Nadal Would Have Been Crucified...

[Moxie]

Can we also say that, if somebody made a thread about Novak's parents being annoying, I wouldn't (nor would most fans) feel the need to invent narratives of other people's parents being consistently annoying, or to say that Fed, is full of himself, doesn't usually bring about screams that other players behave just like Fed occasionally. Nobody talks about injuries as much or as often as Rafa. It's his main public flaw. They all have them, but don't tell me they are have the same one. Rafa is not a victim, he is a super rich athlete (likeable guy, sure nothing wrong with him having money either, but what's the big deal with not liking this aspect of him). I also don't see it as a double standard, people get injured and it is fair to bring it up, but rafa always seems injured even when it is not apparent in his game (except for to rafa fans). It's also not like it was a mystery that Fed was having back problems he just didn't go on about, and he mentioned it again pretty innocuously in the OP's article. It would be a double standard if Fed talked about his back after many of his losses over the last say... 10 or so years, but nobody ever brought it up. Can anyone seriously say Federer talks about injuries on anywhere near the scale Rafa does?

Oh, be fair. Can anyone say that Roger HAS injuries on the scale the Rafa has had? He's actually been very lucky…he's never even retired out of a match. And his mono was mild, compared to Ancic and Soderling, for example, who lost their careers to it. Rafa may not be as unlucky as Del Potro, in the end, but they're both top players, so they get asked about their injuries…all the time. Do you think that's because they really want to talk about them, or because they're athletes with a high-exposure, and so they get asked about them? If Monfils or Tsonga were just a tick higher profile, how much do you think they'd have to talk about injuries. (As it is, you should read the French press.)

EDIT: And to be honest, I'm not clear where you were going with the annoying parents-thing.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

"T-Rex sized turds" ?..its an alarming image.

Hint: They're big

yep, the T-Rex is big and therefore the turds are big..

Because no one ever said "oh looky over there at that T-Rex..Isn't it tiny", as they ambled to the shops to buy some Stegosaurus steaks, or a pack of one Brontosaurus burgers.

:s mmmmkay, drugs are bad. mmmmkay

:huh: you were having a laugh with that comment ?. don't forget..surrealism is the future maaaan. :idea:

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

McEnroe said in the old days everyone used to try and hide any injury worrys from the meeja/opponent/public, but nowadays all the players seem to want to talk about injuries all the time.

 

[Riotbeard]

Can we also say that, if somebody made a thread about Novak's parents being annoying, I wouldn't (nor would most fans) feel the need to invent narratives of other people's parents being consistently annoying, or to say that Fed, is full of himself, doesn't usually bring about screams that other players behave just like Fed occasionally. Nobody talks about injuries as much or as often as Rafa. It's his main public flaw. They all have them, but don't tell me they are have the same one. Rafa is not a victim, he is a super rich athlete (likeable guy, sure nothing wrong with him having money either, but what's the big deal with not liking this aspect of him). I also don't see it as a double standard, people get injured and it is fair to bring it up, but rafa always seems injured even when it is not apparent in his game (except for to rafa fans). It's also not like it was a mystery that Fed was having back problems he just didn't go on about, and he mentioned it again pretty innocuously in the OP's article. It would be a double standard if Fed talked about his back after many of his losses over the last say... 10 or so years, but nobody ever brought it up. Can anyone seriously say Federer talks about injuries on anywhere near the scale Rafa does?

Oh, be fair. Can anyone say that Roger HAS injuries on the scale the Rafa has had? He's actually been very lucky…he's never even retired out of a match. And his mono was mild, compared to Ancic and Soderling, for example, who lost their careers to it. Rafa may not be as unlucky as Del Potro, in the end, but they're both top players, so they get asked about their injuries…all the time. Do you think that's because they really want to talk about them, or because they're athletes with a high-exposure, and so they get asked about them? If Monfils or Tsonga were just a tick higher profile, how much do you think they'd have to talk about injuries. (As it is, you should read the French press.)

I agree that Rafa has had two and 1/4 seasons legitimately and seriously disrupted by injuries. He has talked about being injured in way more than two seasons... Also, a Rafa fan brought this up... I don't see a double standard. I am not saying Rafa has never been injured.

 

[Moxie]

I agree that Rafa has had two and 1/4 seasons legitimately and seriously disrupted by injuries. He has talked about being injured in way more than two seasons... Also, a Rafa brought this up... I don't see a double standard. I am not saying Rafa has never been injured.

While I appreciate that your post is intended to be generous, what do you mean that he's talked about injuries for more than two seasons? Doesn't he have to, if he's asked about them? It is part of the narrative of his career, whether he, or any of us likes it. People have been saying since he came on the scene that his style of play would shorten his career, and the knee strapping and tendonitis, and the injury lay-offs have only exacerbated that. Sportswriters and commentators like to speak in narratives, and the story of Nadal is partly about injury. I don't think it's fair to say that "Rafa brought this up." And I DO see a double-standard. Say whoever we want to say started it, but it's all over the media now: Roger had a bad back last year and it hampered him. However, knee tendonitis is just an "excuse" for Rafa. I'm just having trouble understanding how one thing is an explanation, and another is a whiny excuse.

 

[Front242]

The difference has already been pointed out. Apart from a handful of matches last year where Federer's movement did appear rigid and stiff at times and he didn't attempt to run down many balls at IW, he otherwise didn't appear to be anything other than crap. Nadal on the other hand, to many, has rarely apart from the AO final this year appeared injured eventhough he claimed to be. Not many people I've talked to said they saw any impairment to his movement against Soderling, Rosol or Darcis, for example. But clearly there was against Wawrinka. That was obvious.

 

[El Dude]

I can't believe I read all three pages of this thread, and all I can say is: For the love of all that's holy, why do we feel the need to defend the character of our favorite player? Can't we admire them as players and love them as our favorites but also see them as human beings, flawed (and egotistical) like the rest of us?

Every great player has an "excuse narrative" that his fans like to buy into:

For Federer's fans it is that he was past his true prime when Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray reached their peak, so none of those three really faced a peak Federer - except Nadal, who only dominated him on clay, and who simply had the match-up edge but isn't as great a player overall.

For Nadal it is that every match he loses is at least somewhat related to injury, with the implication that a healthy Nadal would win every match against anyone.

For Djokovic it is that in 2011 he reached a peak higher than Federer or Nadal ever got to, but was derailed by this or that (relative dying, etc), and his head just hasn't been on straight since (but, of course, if it was he'd be better than Fedal).

Etc, etc, etc.

The elephant in the room is that everyone wants their guy to be the best guy, because for some reason we believe that if our guy is the best, somehow we're the best too. Hey, its natural - its child-like fan adoration, but...

Well, its all a bit silly, isn't it?

 

[Riotbeard]

For Djokovic it is that in 2011 he reached a peak higher than Federer or Nadal ever got to, but was derailed by this or that (relative dying, etc), and his head just hasn't been on straight since (but, of course, if it was he'd be better than Fedal).

I don't see this as true at all

 

[Moxie]

I can't believe I read all three pages of this thread, and all I can say is: For the love of all that's holy, why do we feel the need to defend the character of our favorite player? Can't we admire them as players and love them as our favorites but also see them as human beings, flawed (and egotistical) like the rest of us?

Every great player has an "excuse narrative" that his fans like to buy into:

For Federer's fans it is that he was past his true prime when Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray reached their peak, so none of those three really faced a peak Federer - except Nadal, who only dominated him on clay, and who simply had the match-up edge but isn't as great a player overall.

For Nadal it is that every match he loses is at least somewhat related to injury, with the implication that a healthy Nadal would win every match against anyone.

For Djokovic it is that in 2011 he reached a peak higher than Federer or Nadal ever got to, but was derailed by this or that (relative dying, etc), and his head just hasn't been on straight since (but, of course, if it was he'd be better than Fedal).

Etc, etc, etc.

The elephant in the room is that everyone wants their guy to be the best guy, because for some reason we believe that if our guy is the best, somehow we're the best too. Hey, its natural - its child-like fan adoration, but...

Well, its all a bit silly, isn't it?

No, that's not the point. We already think our guy is the best guy. You tip your hand by the bolded above. The question isn't if Federer is old, but if his fans are allowed to make an excuse out of his back, when Nadal isn't allowed to make one out of his knees. It's fairly straightforward. And for all of Front's feigning that that wasn't a conversation all last year, (the Federer back,) I would beg to differ.

 

[Front242]

Either way it's clear as day obvious Federer is moving light years better this year than last so clearly something was up last year.

 

[Moxie]

Either way it's clear as day obvious Federer is moving light years better this year than last so clearly something was up last year.

Exactly! And no one is denying that it was. But if he had a bad year due to his back and the ensuing lack of confidence…..

you can't buy that and then tell Nadal or his fans that there's no merit to his own injury issues. Players as talented as Federer and Nadal are great when they are healthy, and both have demonstrated it for many years.

 

[Front242]

I never said there was no merit to his injuries, merely that most people would have a hard time telling you he ever looked injured more than a handful of times, most recently and most obviously the AO final this year, he clearly did. But other times when he said he was he didn't appear to be. Not to anyone I've discussed tennis with anyway. And no, they weren't all Federer fans. Some barely watch tennis but said he looked fine against Soderling, Rosol, Darcis and truckloads of others.

 

[Moxie]

I never said there was no merit to his injuries, merely that most people would have a hard time telling you he ever looked injured more than a handful of times, most recently and most obviously the AO final this year, he clearly did. But other times when he said he was he didn't appear to be. Not to anyone I've discussed tennis with anyway. And no, they weren't all Federer fans. Some barely watch tennis but said he looked fine against Soderling, Rosol, Darcis and truckloads of others.

(Funny, at first I thought you were talking about Federer and his back.) I understand what you're saying and I agree: except for the AO when Rafa clearly wrenched his back, he's rarely looked especially compromised in a match. Since I think we all agree that he famously pushes himself very hard in matches, it won't be a surprise to say (again) that he's pushed himself beyond the limits of his injuries. But that isn't why he lost most of those matches, or not exclusively. He lost to Soderling, Rosol, and Dolgo the other day because they out-played him. (When asked about his back after the Dolgopolov match, he said, "my back wasn't bad. My forehand and backhand were.") I will say this again: he has pushed his sore knees to their limit and beyond, but that's not usually what makes him lose…it's a fine opponent. But then he is forced to stop, and reassess the knees, so he does.

It's not that Nadal has never been out-played…he certainly has. But sometimes a beating is the thing he needs to say he has to stop and give the knees a rest. If Soderling or Rosol hadn't beaten Nadal in those tournaments, I don't think he'd have lasted to the final, anyway. (Note they happened in RG and Wimbledon. Obviously, he'd push himself into and through those seasons.)

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I just saw this thread. It is very clear that it is not worth wasting time over this as
the OP himself more or less admits that the point of this thread is trolling.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND the bait worked.

THAT is the kind of response I was hoping for. Now, let's see:

Federer basically blamed an entire season (give or take) on a back injury. Essentially, he's saying "I'm winning because I'm healthy" which implies that "I was losing because I wasn't." And yet, that is perfectly OK because...? You're a fan of his.

Nadal loses to Soderling at the FO, SKIPS WIMBLEDON AS THE DEFENDING CHAMPION, yet nothing was impairing him because you couldn't observe it (you see, players should be screaming in pain as they reach for every ball in case they're injured). I'm sure Nadal skipped Wimbledon because he's a mental midget who couldn't get over his loss to Soderling. After all, mental fortitude has never been Nadal's forte. Or maybe he really was injured, but sustained his injury AFTER the Soderling match, while ordering a cab. Makes perfect sense.

Also, anyone who actually pays attention could tell that Nadal wasn't moving well in that Soderling match. No, this isn't some revisionist history. I'll forever keep bringing this up because I have people to back me up on this: I kept saying Nadal was moving poorly that entire clay season, way before Nadal lost to Soderling, and I still remember Haelfix, a very knowledgeable poster and Fed fan, immediately talking about how badly Nadal moved after the Sod match, way before talks of any injury.

Nadal whines about injuries a lot. That doesn't mean that some of them aren't true, especially those that actually force him on the sidelines. Like, the dude skips a major, and yet people still question him.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Either way it's clear as day obvious Federer is moving light years better this year than last so clearly something was up last year.

Absolutely. Except nobody ever questioned whether he really was injured. The point is, if people want to criticize Nadal for bringing up OBVIOUS injuries (not talking about the "shady" ones), then Fed should receive the same courtesy. Or, better yet, how about we cut them both some slack? Wouldn't THAT be an idea!

 

[brokenshoelace]

The difference has already been pointed out. Apart from a handful of matches last year where Federer's movement did appear rigid and stiff at times and he didn't attempt to run down many balls at IW, he otherwise didn't appear to be anything other than crap. Nadal on the other hand, to many, has rarely apart from the AO final this year appeared injured eventhough he claimed to be. Not many people I've talked to said they saw any impairment to his movement against Soderling, Rosol or Darcis, for example. But clearly there was against Wawrinka. That was obvious.

He didn't "appear" to be injured because when he was injured, he took 7 months off, so it was hard for him to "appear" anything while resting at home. That of course, still didn't stop many from questioning the extent of his injury, and I don't think I'm being unfair here, Front.

 

[brokenshoelace]

For Djokovic it is that in 2011 he reached a peak higher than Federer or Nadal ever got to, but was derailed by this or that (relative dying, etc), and his head just hasn't been on straight since (but, of course, if it was he'd be better than Fedal).

I don't see this as true at all

Thank you. Although this was actually a popular narrative in 2012, among some, no matter how much many would like to deny it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Can we also say that, if somebody made a thread about Novak's parents being annoying, I wouldn't (nor would most fans) feel the need to invent narratives of other people's parents being consistently annoying, or to say that Fed, is full of himself, doesn't usually bring about screams that other players behave just like Fed occasionally. Nobody talks about injuries as much or as often as Rafa. It's his main public flaw. They all have them, but don't tell me they all have the same one. Rafa is not a victim, he is a super rich athlete (likeable guy, sure, nothing wrong with him having money either, but what's the big deal with not liking this aspect of him). I also don't see it as a double standard, people get injured and it is fair to bring it up, but rafa always seems injured even when it is not apparent in his game (except for to rafa fans). It's also not like it was a mystery that Fed was having back problems, he just didn't go on about, and he mentioned it again pretty innocuously in the OP's article. It would be a double standard if Fed talked about his back after many of his losses over the last say... 10 or so years, but nobody ever brought it up. Can anyone seriously say Federer talks about injuries on anywhere near the scale Rafa does?

I didn't feel the need to "make up" a thread about Federer's injuries to defend Rafa's, because the quotes in the OP are actually correct, taken from Federer himself. Sorry, but that is a ridiculous analogy. I'm not making anything up to highlight a point, I'm highlighting it with facts. Of course, Fed fans and Novak fans will "like" your post but honestly, much of it isn't even addressing the issue.

For instance, when was the last time Nadal talked about an injury that wasn't apparent? Would you say the Wawrinka injury was apparent? Yes, right? And yet, even THAT caused a shitstorm around here (and I challenge anybody to claim otherwise). Would you say that taking 7 months off implies a serious injury? And that caused an even bigger shitstorm. Would you say that skipping Queens Wimbledon after his 2009 loss to Soderling at the FO and taking 6 weeks off is a sign of injury? And that caused the biggest shitstorm of all. Maybe Rafa always seems injured because he gets injured more often than his rivals? How about that thought? Perhaps Roger doesn't talk about injuries as much because he's not injured as much?

"It would be a double standard if Fed talked about his back after many of his losses over the last say... 10 or so years, but nobody ever brought it up."

Wow, my bait worked even better than I thought. OK, so when did Rafa talk about an old injury? Oh, last year, when he brought up the Rosol loss. Which had taken place TWELVE MONTHS EARLIER. We happen to be exactly 12 months removed from the back injury Fed sustained at IW last year, which he discusses in the article I linked. Hmmm... Yeah, no double standards at all. The only time Nadal brought up an old injury was when someone asked him last year if the Rosol match was similar to the Soderling match at RG 2009. Meaning a media member asked him abut it.

So yeah, sorry, I'm not about to sit here and watch people try to come off as "reasonable" despite the fact that they're ignoring simple facts. But I'm sure you and everyone else who thinks you guys are making great points can tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I never said there was no merit to his injuries, merely that most people would have a hard time telling you he ever looked injured more than a handful of times, most recently and most obviously the AO final this year, he clearly did. But other times when he said he was he didn't appear to be. Not to anyone I've discussed tennis with anyway. And no, they weren't all Federer fans. Some barely watch tennis but said he looked fine against Soderling, Rosol, Darcis and truckloads of others.

And those who watch tennis and thought he looked fine against Soderling and Rosol aren't actually astute observers. I'll say, in terms of movement, he looked better against Rosol than Soderling. Agaisnt Sod, something was so obviously wrong that it baffles me people deny it. Serious question: Has anybody actually bothered to rewatch that match?

Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why he took 7 months off if he wasn't injured against Rosol. The logic astounds me, because apparently the fact that some didn't see something visibly wrong with him (meaning we're going off pure observation skills) somehow holds more merit than him taking 7 months off.

The moment someone actually musters up a convincing argument as to how on earth is that possible is the moment I'll stop harping on this.