Nadal Would Have Been Crucified...

[Riotbeard]

Sorry, but this is just too easy. Here is another thread started initially to make fun of the notion that Rafa will soon cite his knees as the reason for his loss to Darcis. The whole thread quickly devolves into discussing to what degree Nadal's knees affected his losses in the slams, and whether rafa fans should be afraid of the hard court season due to Rafa's obvious knee problems at Wimbledon.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=545&pid=15819&highlight=injury#pid15819

Here is a choice post by Moxie but this is hardly the only broadly speaking, in this vein:

"Absolutely right on both points. Probably Nadal's knees are always going to hurt him from now on, on any given day, but that's not the same as them being damaged. In the Darcis match, he didn't have his grass legs yet, AND he didn't play well, whereas the Belgian was terrific. No need to cite the knees. Though as tented and HY pointed out, he gets asked about them, and has to say, "I don't want to talk about the knee."

I know the thread was meant light-heartedly, but there is this creeping perception that Nadal is ungracious in defeat, which I think is unfair to him. He hasn't blamed every major defeat on injury. However, there have been a few times when the knees were breaking down, AND he ran into a stalwart opponent. (Soderling, Rosol.) I think we can hold both ideas in our minds: that the opponent played the better match, and that Rafa was reaching the end of what his knee(s) could take. It's not an excuse, it's a conflagration of factors. If those players had not gotten him, likely someone else would have. But in some specific matches, not every one.

For those detractors who will also talk about Nadal's knee issues, and the shortening of his playing life, then you have to accept that sometimes he's going to lose, in part, due to knee problems. You can't then say that he's a sore loser because he admits to having them."

Italics were added by me (and sorry Mox, I am not trying to pick on ya!)

 

[Riotbeard]

To keep it fair, our buddy clay death is making an appearance:

"post away and enjoy the forum. I will see you tomorrow.

speaking of nadal, I hear he even picked up a shoulder and an elbow injury in London. he was worn out from the long clay season. maybe he should have skipped Wimbledon.

that might explain why he is not playing and practicing much. "

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=592&pid=18712&highlight=injury#pid18712

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ I'm not denying his injuries... I'm saying he didn't GET injured during the Soderling match. He'd been carrying the knee problems for weeks. He was equally "injured" when he thrashed Hewitt in the same tournament.

This is an interesting take. I'm willing to accept this narrative, although.. we're all speculating of course. The key point for me (and I watched both the Hewitt and Soderling matches) there was no degradation in his movement when comparing those matches. To my mind it's fantasy to suggest there was a marked difference in his movement comparing the two matches

I agree. He was moving equally poorly in both. Except one was a match-up that was so difficult for his opponent on clay that Nadal could still win with a hand tied behind his back (no disrespect to Lleyton. But as a small guy with top spins bouncing over his shoulders, it's always an uphill battle ont he dirt).

Of course, his movement wasn't going to be exposed as much against Hewitt, because Nadal was the one doing the dictating and moving him around for the most part. Soderling, especially in the form he was in, is a different animal. He's a big guy who serves huge, hits the ball incredibly hard and flat, etc... So once he had Nadal on the ropes, Rafa just didn't have that usual spring into his steps to track down balls and turn rallies around as well as he normally does.

Here is what Magnus Norman, Soderling's then coach, had to say after Nadal's 2010 RG final victory over Soderling the following year:

"Asked to compare this version of Nadal with the one Soderling defeated twice last season, Norman replied: 'He's being more aggressive. He's moving a lot better.'"

Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/french10/news/story?id=5257268

So there you have it. Soderling's own coach, essentially acknowledging that Nadal did not move as well as he normally does against Soderling at the 2009 FO. Can we perhaps, FINALLY, put this particular debate to bed?

 

[brokenshoelace]

To keep it fair, our buddy clay death is making an appearance:

"post away and enjoy the forum. I will see you tomorrow.

speaking of nadal, I hear he even picked up a shoulder and an elbow injury in London. he was worn out from the long clay season. maybe he should have skipped Wimbledon.

that might explain why he is not playing and practicing much. "

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=592&pid=18712&highlight=injury#pid18712

Ah clay death. As unfortunate for us Nadal fans as Mastoor is for you Novak fans. I guess we just have to take the good with the bad

 

[Riotbeard]

While a certainly more complicated, sentiment than above, Kieran putting in his view that how Rafa plays will always be affected by injury/ the psychology of injury (http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=592&pid=22848&highlight=injury#pid22848):

"The injury is a way of life with Rafa. Every match could be his last. But playing conservatively and protecting the knee will mean he loses. He either retires - or he goes for it. I say, go for it... "

 

[Kieran]

Clay Death knows Rafa much better than anyone else - he'll tell you that himself! So if he says it then it must be true...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I like reading your stuff too buddy!

I'm not his keeper, zero interest in the guy off the court (same goes for other players btw). You figure it out if you really want to know It might make you feel better about the loss to hang on to that excuse, that don't make it fact...

You've a funny way of dealing with things yourself. Bury your head in the sand and claim he wasn't injured...until you just accepted a narrative that suggests he was injured. Well done, feller, you're getting there... :clap

Haha! You're the one who's burying your head in the sand unfortunately :nono

Yes I can accept a narrative which suggests that his performance was on a par in his last two matches. That's the key point for me. Whether he was injured or no (in both matches).. that would be speculation on my part. Obviously it suits your agenda to excuse his loss to Soderling. But.. unfortunately for you it's just speculation. And don't bother using his no show at Wimbledon to justify your claim. You can play in one tournament - be fit - and miss the next tournament injured!

If you can't see that.. head, sand, buried! :lolz:

How is it speculation? He pulled out of Wimbledon citing a knee injury. A knee injury he received well documented treatment for, and continues to do so today.

Now, can anybody debate that?

So sorry, but it's you who's speculating that he may in fact not have been injured, in which case the burden of proof lies with you, since Nadal already presented his.

 

[Kieran]

While a certainly more complicated, sentiment than above, Kieran putting in his view that how Rafa plays will always be affected by injury/ the psychology of injury (http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=592&pid=22848&highlight=injury#pid22848):

"The injury is a way of life with Rafa. Every match could be his last. But playing conservatively and protecting the knee will mean he loses. He either retires - or he goes for it. I say, go for it... "

Now, that's not an excuse though, is it? He has dodgy knees. It's well known. But do they cause every missed shot? Negatori... :nono

But I like my post immediately after that one... :lolz:

 

[Kieran]

So there you have it. Soderling's own coach, essentially acknowledging that Nadal did not move as well as he normally does against Soderling at the 2009 FO. Can we perhaps, FINALLY, put this particular debate to bed?

There's still another 25 pages to go, buddy... :nono

 

[Riotbeard]

While not qualifying a loss, this is more absurd, injury based mentality from huntingyou:

"I never said part time player, he would be participating in the same number of events but instead of slave away at IW/Miami with a high probability of injury that will carry on to the clay season........he could just take Brazil and Acapulco. The big event that matters right after the AO it's RG when we are talking Rafa.

I didn't even mention SW19, obviously this tournament is not just a matter of ability but condition. IW/Miami followed by grueling clay season will lead to another big embarrassment in London and London trumps everything. "

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1400&pid=59644&highlight=injury#pid59644

 

[House]

And why do you suppose that is? It's likely because in the minds of some, or many, every loss is followed by some type of injury announcement. It's all about reputation and precedence. "Worst pain of my life" followed by dominant tennis. Comments like that don't add up for some.

Comments like this don't add up to me either. However, neither does questioning the legitimacy of a injury off of a 7 months layoff. The two aren't mutually exclusive. People's inability to see the distinction is not my problem, and THAT is what I'm bringing into light. I posted earlier that if someone's argument is that Nadal talks about injuries a lot, then I won't say a word, because that's true. Questioning the legitimacy of clear injuries on the other hand, is a different issue. Implying that the latter is OK because Nadal does a lot of the former is misguided.

You're trying to act like Fed and Nadal are complete equals when it comes to getting hurt, and discussing their injuries.

This is the kind of thing that annoys me. I have a lot of respect for you, but please show me where I'm trying to act like Fed and Rafa are complete equals when it comes to getting hurt. I mean, I literally said: "Perhaps Federer does not talk about injuries as much as Nadal because he hasn't been injured as much as Nadal."

So the above statement clearly means that A) Federer does not talk about injuries as much as Nadal, and B) Federer is not injured as often as Nadal. Just how on earth does that make them "equal" is beyond me.

All I did was post something in which Federer made an excuse for an entire year (a legitimate excuse, mind you) and said that Nadal would have gotten flack for a similar comment. Period.

So your point seems to be that an injustice is being carried out, when it's really not. The people who "question" 7 month layoffs are the fringe fans anyways. Talk to me when major networks or websites start publicly questioning his layoff.

This makes no sense because I never claimed that legitimate media question Nadal. I was clearly referring to people here since you know, that's where we do our tennis conversations.

I really like you and I'm glad you're here but your above post is a bit puzzling as I just highlighted. Of course, that doesn't prevent the "likes" from fans of a player who are unable to be objective just because Nadal mopped up their boy when it mattered most last year.

Still waiting for anyone to tell me where I'm off...

First, off I hope this conversation isn't bothering you or working you up, because it's quite mild from my perspective.

Second, I'm not addressing the 6 other pages only our conversation. Because admittedly I haven't read every single thing. But in my opinion, this thread just furthers animosity between already tense fans. It serves as nothing but escalation in that tension. And I said as much in my eye for an eye post that you quoted.

I can't speak for fans who want nothing more than to tear down Rafa and discredit him. But when it comes to his injuries. It's quite the bullseye. I think the reason some, a small some at that, question the legitimacy of some of his injuries is because some come at very convenient times. After big losses, bad losses. Those types of things. I don't believe that crap, but some are desperate.

I also didn't mean to imply that you explicitly stated Fed and Rafa are the same. Only that when questioning why one gets flack, and the other doesn't. It's easiest to look at their respective injury histories. And it's just not the same, in the sense of trying to understand why people didn't jump on Roger. Because I agree, if Nadal said what Roger said it would have been ammo for days. Only that Nadal fans, for the most part, don't see Roger listing injuries as real excuse making. Because injuries just haven't been a factor. Small instances like mono and the back issue at Wimbledon have been questioned, but for the most part the opportunity just isn't there.

My comment about the major media was simply illustrating how fringe the fans are that you're describing. Because everyone knows they are misguided. That's why outside message boards, you don't hear talk of him faking a layoff. I can really only think of 3-5 posters. To me that would be like making a thread combating the notion that Nalbandian isn't the best player of all time. Because to me it doesn't need to be said. It's obvious.

I would also like to emphasize that just because I don't personally don't enjoy threads like this doesn't mean I'm criticizing you for making it. I just personally don't get the function it serves.

No harm no foul. And we can happily agree to disagree if you don't see my point of view. It's really not an issue I feel that impassioned about lol. That's why I only replied with a few sentences in the first place.

 

[DarthFed]

haha! Ok. But let's get it straight.. Rafa's (and I include his camp in this) accomplishments as an excuse maker in comparison to Fed is a gap as wide as Rafa's ranking compared to... Darcis

Did Roger really complain last year when he was injured or is he mostly attributing his recent success to being healthy? These are two different things. I'm not saying Roger is the most stoic player in history with respect to injuries, but Rafa is definitely in a league of his own.

I quote you here BobV, because you ask about Roger complaining, and I will say, no, but his fans were.

If you say so.. Speaking as an observer.. and admittedly not a fan... it seems to me every loss of his is due to an injury. I even tongue in cheek asked if he'd been playing hurt during his recent Dolgo loss It's no surprise that people (and not just on these boards) ask if Rafa's ever lost when he's not injured. Even pundits writing after Rafa losses are very specific in having to clarify that his movement looked fine. Don't want to tread over ground we've gone over many many many times... But I recall that match against Soderling. I watched that match.. and not once during it did I think that Rafa was impaired. Actually I couldn't get my head round why he kept on hitting short balls. But it seems to be conventional wisdom amongst his fans that he was clearly injured. I may not be a fan, but that does't make me lose my critical reasoning. If he was injured I would say it, if his movement had been impaired I would acknowledge it. Sorry... didn't see it. No revisionism changes that. But the guys ego couldn't tolerate a narrative where he's human and simply had an off day. Pitiful...

Alright, I'll jump into the fray to make this point: there is a difference between fans making excuses and players making them. Federer fans put all of the lousy 2013 down to his back, and have been doing so for a long time. In fairness, the commentators are talking about it a lot now, and Roger himself has addressed it, as we see. But it doesn't change the fact that Federer fans have been using the back as an excuse for poor play, even though it really never took Roger out of competition. (Whether that was wise or not is a separate question.)

However, when Rafa, who is more injury-plagued, has to go down for a period of time due to injury, folks like you, federberg, doubt the validity of it, even if you can see knee strapping for months, and hear reports of progressive tendonitis. Rafa has acknowledged being beaten by better players on the day. You conflate the arguments we have between rival camps, after the fact, with what a player actually says. Also, you seem incapable of holding both ideas in your head that one player, (Soderling, Rosol, for example,) played a great match, and that Rafa may not have been tip-top. It still doesn't mean he would otherwise have won those matches. But it means he was forced to stop and face a deteriorating problem.

It seems the height of irony to me that the one injury Nadal-detractors have been able to accept as valid, his back, is also the one that hasn't taken him out of the game…"only" lost him a Slam, and maybe has hobbled him a bit of late. But what can Fed fans say, since they buy into Roger's back issues as a valid "excuse?"

^ Re the bolded part above, that's news to me. I certainly did not and do not put down all of 2013 due to his back. He was great at the AO and the end of the year. He himself said it bothered him at IW 2013 and clearly it did as some balls very close to him he didn't even run down against Nadal. Then he took 7 weeks off and by his own admission was ok then. He seemed 100% fine to me at Wimbledon and just lost to a guy playing a really great match. Can't comment on the match against Robredo at the USO 'cos I didn't see it (thankfully) but seems he just played a really bad match. So that leaves IW when his back started annoying him and a few matches at mickey mouse tournaments on clay in summer. The rest of the year his movement was clearly getting better or he wouldn't have done so well.

It likely affected his confidence for sure but physically only a few matches did he look rigid and stiff. And it seems Nadal's back is fine now too and maybe it's a similar confidence thing that you're unsure about certain movements that tend to twist your back, etc so you play a bit more cautiously at times but nothing actually ailing you as such. But naturally doing so, means you're not in the best position to win tough matches.

Really? Well, it might not have been you, but somebody sure was putting it out there, because I don't follow Federer attentively, and I was surely aware of a back problem. There was much watching of compression shirts, etc. From what I could tell, it was a monitoring of a low-grade problem, the same as the mono in 2008. Which I don't mind. I never said he didn't have mono, or a back issue. I'm just saying, specific to this thread, it's ironic that some fed fans (Darth being one,) will retrospectively (or even at the time,) sight impairment in Federer as reasons he lost RG and Wimby 2008, and the reason last year was so poor, and yet, that's not an "excuse," even though he played all events. However, for Rafa, injury that causes him to bow out of major tournaments, is. I'm not saying you're that guy, Front, but tell me you haven't seen it?

Just seeing this one now. When did I use mono as an excuse for Wimbledon 2008 let alone RG 2008? I don't go there because when you show up to play you are ready to go, no excuses.

Likewise I don't think the back was the main reason for his problems last year. It definitely was bad during certain matches but that's about it. He speaks of lack of practice and confidence and while those are factors I subscribe more to the theory that, following what was a great 2012 for him, he was not as motivated as he had been. I think part of the 2014 rejuvenation so far has to do with him wanting to make a statement following the dreadful 2013. Roger now has a point to prove again, one that wasn't there in 2013.

It's understandable given what he has accomplished and the fact he has a (growing) family, but I think that's a big factor. It's not like Roger never played a good set last year, but he very rarely played 2 or more in a row and that's no exaggeration. I knew he could still play, it was all about digging in and deciding enough is enough.

 

[House]

The agenda of the person who reads, and then forms an opinion? I agree. Interestingly, and fairly unusually, but the large majority of those who criticise Rafa are Fedfans.

And by far the greatest number of those who have it in for Roger, are Rafafans! :wow:

Clearly. Many Fed fans feel threatened by Nadal, as he chases down Roger's legacy. Doesn't bother me, but the same thing happened with fans of Sampras when Fed started storming through the history books. And all the "weak competition" "he's not really that good" "yeah but Sampras could come back today and win Wimbledon" nonsense started. And that's how this "questioning every injury" thing will be viewed historically in my mind. As nonsense.

Insecure fans are everywhere. Best to just ignore them if you ask me.

Agreed, but where's the fun in that?

Haha well I replied to Kieran's similar question, and that's not why I come around, but I don't fault those who do come for a little bit of chaos.

 

[Federberg]

haha! Ok. But let's get it straight.. Rafa's (and I include his camp in this) accomplishments as an excuse maker in comparison to Fed is a gap as wide as Rafa's ranking compared to... Darcis

Did Roger really complain last year when he was injured or is he mostly attributing his recent success to being healthy? These are two different things. I'm not saying Roger is the most stoic player in history with respect to injuries, but Rafa is definitely in a league of his own.

I quote you here BobV, because you ask about Roger complaining, and I will say, no, but his fans were.

If you say so.. Speaking as an observer.. and admittedly not a fan... it seems to me every loss of his is due to an injury. I even tongue in cheek asked if he'd been playing hurt during his recent Dolgo loss It's no surprise that people (and not just on these boards) ask if Rafa's ever lost when he's not injured. Even pundits writing after Rafa losses are very specific in having to clarify that his movement looked fine. Don't want to tread over ground we've gone over many many many times... But I recall that match against Soderling. I watched that match.. and not once during it did I think that Rafa was impaired. Actually I couldn't get my head round why he kept on hitting short balls. But it seems to be conventional wisdom amongst his fans that he was clearly injured. I may not be a fan, but that does't make me lose my critical reasoning. If he was injured I would say it, if his movement had been impaired I would acknowledge it. Sorry... didn't see it. No revisionism changes that. But the guys ego couldn't tolerate a narrative where he's human and simply had an off day. Pitiful...

Alright, I'll jump into the fray to make this point: there is a difference between fans making excuses and players making them. Federer fans put all of the lousy 2013 down to his back, and have been doing so for a long time. In fairness, the commentators are talking about it a lot now, and Roger himself has addressed it, as we see. But it doesn't change the fact that Federer fans have been using the back as an excuse for poor play, even though it really never took Roger out of competition. (Whether that was wise or not is a separate question.)

However, when Rafa, who is more injury-plagued, has to go down for a period of time due to injury, folks like you, federberg, doubt the validity of it, even if you can see knee strapping for months, and hear reports of progressive tendonitis. Rafa has acknowledged being beaten by better players on the day. You conflate the arguments we have between rival camps, after the fact, with what a player actually says. Also, you seem incapable of holding both ideas in your head that one player, (Soderling, Rosol, for example,) played a great match, and that Rafa may not have been tip-top. It still doesn't mean he would otherwise have won those matches. But it means he was forced to stop and face a deteriorating problem.

It seems the height of irony to me that the one injury Nadal-detractors have been able to accept as valid, his back, is also the one that hasn't taken him out of the game…"only" lost him a Slam, and maybe has hobbled him a bit of late. But what can Fed fans say, since they buy into Roger's back issues as a valid "excuse?"

^ Re the bolded part above, that's news to me. I certainly did not and do not put down all of 2013 due to his back. He was great at the AO and the end of the year. He himself said it bothered him at IW 2013 and clearly it did as some balls very close to him he didn't even run down against Nadal. Then he took 7 weeks off and by his own admission was ok then. He seemed 100% fine to me at Wimbledon and just lost to a guy playing a really great match. Can't comment on the match against Robredo at the USO 'cos I didn't see it (thankfully) but seems he just played a really bad match. So that leaves IW when his back started annoying him and a few matches at mickey mouse tournaments on clay in summer. The rest of the year his movement was clearly getting better or he wouldn't have done so well.

It likely affected his confidence for sure but physically only a few matches did he look rigid and stiff. And it seems Nadal's back is fine now too and maybe it's a similar confidence thing that you're unsure about certain movements that tend to twist your back, etc so you play a bit more cautiously at times but nothing actually ailing you as such. But naturally doing so, means you're not in the best position to win tough matches.

Really? Well, it might not have been you, but somebody sure was putting it out there, because I don't follow Federer attentively, and I was surely aware of a back problem. There was much watching of compression shirts, etc. From what I could tell, it was a monitoring of a low-grade problem, the same as the mono in 2008. Which I don't mind. I never said he didn't have mono, or a back issue. I'm just saying, specific to this thread, it's ironic that some fed fans (Darth being one,) will retrospectively (or even at the time,) sight impairment in Federer as reasons he lost RG and Wimby 2008, and the reason last year was so poor, and yet, that's not an "excuse," even though he played all events. However, for Rafa, injury that causes him to bow out of major tournaments, is. I'm not saying you're that guy, Front, but tell me you haven't seen it?

Just seeing this one now. When did I use mono as an excuse for Wimbledon 2008 let alone RG 2008? I don't go there because when you show up to play you are ready to go, no excuses.

Likewise I don't think the back was the main reason for his problems last year. It definitely was bad during certain matches but that's about it. He speaks of lack of practice and confidence and while those are factors I subscribe more to the theory that, following what was a great 2012 for him, he was not as motivated as he had been. I think part of the 2014 rejuvenation so far has to do with him wanting to make a statement following the dreadful 2013. Roger now has a point to prove again, one that wasn't there in 2013.

It's understandable given what he has accomplished and the fact he has a (growing) family, but I think that's a big factor. It's not like Roger never played a good set last year, but he very rarely played 2 or more in a row and that's no exaggeration. I knew he could still play, it was all about digging in and deciding enough is enough.

I certainly felt his poor performance was due more to the fact that he did the South America tour when he should have been resting, and he rested when he should have been doing his prep work for the new season (which for him tends to be the stretch after the AO). I don't really have much truck with injury related reasons for losses. If you play don't whine about it if you lose...

 

[huntingyou]

While not qualifying a loss, this is more absurd, injury based mentality from huntingyou:

"I never said part time player, he would be participating in the same number of events but instead of slave away at IW/Miami with a high probability of injury that will carry on to the clay season........he could just take Brazil and Acapulco. The big event that matters right after the AO it's RG when we are talking Rafa.

I didn't even mention SW19, obviously this tournament is not just a matter of ability but condition. IW/Miami followed by grueling clay season will lead to another big embarrassment in London and London trumps everything. "

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1400&pid=59644&highlight=injury#pid59644

You are the absurd one going after me with a position that I hold to be in the best interest of Rafa racking more slams.

So I will make it easy for you and save you the pain of searching:

I believe Rafa should not play IW/Miami and instead play a couple of clay events in between AO and MC to keep the rust away. IW/Miami serves no purpose to Rafa's big picture of reaching Slam #18. I go even further, he should not play Barcelona after a successful MC and he should "tank" Madrid or skip all together. That's 4 events before RG/SW19.......clearly, there is enough evidance to show that Rafa at age 27 no longer has the ability to win the channel slam doing what he always does.

time to evolve.........

 

[Moxie]

RB: I appreciate your skills as a researcher, but I'm not sure what you were going for with these old quotes about Rafa's injuries, (or in the case of mine, you misinterpretation that it was about injury and not mentality, which was my intention.) Nobody says we never talk about them. But the point of the thread it that Roger has fessed up that his last season was about the back.

And yes, you were picking on me a bit, but I'm a tough girl and I can take it. But you are littering a thread with old posts that aren't especially illustrative of the point. Anyway, we'll get to Page 65 quicker that way, or whatever the tipping point is meant to be for threads that begin to go over old grievances. :laydownlaughing

 

[Riotbeard]

RB: I appreciate your skills as a researcher, but I'm not sure what you were going for with these old quotes about Rafa's injuries, (or in the case of mine, you misinterpretation that it was about injury and not mentality, which was my intention.) Nobody says we never talk about them. But the point of the thread it that Roger has fessed up that his last season was about the back.

And yes, you were picking on me a bit, but I'm a tough girl and I can take it. But you are littering a thread with old posts that aren't especially illustrative of the point. Anyway, we'll get to Page 65 quicker that way, or whatever the tipping point is meant to be for threads that begin to go over old grievances. :laydownlaughing

Some are a bit of stretches (sadly Rafa hasn't lost too much since the boards started, so it makes it slightly less possible cases, but his only two grandslam losses since the founding of the tennisfrontier have been attributed to injury by a variety of posters. One of these is legit, and the other not). The two post Wimbledon threads are quite good evidence, and then I started getting too close to the Aussie Open, and nobody disputes that injury and it's legitimacy, and nobody disputes the fact that some fans falsely have attributed the dolgo loss to injury.

In the case of your two quotes, Re: Rosol and soderling, you talk injuries on one side of the mouth and giving full credit out the other. You also clearly denigrate Novak's wins over Rafa on clay to fact that Rafa was never the same on the surface after the 2009 injury. While in the Novak case, it's not blaming the losses on a present injury, but still asserts a narrative that Novak would most likely not have beaten a Rafa who had not had significant knee problems in 2009.

The other quotes illustrate a broader psychology and pattern of rafa fans. Many losses come down Rafa being injured, Rafa being recovering, or Rafa having never been the same player on certain surfaces since 2009 injuries, or not playing certain mandatory tournaments to save his body. There is also a lot injury based discussion peppering pre-discussion of matches with no clear connection to injury, scheduling, and future tournaments. So even if a loss is not directly attributed to a present injury, they are usually attributed to the process of injury (i.e. recovery, prevention, etc.). Furthermore, the constant discussion of knees (seriously just type in injury) seems to lower expectations, so anything rafa does is framed in the context of overcoming physical limitations, when in fact, Rafa is in fact one of the most physically fit specimens in the game.

I will acknowledge that there were plenty of cases of Rafa fans (including you) talking other rafa fans off the injury ledge that I did not cite, but I am working all day and I had my agenda, and I completely acknowledge that Rafa fans on here are overall a good bunch, so I did not feel the need to point that out...

 

[Moxie]

RB: I appreciate your skills as a researcher, but I'm not sure what you were going for with these old quotes about Rafa's injuries, (or in the case of mine, you misinterpretation that it was about injury and not mentality, which was my intention.) Nobody says we never talk about them. But the point of the thread it that Roger has fessed up that his last season was about the back.

And yes, you were picking on me a bit, but I'm a tough girl and I can take it. But you are littering a thread with old posts that aren't especially illustrative of the point. Anyway, we'll get to Page 65 quicker that way, or whatever the tipping point is meant to be for threads that begin to go over old grievances. :laydownlaughing

Some are a bit of stretches (sadly Rafa hasn't lost too much since the boards started, so it makes it slightly less possible cases, but his only two grandslam losses since the founding of the tennisfrontier have been attributed to injury by a variety of posters. One of these is legit, and the other not). The two post Wimbledon threads are quite good evidence, and then I started getting too close to the Aussie Open, and nobody disputes that injury and it's legitimacy, and nobody disputes the fact that some fans falsely have attributed the dolgo loss to injury.

In the case of your two quotes, Re: Rosol and soderling, you talk injuries on one side of the mouth and giving full credit out the other. You also clearly denigrate Novak's wins over Rafa on clay to fact that Rafa was never the same on the surface after the 2009 injury. While in the Novak case, it's not blaming the losses on a present injury, but still asserts a narrative that Novak would most likely not have beaten a Rafa who had not had significant knee problems in 2009.

The other quotes illustrate a broader psychology and pattern of rafa fans. Many losses come down Rafa being injured, Rafa being recovering, or Rafa having never been the same player on certain surfaces since 2009 injuries, or not playing certain mandatory tournaments to save his body. There is also a lot injury based discussion peppering pre-discussion of matches with no clear connection to injury, scheduling, and future tournaments. So even if a loss is not directly attributed to a present injury, they are usually attributed to the process of injury (i.e. recovery, prevention, etc.). Furthermore, the constant discussion of knees (seriously just type in injury) seems to lower expectations, so anything rafa does is framed in the context of overcoming physical limitations, when in fact, Rafa is in fact one of the most physically fit specimens in the game.

I will acknowledge that there were plenty of cases of Rafa fans (including you) talking other rafa fans off the injury ledge that I did not cite, but I am working all day and I had my agenda, and I completely acknowledge that Rafa fans on here are overall a good bunch, so I did not feel the need to point that out...

I don't think you understood my post about Soderling and Rosol at all, even though you highlight what I consider to be germane, with one exception. I object to the notion that I was speaking out of both sides of my mouth. I did say that the two concepts of having an increasingly deteriorating injury and running up against a very fine opponent on a spectacular day should be able to held in one's head at the same time. Both things were true. As to the one about calling post-injury Nadal less than he was, (while I hate to reopen another line of thinking, but you started it! :cry) I do personally think that he's been slightly less mentally sturdy since. Was that partly due to Djokovic beating the pants off of him in 2011? Certainly. Was I spitting in Djokovic's soup? Absolutely! That's my job. Spitting is also the spice in these conversations. :laydownlaughing

As to the rest, I know it must bore the non-Rafa fans, but we previz his schedule and matches like other fans do their favorites. Darth is constantly telling us Roger will fail, and nehmeth was an even bigger Eeyore about Novak's chances in the IW final than Darth, until he won. We all do it, just for different reasons. But if you don't see why Rafa fans fret over the health of his knees, you have only to look at the corollary, which is the non-fans that have been telling him/us for years that his body won't hold up to his game. How are we supposed to not worry? The irony is that, when it does break down, the non-fans act shocked, and as if he's making it up.

Anyway, as you say, we're not guilty of always buying into it, and you had an agenda. Now, get back to the 19th C. before someone takes your grant away. :laydownlaughing

 

[Riotbeard]

RB: I appreciate your skills as a researcher, but I'm not sure what you were going for with these old quotes about Rafa's injuries, (or in the case of mine, you misinterpretation that it was about injury and not mentality, which was my intention.) Nobody says we never talk about them. But the point of the thread it that Roger has fessed up that his last season was about the back.

And yes, you were picking on me a bit, but I'm a tough girl and I can take it. But you are littering a thread with old posts that aren't especially illustrative of the point. Anyway, we'll get to Page 65 quicker that way, or whatever the tipping point is meant to be for threads that begin to go over old grievances. :laydownlaughing

Some are a bit of stretches (sadly Rafa hasn't lost too much since the boards started, so it makes it slightly less possible cases, but his only two grandslam losses since the founding of the tennisfrontier have been attributed to injury by a variety of posters. One of these is legit, and the other not). The two post Wimbledon threads are quite good evidence, and then I started getting too close to the Aussie Open, and nobody disputes that injury and it's legitimacy, and nobody disputes the fact that some fans falsely have attributed the dolgo loss to injury.

In the case of your two quotes, Re: Rosol and soderling, you talk injuries on one side of the mouth and giving full credit out the other. You also clearly denigrate Novak's wins over Rafa on clay to fact that Rafa was never the same on the surface after the 2009 injury. While in the Novak case, it's not blaming the losses on a present injury, but still asserts a narrative that Novak would most likely not have beaten a Rafa who had not had significant knee problems in 2009.

The other quotes illustrate a broader psychology and pattern of rafa fans. Many losses come down Rafa being injured, Rafa being recovering, or Rafa having never been the same player on certain surfaces since 2009 injuries, or not playing certain mandatory tournaments to save his body. There is also a lot injury based discussion peppering pre-discussion of matches with no clear connection to injury, scheduling, and future tournaments. So even if a loss is not directly attributed to a present injury, they are usually attributed to the process of injury (i.e. recovery, prevention, etc.). Furthermore, the constant discussion of knees (seriously just type in injury) seems to lower expectations, so anything rafa does is framed in the context of overcoming physical limitations, when in fact, Rafa is in fact one of the most physically fit specimens in the game.

I will acknowledge that there were plenty of cases of Rafa fans (including you) talking other rafa fans off the injury ledge that I did not cite, but I am working all day and I had my agenda, and I completely acknowledge that Rafa fans on here are overall a good bunch, so I did not feel the need to point that out...

I don't think you understood my post about Soderling and Rosol at all, even though you highlight what I consider to be germane, with one exception. I object to the notion that I was speaking out of both sides of my mouth. I did say that the two concepts of having an increasingly deteriorating injury and running up against a very fine opponent on a spectacular day should be able to held in one's head at the same time. Both things were true. As to the one about calling post-injury Nadal less than he was, (while I hate to reopen another line of thinking, but you started it! :cry) I do personally think that he's been slightly less mentally sturdy since. Was that partly due to Djokovic beating the pants off of him in 2011? Certainly. Was I spitting in Djokovic's soup? Absolutely! That's my job. Spitting is also the spice in these conversations. :laydownlaughing

As to the rest, I know it must bore the non-Rafa fans, but we previz his schedule and matches like other fans do their favorites. Darth is constantly telling us Roger will fail, and nehmeth was an even bigger Eeyore about Novak's chances in the IW final than Darth, until he won. We all do it, just for different reasons. But if you don't see why Rafa fans fret over the health of his knees, you have only to look at the corollary, which is the non-fans that have been telling him/us for years that his body won't hold up to his game. How are we supposed to not worry? The irony is that, when it does break down, the non-fans act shocked, and as if he's making it up.

Anyway, as you say, we're not guilty of always buying into it, and you had an agenda. Now, get back to the 19th C. before someone takes your grant away. :laydownlaughing

See my general post on page 1 and 2. Never contested the fact all the players the quarks, and I agree with Dude that they have loss narratives. All I am pointing out is that Rafa's and his fans are pretty heavily related to injury, sometime invented.

 

[Riotbeard]

^tying this back to OP. The whole reason why this not a double standard is that we complain about rafa, et al. re: injuries because it is part of a longer narrative. Said longer narrative, does not exist for fed on this issue, therefore, people, logically give him the benefit doubt. If were a thread about Fed being in love with himself, and there is a double standard because people don't criticize rafa for his annual self-congratulation of "I do my best, and see how it goes", then I would be arguing for Rafa's case.