Nadal Would Have Been Crucified...

[Federberg]

Yeah, pick a racial stereotype and run with that. Well done, son, we know you're a bit off, but that's not the way to prove it... :nono

If I offended it was unintentional, and I apologise. You've made comments about having a tipple before. I guess such things aren't symmetric. I'll keep that in mind in future. Coming from a minority ethnic group myself, I often assume others are as thick skinned as I am.

Obviously that in no way invalidates my comments on the topic at hand...

 

[Kieran]

Well, Moxie's quote says Nole has done well against a "post-injury" Nadal. Was he more "tentative" because of the injuries? I don't think so: I think he was more tentative because Nole battered sense into him... :snigger

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, pick a racial stereotype and run with that. Well done, son, we know you're a bit off, but that's not the way to prove it... :nono

If I offended it was unintentional, and I apologise. You've made comments about having a tipple before. I guess such things aren't symmetric. I'll keep that in mind in future. Coming from a minority ethnic group myself, I often assume others are as thick skinned as I am.

Obviously that in no way invalidates my comments on the topic at hand...

I am thick-skinned and I like a drink, though not too often as it happens. Certainly not enough to conform to some drunken Oirishman stereotype.

Your comments invalidate themselves, brother - and no offence is taken. Sorry for reacting so strong... :smooch

 

[Federberg]

Yeah, pick a racial stereotype and run with that. Well done, son, we know you're a bit off, but that's not the way to prove it... :nono

If I offended it was unintentional, and I apologise. You've made comments about having a tipple before. I guess such things aren't symmetric. I'll keep that in mind in future. Coming from a minority ethnic group myself, I often assume others are as thick skinned as I am.

Obviously that in no way invalidates my comments on the topic at hand...

I am thick-skinned and I like a drink, though not too often as it happens. Certainly not enough to conform to some drunken Oirishman stereotype.

Your comments invalidate themselves, brother - and no offence is taken. Sorry for reacting so strong... :smooch

haha! Mate.. you're funny. It's not enough to say you're thick skinned. You have to walk the walk. If you're going to make humorous comments about having a drink, then attribute a posters attempt at humor about said drinking to racism that says more about you than anything else

Never mind. I wouldn't want to upset your delicate sensitivities again, so we'll leave it with us disagreeing. Let's face it, it was always going to be that way :snigger

As for 'we know you're a bit off'? You may be arrogant enough to believe you speak for others on these boards, but I'm afraid you don't. Sad it needed saying but there it is.

Sigh... now it sounds like I'm offended. I'm not. I just felt I had to make those observations

 

[Kieran]

haha! Mate.. you're funny. It's not enough to say you're thick skinned. You have to walk the walk. If you're going to make humorous comments about having a drink, then attribute a posters attempt at humor about said drinking to racism that says more about you than anything else

Never mind. I wouldn't want to upset your delicate sensitivities again, so we'll leave it with us disagreeing. Let's face it, it was always going to be that way :snigger

As for 'we know you're a bit off'? You may be arrogant enough to believe you speak for others on these boards, but I'm afraid you don't. Sad it needed saying but there it is.

Sigh... now it sounds like I'm offended. I'm not. I just felt I had to make those observations

You know, you always get to make a sly comment, then weasel back in. That passive-aggressive stuff is a bit yella, you know what I mean. I know, you described yourself elsewhere as a "scorpion" - I knew what you meant. Next time you feel like apologising, either mean it sincerely or shove it...

 

[Federberg]

haha! Mate.. you're funny. It's not enough to say you're thick skinned. You have to walk the walk. If you're going to make humorous comments about having a drink, then attribute a posters attempt at humor about said drinking to racism that says more about you than anything else

Never mind. I wouldn't want to upset your delicate sensitivities again, so we'll leave it with us disagreeing. Let's face it, it was always going to be that way :snigger

As for 'we know you're a bit off'? You may be arrogant enough to believe you speak for others on these boards, but I'm afraid you don't. Sad it needed saying but there it is.

Sigh... now it sounds like I'm offended. I'm not. I just felt I had to make those observations

You know, you always get to make a sly comment, then weasel back in. That passive-aggressive stuff is a bit yella, you know what I mean. I know, you described yourself elsewhere as a "scorpion" - I knew what you meant. Next time you feel like apologising, either mean it sincerely or shove it...

This could go on and on... sigh..

I'll make an effort to ignore your posts in future. Perhaps if you do the same?

 

[Kieran]

Listen son, if you're gonna bring base racial stereotypes into your "humour", either signal them as such, and don't apologise - or else apologise and mean it.

Don't go biting at me about it, because I acted graciously towards you...

 

[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.

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.

Nadal certainly did not injure himself against Soderling. The kind of injury he had is not the kind you just sustain in one match anyway. The first injury he had was in Rotterdam that year, and then in Miami it kicked in again. As I said, it was pretty obvious throughout the clay season that he wasn't moving well.

 

[Riotbeard]

Whole thread soon after wimbledon last year, about how the london climate will irritate rafa's knee, forrrrrreeeevvvvveeerrrrrrrr.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=529&pid=13202&highlight=injury#pid13202

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

Nobody suggested he got injured in the Soderling match, I don't think. And the argument that he thrashed Hewitt in the same tournament has been thrown around often and my stance has always been the same: So?

Different opponent, different day, different circumstances. I don't think anyone would deny that Soderling played at an incredible level. It's not like Nadal was completely crippled out there. He still needed an opponent to put on a hell of a performance in order for him to be taken out.

 

[Kieran]

:lolz: :clap

I'm getting nervous, Riotbeard. You're going through all the old posts. I think there's one of mine from a while back - Rafa dropped a set against Roger and I attributed it to his knees. I mean, what else could it be? :snigger

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Riotbeard]

:lolz: :clap

I'm getting nervous, Riotbeard. You're going through all the old posts. I think there's one of mine from a while back - Rafa dropped a set against Roger and I attributed it to his knees. I mean, what else could it be? :snigger

:lolz: I am a historian by trade (or at least in the fourth year of getting my PhD), so as a break from looking for bad things people said in the nineteenth century, I am going to every once and a while go through a page or two of of comments with the word injury. There are only 52 pages left.

 

[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.

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.

You're not telling me anything I don't know, as my intentions were absolutely to get people worked up. It's not like I was subtle about it. But people can be worked up and have a conversation at the same time. My criticism at your comment was not that you implied I'm trying to get people worked up (yes, I am), but at the "you won't change anyone's mind" thing, since I'm really not trying to, nor am I naive enough to think that such a thing is possible.

 

[Kieran]

:lolz: :clap

I'm getting nervous, Riotbeard. You're going through all the old posts. I think there's one of mine from a while back - Rafa dropped a set against Roger and I attributed it to his knees. I mean, what else could it be? :snigger

:lolz: I am a historian by trade (or at least in the fourth year of getting my PhD), so as a break from looking for bad things people said in the nineteenth century, I am going to every once and a while go through a page or two of of comments with the word injury. There are only 52 pages left.

Oh no, we're rumbled: in the nineteenth century, great-great-granda Nadal skipped a war against Switzerland through dodgy knees! Everyone at the time said it was just an excuse, but his fans knew differently...

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I'll give you this: Nadal fans make plenty of injury excuses, more so than Nadal himself. I actually co-sign with much of the above post.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

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

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

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

Agreed, but where's the fun in that?

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

In the interest of fairness, I must point out that this is indeed true.

 

[Riotbeard]

:lolz: :clap

I'm getting nervous, Riotbeard. You're going through all the old posts. I think there's one of mine from a while back - Rafa dropped a set against Roger and I attributed it to his knees. I mean, what else could it be? :snigger

:lolz: I am a historian by trade (or at least in the fourth year of getting my PhD), so as a break from looking for bad things people said in the nineteenth century, I am going to every once and a while go through a page or two of of comments with the word injury. There are only 52 pages left.

Oh no, we're rumbled: in the nineteenth century, great-great-granda Nadal skipped a war against Switzerland through dodgy knees! Everyone at the time said it was just an excuse, but his fans knew differently...

Great-Great-Granda Nadal's knee was fine in Spain, but once got to the cold climate of central Europe, he could not continue. Plus the kick on the rifle hurt his back. :laydownlaughing

 

[Kieran]

:lolz: :clap

I'm getting nervous, Riotbeard. You're going through all the old posts. I think there's one of mine from a while back - Rafa dropped a set against Roger and I attributed it to his knees. I mean, what else could it be? :snigger

:lolz: I am a historian by trade (or at least in the fourth year of getting my PhD), so as a break from looking for bad things people said in the nineteenth century, I am going to every once and a while go through a page or two of of comments with the word injury. There are only 52 pages left.

Oh no, we're rumbled: in the nineteenth century, great-great-granda Nadal skipped a war against Switzerland through dodgy knees! Everyone at the time said it was just an excuse, but his fans knew differently...

Great-Great-Granda Nadal's knee was fine in Spain, but once got to the cold climate of central Europe, he could not continue. Plus the kick on the rifle hurt his back. :laydownlaughing

Definite match-up issue with the rifle. Anyone who thinks match-ups don't count is getting mowed down in a war. Not being able to sleep in the dark was what really cost him in that war, though. Not too many soldiers fancied his mother and she had to be there to tuck him in... :snigger