Nadal Would Have Been Crucified...

[Moxie]

^The longer narrative doesn't exist for Fed because he has rarely suffered injury. However, I think Broken missed the boat a bit with his OP, because it wasn't Fed's excuse, but those of his fans that created the double-standard. I know a lot tried to say they never blamed the losses last year on his back, specifically, but it came up a lot, and they always had his age and his racquet to fall back on. In the end, however, what is so different about seeing one lingering injury as an excuse for generalized poor play, than seeing another lingering issue as a reason for specific losses?

In the end, it really just comes down to wins and losses, and not why they happen. We love to debate mitigating factors, or say that there are none, but it doesn't change tennis history. We are funny how we like to parse the small points of if-but-not-for. :hug

 

[I.Haychew]

I'm happy I no longer feel the urges to engage myself in discussions like this.

...and yet, you have. ???

Oh, come on. We all like a good tussle. Even those who want to be above the fray get sucked in. Look at HY and you. Next thing you know, you'll be mud wrestling with the rest of us. :laydownlaughing

No, I won't. Because, in the grand scheme of tennis, my phaves (Dr. Youzhny, Eph 3, and Anderson) are irrelevant.

 

[I.Haychew]

I'm happy I no longer feel the urges to engage myself in discussions like this.

...and yet, you have. ???

I did not address the topic at hand. I said BS took care of business.

Rafa's prowess on grass is a whole different topic.

Phair enouph!

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, I admit this thread is starting to run is course. I apologize for being an instigator. My last contribution to this topic is something I posted earlier that might have gotten lost in the shuffle, and is perhaps the only decent thing to come out of this:

"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/...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? "

I sincerely hope this at least covers the part about Nadal's 2009 injury with regards to whether it hampered his movement or not. I hope Front and Federberg read this.

 

[Kieran]

Your innocence is touching...

 

[nehmeth]

Eleven pages later.....

 

[Federberg]

OK, I admit this thread is starting to run is course. I apologize for being an instigator. My last contribution to this topic is something I posted earlier that might have gotten lost in the shuffle, and is perhaps the only decent thing to come out of this:

"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/...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? "

I sincerely hope this at least covers the part about Nadal's 2009 injury with regards to whether it hampered his movement or not. I hope Front and Federberg read this.

Hate to be pedantic, but saying his movement is better is different from Norman saying Rafa was injured :blush: I seem to recall Fed having technical issues with his timing on hardcourts (in 2008?), that was technical and movement related, didn't mean he was injured!

You guys always seem to skip over steps and twist things the what you want. Granted that may well have been what Norman meant.. I don't know the guy, but that ain't what he said! I'm only responding because you made a specific reference to me. I still maintain that there was no substantive difference in his movement in the Hewitt match vs the Soderling match. That's the essence of my point. If he was good enough to beat seasoned pros, then in my book it's in poor taste and a bit whiny to go on about it when he loses. For the record you Rafa-fans bring up this stuff waaaaaaay more than Fedfans bring up mono-gate. Perhaps that says something :s Perhaps we're more like the guys we follow than we think?

He lost, let's move on. C'est la vie! I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore. It's tiring!

 

[britbox]

At the end of the day, if you turn up on court to play, you're fair game - win or lose. Most players aren't 100% fit and most will be carrying niggles to varying degrees.

I don't dispute players not being 100% fit. Players will carry and play with ailments. What annoys me more than anything else is all the retrospective "he would have won if he was 100% fit" nonsense. Hypothetical wins carry as much value as a loss.

 

[Federberg]

At the end of the day, if you turn up on court to play, you're fair game - win or lose. Most players aren't 100% fit and most will be carrying niggles to varying degrees.

I don't dispute players not being 100% fit. Players will carry and play with ailments. What annoys me more than anything else is all the retrospective "he would have won if he was 100% fit" nonsense. Hypothetical wins carry as much value as a loss.

This

 

[Kieran]

At the end of the day, if you turn up on court to play, you're fair game - win or lose. Most players aren't 100% fit and most will be carrying niggles to varying degrees.

I don't dispute players not being 100% fit. Players will carry and play with ailments. What annoys me more than anything else is all the retrospective "he would have won if he was 100% fit" nonsense. Hypothetical wins carry as much value as a loss.

I agree, Britbox. Federer should never have brought up his back injury from last year. It shows a typical lack of class...

 

[britbox]

At the end of the day, if you turn up on court to play, you're fair game - win or lose. Most players aren't 100% fit and most will be carrying niggles to varying degrees.

I don't dispute players not being 100% fit. Players will carry and play with ailments. What annoys me more than anything else is all the retrospective "he would have won if he was 100% fit" nonsense. Hypothetical wins carry as much value as a loss.

I agree, Britbox. Federer should never have brought up his back injury from last year. It shows a typical lack of class...

He'd be in esteemed company. It's one category where I'd agree Nadal is the GOAT.

 

[Kieran]

At the end of the day, if you turn up on court to play, you're fair game - win or lose. Most players aren't 100% fit and most will be carrying niggles to varying degrees.

I don't dispute players not being 100% fit. Players will carry and play with ailments. What annoys me more than anything else is all the retrospective "he would have won if he was 100% fit" nonsense. Hypothetical wins carry as much value as a loss.

I agree, Britbox. Federer should never have brought up his back injury from last year. It shows a typical lack of class...

He'd be in esteemed company. It's one category where I'd agree Nadal is the GOAT.

Or maybe an area where Roger's renowned subtlety gets him a pass...

 

[britbox]

or maybe his subtle or non-existent complaining about court surfaces, ranking systems, scheduling, off-court issues lends itself to the "I'm not the guy who cries wolf every 5 minutes" theory.

 

[Kieran]

Or maybe Davydenko was right about Federer, wanting to look like Mr Clean all the time. I think that might be closer. Regardless, I agree with you: he should never have brought up the back injury. Good call, feller! :clap

 

[Riotbeard]

or maybe his subtle or non-existent complaining about court surfaces, ranking systems, scheduling, off-court issues lends itself to the "I'm not the guy who cries wolf every 5 minutes" theory.

You did so good BB, avoiding this for 10 pages!


I have re-tapped out by the way.

 

[Kieran]

or maybe his subtle or non-existent complaining about court surfaces, ranking systems, scheduling, off-court issues lends itself to the "I'm not the guy who cries wolf every 5 minutes" theory.

You did so good BB, avoiding this for 10 pages!


I have re-tapped out by the way.

I might do that, for the next fifteen pages or so... :snigger

 

[Front242]

OK, I admit this thread is starting to run is course. I apologize for being an instigator. My last contribution to this topic is something I posted earlier that might have gotten lost in the shuffle, and is perhaps the only decent thing to come out of this:

"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/...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? "

I sincerely hope this at least covers the part about Nadal's 2009 injury with regards to whether it hampered his movement or not. I hope Front and Federberg read this.

Only just read this but it wasn't his movement that lost him the match but all the short balls he hit right into Soderling's hit zone. You can hit with more depth even with no legs. He hit very short balls much of the match and that essentially lost it for him.

 

[britbox]

or maybe his subtle or non-existent complaining about court surfaces, ranking systems, scheduling, off-court issues lends itself to the "I'm not the guy who cries wolf every 5 minutes" theory.

You did so good BB, avoiding this for 10 pages!


I have re-tapped out by the way.

I tried... but my good friend Kieran has the knack of dragging me into discussions I'd rather pass on.

 

[Kieran]

or maybe his subtle or non-existent complaining about court surfaces, ranking systems, scheduling, off-court issues lends itself to the "I'm not the guy who cries wolf every 5 minutes" theory.

You did so good BB, avoiding this for 10 pages!


I have re-tapped out by the way.

I tried... but my good friend Kieran has the knack of dragging me into discussions I'd rather pass on.

:lolz: Ah now don't be modest. At least we can grapple without any bad feeling... :smooch

 

[Front242]

Or maybe Davydenko was right about Federer, wanting to look like Mr Clean all the time. I think that might be closer. Regardless, I agree with you: he should never have brought up the back injury. Good call, feller! :clap

He didn't bring up any back injury for nothing. The press obviously, just as anyone else with a non faulty pair of mince pies, can clearly see he's moving much better this year so they asked him about it, to which he replied. All he said makes perfect sense too. If you're not winning matches your confidence is low so then even when your back is ok, you still lose. Cough, Dolgo. Nadal's back is reportedly fine now too but likewise his confidence has been hit and as I mentioned before, same with Murray, all 3 guys have been cautious regarding certain movements so as not to re-injure themselves.

In the case of Murray especially, his back is supposedly ok but obviously his preparation after his comeback wasn't 100% as you can't train at 100% intensity after back surgery. Same with Federer last year. It obviously affected his training intensity and preparation. Really he said absolutely zero wrong. Nadal presumably couldn't run full pelt with his knee problem either. This thread is unreal. No one of them said anything different than one another and nothing that wasn't the case.