Nadal Would Have Been Crucified...

[brokenshoelace]

An eye for an eye?

The idea of mimicking something that irritates you or bothers you in the pursuit of "fairness" has never made sense to me.

No, but in order to show double standards, you have to tackle both sides of the story.

It's not apples to apples. Roger doesn't have the same reputation as Nadal does. Fair or unfair, it's the reality. Even you are aware of it, and bothered by it, hence the creation of this thread.

If Rafa said what Roger said in '04, '05, '06, no one would bat an eye. Fed says he was hurt, more people take that for what it is. Rafa says he's hurt, more eyebrows raise.

However, pretending that Nadal is the only player to have his injuries questioned is silly. People STILL bring up Fed's mono. It was clear last year something was wrong , or off with Roger. When something is wrong with Rafa it is widely more acknowledged than refuted.

Those who question Nadal aren't going to read this thread and think "Oh you're right! What a hypocrite I've been!" It's just going to make them defensive.

Nadal is literally -- yes, literally -- the first tennis player whose multi-month layoff is questioned. Seven months, and even today, people question that. Nadal got criticized for bringing up the back injury in the Wawrinka match, which was there for the world to see.

My point again, is very clear: If a player is injured, it's perhaps not a problem to say they were injured. Now, when a player cites an injury after every loss, then there's a problem.

 

[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.

Just got back on this thread. All very tiring really

Opinions opinions.. you have one, some of us have another. Rafa looked fine to me in that match. I repeat it was the short balls that really hurt him. I don't care if he had been the bionic man, you put short balls like that the way Soderling was playing, the result would have been the same. If he was achieving the depth that he was getting in the prior round against Hewitt, then maybe you folks might have a leg to stand on.. but nope.. he didn't and you don't. As for Roger making excuses about last season? I don't necessarily disagree with that. But don't start trying to say he's in Rafa's league where excuses are concerned. I've said it many times, you're good enough to get on the court you get what you deserve. Don't go whining about the results! Rafa doesn't get a pass for his whining because old man Roger has started to make a few excuses. Perhaps he's noticed that Rafa never gets called on his nonsense, so why not get a piece of the action :laydownlaughing

And the short balls were in no way related due to his inability to move as well as he normally does, and thus getting to balls a split second later due to his footwork being off...

So once again, the question I've been raising since 2009, that nobody has been able to answer:

If Nadal was not injured in that match, when did that injury take place? Unless of course, you're suggesting that arguably the mentally toughest player of all time needed two months off and just pissed away 2000 points (and lost his number ranking) by willingly choosing to skip Wimbledon.

 

[brokenshoelace]

PS: For anyone telling me this thread isn't going to change anybody's mind...

I never thought of it that way. I mean, I'm totally naïve enough to think every debate ever ends up with someone saying "you know what, I agree. I was wrong. You're right," especially on the internet. And my sole reason for engaging in conversations/debates is to change people's minds. This completely changes my outlook on life.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I find this piece of advice rather obvious but doesn't accomplish much, since you can literally post it in almost every thread here, and thus ending any sort of conversation going. Might as well post that in the thread suggesting Nadal should lose early in Miami and tell the OP that he's not changing anyone's mind. Or whether Novak does better than Murray against big servers...

I don't want to change anybody's mind nor do I care to. I'm just posting my view. I made a tongue in cheek thread that I knew would get people going. However, underneath that is what I feel is a valid point, and people are free to discuss it all they want, agree with it, disagree with it, or ignore it altogether.

 

[britbox]

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.

Just got back on this thread. All very tiring really

Opinions opinions.. you have one, some of us have another. Rafa looked fine to me in that match. I repeat it was the short balls that really hurt him. I don't care if he had been the bionic man, you put short balls like that the way Soderling was playing, the result would have been the same. If he was achieving the depth that he was getting in the prior round against Hewitt, then maybe you folks might have a leg to stand on.. but nope.. he didn't and you don't. As for Roger making excuses about last season? I don't necessarily disagree with that. But don't start trying to say he's in Rafa's league where excuses are concerned. I've said it many times, you're good enough to get on the court you get what you deserve. Don't go whining about the results! Rafa doesn't get a pass for his whining because old man Roger has started to make a few excuses. Perhaps he's noticed that Rafa never gets called on his nonsense, so why not get a piece of the action :laydownlaughing

And the short balls were in no way related due to his inability to move as well as he normally does, and thus getting to balls a split second later due to his footwork being off...

So once again, the question I've been raising since 2009, that nobody has been able to answer:

If Nadal was not injured in that match, when did that injury take place? Unless of course, you're suggesting that arguably the mentally toughest player of all time needed two months off and just pissed away 2000 points (and lost his number ranking) by willingly choosing to skip Wimbledon.

I don't think he got injured during the Soderling match. He was suffering with his knees for a while, and if you read his book he stated he'd completely lost his competitive zeal as his world had been turned upside down by his parents splitting up. I think the Soderling loss brought things to a head and he realized he needed a timeout.

 

[isabelle]

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.

Just got back on this thread. All very tiring really

Opinions opinions.. you have one, some of us have another. Rafa looked fine to me in that match. I repeat it was the short balls that really hurt him. I don't care if he had been the bionic man, you put short balls like that the way Soderling was playing, the result would have been the same. If he was achieving the depth that he was getting in the prior round against Hewitt, then maybe you folks might have a leg to stand on.. but nope.. he didn't and you don't. As for Roger making excuses about last season? I don't necessarily disagree with that. But don't start trying to say he's in Rafa's league where excuses are concerned. I've said it many times, you're good enough to get on the court you get what you deserve. Don't go whining about the results! Rafa doesn't get a pass for his whining because old man Roger has started to make a few excuses. Perhaps he's noticed that Rafa never gets called on his nonsense, so why not get a piece of the action :laydownlaughing

And the short balls were in no way related due to his inability to move as well as he normally does, and thus getting to balls a split second later due to his footwork being off...

So once again, the question I've been raising since 2009, that nobody has been able to answer:

If Nadal was not injured in that match, when did that injury take place? Unless of course, you're suggesting that arguably the mentally toughest player of all time needed two months off and just pissed away 2000 points (and lost his number ranking) by willingly choosing to skip Wimbledon.

I don't think he got injured during the Soderling match. He was suffering with his knees for a while, and if you read his book he stated he'd completely lost his competitive zeal as his world had been turned upside down by his parents splitting up. I think the Soderling loss brought things to a head and he realized he needed a timeout.

True, Nadal had an infiltration several days ago and he should have pulled out, when you have an infiltration, you absolutely need to rest if not....you know what happened...out during 6 weeks...
he should treat his body much better than he does IMO

 

[Kieran]

The idea that Rafa wasn't injured at Paris in 2009 is the virulent bug that this vuris scan thread has uncovered. It's tenacious and bold, this one. It's held deeply by peeps who don't like Ralphy. And yes, his family problems darkened his mind, but it was the degradation of the knees which forced him to stop: he could no longer compete.

From his book: I felt the first twinges in Miami, at the end of March. The pain got worse week by week, but I managed to keep playing through it until early May, in Madrid, when I couldn’t keep going anymore. Mind could no longer overcome matter and I took a break.

I came back a couple of weeks later for the French Open. Maybe I should not have competed at Roland Garros, but I had won the championship the previous four years and I felt a duty to defend my crown, however unlikely the prospect of victory felt. Sure enough, I lost in the fourth round to Robin Soderling of Sweden, my first ever defeat in that tournament.

I've seen people who deny the injuries, but appeal to his own words in his book for parental reasons for his absence at Wimbledon. From the same book, they ignore many passages like the one above.

He was injured.

The net effect of his knees in the Sod match was the inability to thrust off and drive the ball deep, resulting in them shorties which Sod was gleefully able to decapitate...

 

[britbox]

^ 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.

 

[Kieran]

I know you're not denying the injury, brother, but remarkably, there are those that do...

 

[huntingyou]

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.

 

[House]

An eye for an eye?

The idea of mimicking something that irritates you or bothers you in the pursuit of "fairness" has never made sense to me.

No, but in order to show double standards, you have to tackle both sides of the story.

It's not apples to apples. Roger doesn't have the same reputation as Nadal does. Fair or unfair, it's the reality. Even you are aware of it, and bothered by it, hence the creation of this thread.

If Rafa said what Roger said in '04, '05, '06, no one would bat an eye. Fed says he was hurt, more people take that for what it is. Rafa says he's hurt, more eyebrows raise.

However, pretending that Nadal is the only player to have his injuries questioned is silly. People STILL bring up Fed's mono. It was clear last year something was wrong , or off with Roger. When something is wrong with Rafa it is widely more acknowledged than refuted.

Those who question Nadal aren't going to read this thread and think "Oh you're right! What a hypocrite I've been!" It's just going to make them defensive.

Nadal is literally -- yes, literally -- the first tennis player whose multi-month layoff is questioned. Seven months, and even today, people question that. Nadal got criticized for bringing up the back injury in the Wawrinka match, which was there for the world to see.

My point again, is very clear: If a player is injured, it's perhaps not a problem to say they were injured. Now, when a player cites an injury after every loss, then there's a problem.

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.

You're trying to act like Fed and Nadal are complete equals when it comes to getting hurt, and discussing their injuries. Roger's had, what, 4 or 5 big injuries in his career? So to some, not myself, he is a more credible injured person. Rafa, sadly, has been hurt constantly and frequently in his career, announcements of which often follow a loss. Which makes sense that if you are hurt, you likely won't win. However it also starts the bad rap, of "only loses when he's hurt."

Nadal fans also serve to fuel this flame by themselves excusing losses for poor health, even when Rafa claims he's fine.

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.

 

[Kieran]

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.

Exactly. In the minds of some.

You're trying to act like Fed and Nadal are complete equals when it comes to getting hurt, and discussing their injuries. Roger's had, what, 4 or 5 big injuries in his career? So to some, not myself, he is a more credible injured person.

So, Federer is more credible because...he's injured less? So Rafa gets a bad rap, because he's injured more?

That, my friend, is a perfect example of adding insult to injury...

 

[House]

PS: For anyone telling me this thread isn't going to change anybody's mind...

I never thought of it that way. I mean, I'm totally naïve enough to think every debate ever ends up with someone saying "you know what, I agree. I was wrong. You're right," especially on the internet. And my sole reason for engaging in conversations/debates is to change people's minds. This completely changes my outlook on life.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I find this piece of advice rather obvious but doesn't accomplish much, since you can literally post it in almost every thread here, and thus ending any sort of conversation going. Might as well post that in the thread suggesting Nadal should lose early in Miami and tell the OP that he's not changing anyone's mind. Or whether Novak does better than Murray against big servers...

I don't want to change anybody's mind nor do I care to. I'm just posting my view. I made a tongue in cheek thread that I knew would get people going. However, underneath that is what I feel is a valid point, and people are free to discuss it all they want, agree with it, disagree with it, or ignore it altogether.

Roundabout way of saying you don't care that I think this thread accomplishes nothing more than working people up

This thread is clearly not like most threads on the forum, certainly not in the same tone as a, "Who handles big serves better?", thread.

Thankfully those thoughts are just my opinion as well. And seeing as you created this thread, I also held no hopes you would change your mind to see things my way. Agree, disagree, or ignore applies to my posts as well. Doesn't bother me.

 

[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.

Exactly. In the minds of some.

You're trying to act like Fed and Nadal are complete equals when it comes to getting hurt, and discussing their injuries. Roger's had, what, 4 or 5 big injuries in his career? So to some, not myself, he is a more credible injured person.

So, Federer is more credible because...he's injured less? So Rafa gets a bad rap, because he's injured more?

That, my friend, is a perfect example of adding insult to injury...

Such a small minority questions every single injury though. And only those that clearly, and blatantly, have an axe to grind against Nadal, bring it up constantly.

Like I said though, not in my mind, but if someone calls off of work sick every single week, you become numb to their idea of "sick." However, if someone who never misses work ever, suddenly calls of sick, they would seem more reputable. I don't subscribe to this logic, but it's not hard for me to follow. If a player says their hurt? Their hurt. Even if I thought they were lying I couldn't possibly prove it, so why waste time with conspiracies.

But when the question starts becoming "Why does Roger get a pass for saying he's hurt", I think it comes back to the credibility issue some seem to have.

Conversely, I think Nadal gets a lot of slack on certain issues that Roger would get absolutely toasted for, so it goes both ways. All comes down to the agenda of the person I suppose.

 

[Riotbeard]

Roundabout way of saying you don't care that I think this thread accomplishes nothing more than working people up

This thread is clearly not like most threads on the forum, certainly not in the same tone as a, "Who handles big serves better?", thread.

:clap :laydownlaughing

 

[Kieran]

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:

 

[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.

 

[Kieran]

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 if 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. As nonsense.

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

We'd have to board up the forum and put the For Sale signs on the windows. A forum only exists because fans are rabid insatiable utterly biased irrational lunatics who fight by proxy for their player when he's too busy to post...

 

[El Dude]

Keiran, I think that's true to some extent, although is a bit of a red herring if you're using it to explain all/most criticisms of Rafa as jealous Fed fans (or vice versa).

I think two statements can be true at the same time:

1. Rafa has been legitimately injured quite a bit, moreso than Federer, and it is possible that many/some of his losses were greatly impacted by injury.

2. There is a tendency among Rafa fans, perhaps inspired by Rafa himself, to explain away a large percentage of disappointing losses to injury.

I'm sure you agree with the first, but even if you disagree with the second can you at least entertain the possibility that its a valid perspective and that the many who share it to some degree or another, aren't simply or inherently jealous Fed fans - or don't necessarily believe it because they are Fed fans, but perhaps are able to see it because they are not Nadalites?

Again, I'm not asking you to agree with the 2nd point, but I am asking you to be open to the possibility that A) it is a valid perspective, and B) the people that believe it don't inherently believe it because they are (jealous) Fed fans.

 

[Kieran]

Keiran, I think that's true to some extent, although is a bit of a red herring if you're using it to explain all/most criticisms of Rafa as jealous Fed fans (or vice versa).

I think two statements can be true at the same time:

1. Rafa has been legitimately injured quite a bit, moreso than Federer, and it is possible that many/some of his losses were greatly impacted by injury.

Self-evidently true. Only a dishonest person would deny it.

2. There is a tendency among Rafa fans, perhaps inspired by Rafa himself, to explain away a large percentage of disappointing losses to injury.

Now, here's the thing. Looking back, I'm trying to recall where Rafa fans last used injury as an excuse. Okay, Oz, which everyone agrees, but did any of us say that "if Rafa had been well, he'd have won?"

No, we didn't, despite the best efforts of a certain poster to insist we did. In fact, we congratulated Stan, while sucking lemons and wondering what might have been.

The late defeats last year - injury? :nono

Darcis? :nono

Nole in Monte Carlo? :nono

Rosol? Even though Rafa missed seven months immediately afterwards? :nono Everyone here gave Rosol credit and we didn't cite injury. If I had a complaint there, it would be against the committee for shutting the roof just after Rafa won the fourth. But really, Rosol "chanelled Sampras" as a friend here told me, and I took his word for it. I didn't see it, nor did I see a huge outcry from rafa fans about injuries.

The Nole-domination of Rafa in 2011, and then Oz 2012? :nono

The Ferrer defeat at Oz in 2011? Yes, his hamstring went in the third game, but not a huge deal was made of it.

Murray in Oz in 2010? He was down two sets before he retired, most of us knew he wasn't winning that one: he hadn't beaten a top ten player since clay in 2009.

So when I see people say, oh Rafa fans make excuses for injury, I'm at a loss. The game then shifts to other - unspecified - websites, where this kind of excuse-hankering is prevalent, but be careful where you go on the web, right? there's folks out there who think all umps are lizards... uzzled

 

[Riotbeard]

Keiran, I think that's true to some extent, although is a bit of a red herring if you're using it to explain all/most criticisms of Rafa as jealous Fed fans (or vice versa).

I think two statements can be true at the same time:

1. Rafa has been legitimately injured quite a bit, moreso than Federer, and it is possible that many/some of his losses were greatly impacted by injury.

Self-evidently true. Only a dishonest person would deny it.

2. There is a tendency among Rafa fans, perhaps inspired by Rafa himself, to explain away a large percentage of disappointing losses to injury.

Now, here's the thing. Looking back, I'm trying to recall where Rafa fans last used injury as an excuse. Okay, Oz, which everyone agrees, but did any of us say that "if Rafa had been well, he'd have won?"

No, we didn't, despite the best efforts of a certain poster to insist we did. In fact, we congratulated Stan, while sucking lemons and wondering what might have been.

The late defeats last year - injury? :nono

Darcis? :nono

Nole in Monte Carlo? :nono

Rosol? Even though Rafa missed seven months immediately afterwards? :nono Everyone here gave Rosol credit and we didn't cite injury. If I had a complaint there, it would be against the committee for shutting the roof just after Rafa won the fourth. But really, Rosol "chanelled Sampras" as a friend here told me, and I took his word for it. I didn't see it, nor did I see a huge outcry from rafa fans about injuries.

The Nole-domination of Rafa in 2011, and then Oz 2012? :nono

The Ferrer defeat at Oz in 2011? Yes, his hamstring went in the third game, but not a huge deal was made of it.

Murray in Oz in 2010? He was down two sets before he retired, most of us knew he wasn't winning that one: he hadn't beaten a top ten player since clay in 2009.

So when I see people say, oh Rafa fans make excuses for injury, I'm at a loss. The game then shifts to other - unspecified - websites, where this kind of excuse-hankering is prevalent, but be careful where you go on the web, right? there's folks out there who think all umps are lizards... uzzled

And I get sucked back in...

People did cite injury (not Rafa), in the monte carlo loss last year, and when was the last time a rafa fan cited injury, why in his last loss to Alexandr Dogolpolv (sp?). Not everyone did, but there were certainly some.