it a long time ago if he was as lucky as them.
Actually I agree with the opinion that if one player (Joker in this case) retired in his career many times while another (Fed) never retired, then the former player denies his opponents a proper victory while the latter one plays more fairly, to the end. The argument is not that the injuries were the same during this tournament but that over their whole careers, the two players have dealt with their injuries differently. You may argue that Joker's injuries have almost always been so bad to warrant immediate retirements while Fed's were benign enough to allow playing to the end. Really? I don't think so. You may say that their playing styles are different therefore different injuries/risks of aggravating, so the retirement rate would be bigger in case of Joker. But the difference of almost 100% to 0% cannot be explained with such argument. So Moxie you are incorrect here. In this particular exchange, there is no need to explain "what made Djokovic retire" in his latest match or in previous matches, so such argument is stawman.
Football is not comparable to tennis here because retirement of one injured player does not mean the end of the match. The player is substituted and the ball game is going on to the conclusion.
I understand that, but I am talking more in the perspective of the injuries itself and the effect they have on the player.
