Nadal Would Have Been Crucified...

[Kieran]

This thread is unreal. No one of them said anything different than one another and nothing that wasn't the case.

Amen, brother. I think that was Broken's point all along: they're all saying the same thing.

As for Murray, he didn't look right to me, against Raonic. He looked stiff and bending over seemed a chore. i wonder if he's not trusting the back, or if there's still an issue there. Could be a confidence thing, as you say...

 

[Front242]

Confidence I reckon as he said himself he missed tons of routine shots.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Eleven pages later.....

...and when you find someone is wrong on the interwebz,

you just cannot let it go.

 

[Federberg]

We're all in agreement then. This thread is done. Conclusion: Rafa's not the only one to bring up injuries. But I'm willing to make a concession in the GOAT debate. Rafa is the GOAT of excuse making

 

[Mog]

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.

Well said BB.
The fitness, skills, injuries of a player is a complete package once he/she steps on to the court.
You win or you lose nothing else.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

Good point, Rafa's whining about injuries is just the start of it. I'm sure we will again hear from him and Uncle Homie about how terrible it is that they don't move the YEC to clay following the indoor season.

 

[Kieran]

I wonder if it's a coincidence that the lines of demarcation in this thread fall almost exactly along the Fedal lines...

 

[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.

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!

You're not being pedantic, you're being in denial.

You're saying: I don't think he was injured as I didn't see anything wrong with his movement...while conveniently ignoring that he skipped Wimbledon. Then when there is evidence that his movement was hampered (in the form of his opponent's coach stating as much), you're saying: Oh well, that doesn't mean he was injured.

Your initial assumption that he wasn't injured was base on the (false) observation that his movement was fine. And yet when there is indication that his movement in fact wasn't, you come up with a new twisted view.

OK, whatever you say man.

Also, with regards to this: "I still maintain that there was no substantive difference in his movement in the Hewitt match vs the Soderling match."

You either didn't read a word I said or you're that stubborn. I posted that I agreed that there wasn't difference in his movement in both matches. Except that his movement was below par in the Hewitt match as well, and that entire clay season too (a point I harped about back in 2009). The difference? Nadal is a nightmare match-up for Hewitt on clay, and he doesn't need to move great to beat him. His top spin gives Lleyton all sorts of trouble due to his size (or lack thereof), and he doesn't have the weaponry to trouble Nadal.

Meanwhile, Soderling is a different beast. His size, how hard he hits the ball, how big he serves and how well he played (something you seem to think I don't acknowledge) meant that he was able to exploit that split second difference in Nadal's movement, who just wasn't able to retrieve and turn rallies around the way he normally does. Hence the short balls.

I'm giving you facts (Nadal pulling out of Wimbledon), expert opinion (Magnus Norman's comments), and logical explanations...you're giving me what exactly? Biased skepticism.

It's hard to argue with some people. I knew for a fact that I wouldn't convince anyone, but I thought it'd be funny to get some caught up in their own arguments. It worked.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Hypothetical wins carry even less value than a loss. But I still don't understand part of the sensitivity with regards to pointing out that something seemed to be wrong with a player.

After all, we're just analyzing a match. If a player didn't seem to be moving fine, it's OK to point it out. The problem is we are SO sensitive towards "excuses" that instead of the conversation turning into an objective assessment, we immediately end up with two camps: Fans of a player who want to use whatever seemed to be wrong as an excuse, and another camp who want to flat out deny the possibility in order not to take anything away from the victor. Biggest example was Nadal-Wawrinka from this year, where it suddenly became a crime to mention that Nadal's back contributed to the sets he lost after the first one.

This is first grade mentality. We should be emotionally stable enough to be able to separate between fandom and objectivity on SOME topics at least.

So if Nadal's movement seemed to be off in a match, it's OK to point it out. The problem is everyone turns it into: EXCUSES! You're saying he would have won if he were fine!

No, I'm not. I'm just saying he didn't move well. Period. If someone wants to dispute that, by all means. Tell me why he was moving fine, or don't. But don't scold me about excuses (I'm not talking to "you" Britbox).

Another no-no seems to be to indicate that a player may have played below par in defeat because fans of the opposite immediately take it as discrediting for the winner. Something that still baffles me. If your opponent didn't play his best, and you won, it means you outplayed him. Period. Nothing wrong with that.

We need to lighten up. If someone points out that Novak didn't play great at the US Open this year, not only will I agree, but in a way it's a compliment to his opponent, who must have had something to do with it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This thread is unreal. No one of them said anything different than one another and nothing that wasn't the case.

Actually, you just agreed with me 100%, without realizing, since that's what I've been saying from the start.

 

[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!

You're not being pedantic, you're being in denial.

You're saying: I don't think he was injured as I didn't see anything wrong with his movement...while conveniently ignoring that he skipped Wimbledon. Then when there is evidence that his movement was hampered (in the form of his opponent's coach stating as much), you're saying: Oh well, that doesn't mean he was injured.

Your initial assumption that he wasn't injured was base on the (false) observation that his movement was fine. And yet when there is indication that his movement in fact wasn't, you come up with a new twisted view.

OK, whatever you say man.

Also, with regards to this: "I still maintain that there was no substantive difference in his movement in the Hewitt match vs the Soderling match."

You either didn't read a word I said or you're that stubborn. I posted that I agreed that there wasn't difference in his movement in both matches. Except that his movement was below par in the Hewitt match as well, and that entire clay season too (a point I harped about back in 2009). The difference? Nadal is a nightmare match-up for Hewitt on clay, and he doesn't need to move great to beat him. His top spin gives Lleyton all sorts of trouble due to his size (or lack thereof), and he doesn't have the weaponry to trouble Nadal.

Meanwhile, Soderling is a different beast. His size, how hard he hits the ball, how big he serves and how well he played (something you seem to think I don't acknowledge) meant that he was able to exploit that split second difference in Nadal's movement, who just wasn't able to retrieve and turn rallies around the way he normally does. Hence the short balls.

I'm giving you facts (Nadal pulling out of Wimbledon), expert opinion (Magnus Norman's comments), and logical explanations...you're giving me what exactly? Biased skepticism.

It's hard to argue with some people. I knew for a fact that I wouldn't convince anyone, but I thought it'd be funny to get some caught up in their own arguments. It worked.

I'm convinced Rafa lost. I'm convinced that Rafa makes excuses about his losses. As do his fans. That's good enough for me. If your point is that there is a hint of excuse making from Roger about last year, I can't argue with that, although it doesn't appear to have been instigated by him or his camp. To try to make out he's on a par with Rafa in this regard is laughable to me. As for RG 09? The main thing I remember is my guy won! :snigger Let's not forget that. That's the important point. To keep harping on about Nadal injuries.. it's like you folks are trying your best to make it all about the guy who got tuned! At the end of the day, you can spend your time making up excuses but Rafa lost. I really don't care. My abiding memory is the superb tie break Fed played in the final. An absolute clinic..

 

[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.

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!

You're not being pedantic, you're being in denial.

You're saying: I don't think he was injured as I didn't see anything wrong with his movement...while conveniently ignoring that he skipped Wimbledon. Then when there is evidence that his movement was hampered (in the form of his opponent's coach stating as much), you're saying: Oh well, that doesn't mean he was injured.

Your initial assumption that he wasn't injured was base on the (false) observation that his movement was fine. And yet when there is indication that his movement in fact wasn't, you come up with a new twisted view.

OK, whatever you say man.

Also, with regards to this: "I still maintain that there was no substantive difference in his movement in the Hewitt match vs the Soderling match."

You either didn't read a word I said or you're that stubborn. I posted that I agreed that there wasn't difference in his movement in both matches. Except that his movement was below par in the Hewitt match as well, and that entire clay season too (a point I harped about back in 2009). The difference? Nadal is a nightmare match-up for Hewitt on clay, and he doesn't need to move great to beat him. His top spin gives Lleyton all sorts of trouble due to his size (or lack thereof), and he doesn't have the weaponry to trouble Nadal.

Meanwhile, Soderling is a different beast. His size, how hard he hits the ball, how big he serves and how well he played (something you seem to think I don't acknowledge) meant that he was able to exploit that split second difference in Nadal's movement, who just wasn't able to retrieve and turn rallies around the way he normally does. Hence the short balls.

I'm giving you facts (Nadal pulling out of Wimbledon), expert opinion (Magnus Norman's comments), and logical explanations...you're giving me what exactly? Biased skepticism.

It's hard to argue with some people. I knew for a fact that I wouldn't convince anyone, but I thought it'd be funny to get some caught up in their own arguments. It worked.

I'm convinced Rafa lost. I'm convinced that Rafa makes excuses about his losses. As do his fans. That's good enough for me. If your point is that there is a hint of excuse making from Roger about last year, I can't argue with that, although it doesn't appear to have been instigated by him or his camp. To try to make out he's on a par with Rafa in this regard is laughable to me. As for RG 09? The main thing I remember is my guy won! :snigger Let's not forget that. That's the important point. To keep harping on about Nadal injuries.. it's like you folks are trying your best to make it all about the guy who got tuned! At the end of the day, you can spend your time making up excuses but Rafa lost. I really don't care. My abiding memory is the superb tie break Fed played in the final. An absolute clinic..

Bravo, you just dodged every argument.

Anyway, it was almost 5 years ago. Yes, Federer played a brilliant final. Got his deserved career slam. Not sure how it has anything to do with this, but whatever...

PS: Please show me where I said Federer is on par with Rafa in terms of talking about injuries... In fact, I pretty much stated the opposite. I just highlighted the double standard, and you gave me the perfect material.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

The Ballad of Woger n Wafa. :idea:

the way things are going..they're gonna crucify them. :chillout:

 

[Busted]

...for this:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/03/federer-back-injury-was-scarring/50926/#.Uyc5DvmSzvg

I have zero issue with what Federer said, but in the interest of fairness and lack of double standards, let's all talk about what an excuse making embarrassment he is...

After all, that's what we do around here right?

Not sure that is true. Nobody, I know disputes Federer had/has back problems or that Rafa has knee problems or that Rafa had a clear back problem during the AO final...

Eh... Come on. People questioned Nadal's 7-months layoff. It is absolutely true. He was crucified for talking about the back injury after the Wawrinka match in another thread not so long ago. I bring this up because there was a 5 day stretch where the forums here were unbearable and all everyone talked about was Nadal's excuse-making. I just think Federer should receive the same courtesy. It's only fair, right?

The difference is that Fed hasn't made a second career out of making excuses and Nadal has. Fed also didn't support the 2-year ranking system that Nadal wanted out of self-interest because he's injured so much and not give a crap that it would make it harder for lower ranked players to move up the rankings. Nadal is a whiner. Fed isn't. That's the difference.

 

[Kieran]

Busted!

You wouldn't happen to be a Roger-fan, would ya? just a wild guess on my part...

 

[Busted]

Busted!

You wouldn't happen to be a Roger-fan, would ya? just a wild guess on my part...

:lolz: I'm just sick of hearing Rafa whine about his injuries at every press conference. I'm really starting to think he's a hypochondriac. I bet he's a germaphobe. Given his on-court routines I think it's pretty clear he's OCD.

 

[Kieran]

Busted!

You wouldn't happen to be a Roger-fan, would ya? just a wild guess on my part...

:lolz: I'm just sick of hearing Rafa whine about his injuries at every press conference. I'm really starting to think he's a hypochondriac. I bet he's a germaphobe. Given his on-court routines I think it's pretty clear he's OCD.

Yeah, and you're a big Roger-fan, right?

 

[brokenshoelace]

...for this:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/03/federer-back-injury-was-scarring/50926/#.Uyc5DvmSzvg

I have zero issue with what Federer said, but in the interest of fairness and lack of double standards, let's all talk about what an excuse making embarrassment he is...

After all, that's what we do around here right?

Not sure that is true. Nobody, I know disputes Federer had/has back problems or that Rafa has knee problems or that Rafa had a clear back problem during the AO final...

Eh... Come on. People questioned Nadal's 7-months layoff. It is absolutely true. He was crucified for talking about the back injury after the Wawrinka match in another thread not so long ago. I bring this up because there was a 5 day stretch where the forums here were unbearable and all everyone talked about was Nadal's excuse-making. I just think Federer should receive the same courtesy. It's only fair, right?

The difference is that Fed hasn't made a second career out of making excuses and Nadal has. Fed also didn't support the 2-year ranking system that Nadal wanted out of self-interest because he's injured so much and not give a crap that it would make it harder for lower ranked players to move up the rankings. Nadal is a whiner. Fed isn't. That's the difference.

I'm convinced people don't know what logic is. Every thing you said is completely irrelevant. I never claimed Federer makes as many excuses as Nadal. I just said he's making excuses now, and nobody's calling him out on it. All I see in this thread are people bringing up irrelevant stuff.

Whining about scheduling/ranking system has nothing to do with excuse making. It might be annoying, but it's a different topic altogether. That's like me bringing up comments that might portray Federer as arrogant (ones that he made) and use them in this thread like they're somehow relevant to the point at hand. They're not.

Welcome to the boards, by the way.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Busted!

You wouldn't happen to be a Roger-fan, would ya? just a wild guess on my part...

:lolz: I'm just sick of hearing Rafa whine about his injuries at every press conference. I'm really starting to think he's a hypochondriac. I bet he's a germaphobe. Given his on-court routines I think it's pretty clear he's OCD.

So you don't think he had the right to talk about injuries after being 7 months on the sidelines? When the media asks, he's supposed to say "No, I was fine no? I was just fishing in Mallorca." And after the Wawrinka match...when the media asks why he was barely moving, what is he supposed to say: "I was just in awe of Stan's level so I just decided to sit back and enjoy."

Yup, makes sense.

 

[Ricardo]

what took this thread so long? it's all about perceptions and how you interpret those. Firstly we are talking about the very best tennis players, who compete at the highest level for a living - people of that calibre do not have loser excuse-making mentality like a lot of the ordinary people. The fact that many thinking of them differently, Fed and Delpo (not really excuse-makers) and Nadal ('notorious' excuse maker) is really the way, the timing and how they talk about their injuries; and unfortunately for Nadal he often presents it in a way that we dismiss him as excuse-making.

Fact is we don't know these people on a personal level so nobody is really 'right or wrong' about this.

However what's obvious to me is this issue of 'excuse-making' is not really isolated, and i think it has a lot to do with Nadal is doing or had done before, that form part of the bad rep about him - and they relate the same way. While Nadal has frequently been warned about time violation, he was also warned a few times a few years ago about on-court coaching - these are obviously things he knows he is guilty of doing and they happen to serve to his advantage. He has always been accused of taking untimely medical time outs, many times including just before his opponent was about to serve for the match, so when you see that he talks about injuries always after losing a match - it's natural for us to think " here we go again, he is doing it again" and unfortunately it's also natural for these kind of things to accumulate and escalate, so now his talk about injuries automatically qualifies as 'excuse-making' by default. (and we think it merely serves to his advantage like the other things he does).

Moreover, i do think players, at least as far as Fedal goes, would talk in a way that protects their ego after a loss - like Nadal saying 'not his real level' regarding Tsonga or Fed saying 'one-dimensional, will figure him out' about Nadal. its just what happens when their egos get bruised. However when it comes to talking injuries, Nadal's 'excuse-making' is actually part of his strategy to gain some form of mental advantage like other things he does - it is not really his 'personality' to be like that, it's just a tool. What's obviously, it achieves the impression for his opponents "hey you only beat me because i was injured" so they won't get the full confidence the next time they meet, that's what i can think of right now, and who knows what other pluses it does for him - Nadal is a complicated and very intillegent man, and it's a FACT he often says things we know he doesn't believe in...... such as 'i have to play my best to have a chance' referring to many matches even on clay, and he knows he is the favorite against everyone (come on, is that even debatable?)

And i think the above is true when one can separate his emotions from distorting facts - which one can call passions. Nadal fans have excessively defended him without sticking to facts and those who don't like Nadal have chosen to put all the bad labels on him. it's just----- passionate about him VS not passionate about him.

That's why Kieran and Moxie always say the things they say, it's whatever their emotions and agenda dictate....... like many.