The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Haelfix]

hmmm... I didn't find Roger that powerful looking to be honest. But I guess when I met him he was in a suit, and I'm not a small fella either

I was right next to the big four at the USO two years ago, and they walked right by me, so I got a pretty good view. I'm also exactly 6'1 190 and I can tell you that Federer is definitely larger than me in the shoulders (and i'm pretty broad across) and looked heavier (his arms aren't small either, its an optical illusion). Rafa looks maybe a tad lighter. They were both exactly my height.

Sometimes you look at athletes and you wonder how they can generate so much pace. Not so with Federer, he looks the part.

The one that's amusing to see is David Ferrer. You would never guess that he was a professional athlete. He's tiny.

Also Marat Safin and Jim Courier are giants.

 

[Federberg]

I was right next to the big four at the USO two years ago, and they walked right by me, so I got a pretty good view. I'm also exactly 6'1 190 and I can tell you that Federer is definitely larger than me in the shoulders (and i'm pretty broad across) and looked heavier (his arms aren't small either, its an optical illusion). Rafa looks maybe a tad lighter. They were both exactly my height.

Sometimes you look at athletes and you wonder how they can generate so much pace. Not so with Federer, he looks the part.

The one that's amusing to see is David Ferrer. You would never guess that he was a professional athlete. He's tiny.

Also Marat Safin and Jim Courier are giants.

I was standing right next to him and chatted with him for about 15mins, at a bankers even in 2012. He was the special guest for Credit Suisse who sponsor him. Amazingly open when you ask him questions. I've met a few sports stars and hollywood types and only Pat Cash was more chatty than him

 

[Moxie]

Don't think they update the player info too often, so i would take it with a grain of salt. Seeing them in person, Federer has very wide shoulder, somewhat thin chest and is generally lightly built. Nadal on the other hand is very meaty, for lack of better word. In any case i believe Nadal would prefer to play like Federer if he could, as it's a style that's much less demanding than his own, yet still rewards you with some of the best results in history......so technically that makes Roger the overall superior tennis player, as he wins more with less (effort/duration), agreed?

No.

 

[Moxie]

I was right next to the big four at the USO two years ago, and they walked right by me, so I got a pretty good view. I'm also exactly 6'1 190 and I can tell you that Federer is definitely larger than me in the shoulders (and i'm pretty broad across) and looked heavier (his arms aren't small either, its an optical illusion). Rafa looks maybe a tad lighter. They were both exactly my height.

Sometimes you look at athletes and you wonder how they can generate so much pace. Not so with Federer, he looks the part.

The one that's amusing to see is David Ferrer. You would never guess that he was a professional athlete. He's tiny.

Also Marat Safin and Jim Courier are giants.

Thanks for confirming re: Roger/Rafa relative sizes. Writers doing profile pieces on Nadal often remark that he's both taller and more slender than he looks on TV.

Now, I saw Ferrer at breakfast in my hotel in Buenos Aires once. I agree that you wouldn't say "that guy must be a professional athlete," however, he's not "tiny." He's a little taller than me and I'm 5'7". Olivier Rochus is tiny. Also, Jim Courier is works in my neighborhood so I've seen him several times, and he's normal sized. He held the door for me once in a restaurant. Listed at 6'1," which seems right. Safin, however, IS a giant. I saw him on the practice courts at the USO.

 

[Ricardo]

No.

really? player A who spends less time on court, plays with less effort and wins a little bit more than player B, yet A isn't overall better? please enlighten us how you reached that conclusion

any comeback and i will love it

 

[Moxie]

really? player A who spends less time on court, plays with less effort and wins a little bit more than player B, yet A isn't overall better? please enlighten us how you reached that conclusion

any comeback and i will love it

That's not how it was framed above. In any case, I don't agree, except that your player A won more. I don't see how effort needed to produce a win has any bearing on the value of the win, in purely sports terms. Especially across career comparisons, when some were more effortful than others, for both A and B.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That's not how it was framed above. In any case, I don't agree, except that your player A won more. I don't see how effort needed to produce a win has any bearing on the value of the win, in purely sports terms. Especially across career comparisons, when some were more effortful than others, for both A and B.

This reminds me of abstract algebra! :lulz2:

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't necessarily think that Rafa would have beaten Soderling, had it not been for the knees. T

Yes he would have. It's been 8 years, let's start being real about this.

 

[El Dude]

The world according to Rafa fans:

 

[Federberg]

Yes he would have. It's been 8 years, let's start being real about this.

Here we go again. The ultimate Rafa fan woulda coulda. I've been waiting for it!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Here we go again. The ultimate Rafa fan woulda coulda. I've been waiting for it!

A chess coach of mine once said, the lesser you know, the more dogmatic you become. "Never make excuses." "If you're hurt you don't play. If you play, you're not hurt." bla bla bla bla...

Please, I'll be the first to admit Rafa fans are excuse makers. And there's no guaranteeing he would have won any tournament he didn't play in, or any match he lost while supposedly being hurt. But, I also have critical thinking ability, as do the rest of you guys, so it wouldn't hurt to just analyze certain things sometimes.

Are you seriously implying no player ever lost a match they would have otherwise won if they weren't hurt? I'm sure you're not. And yes, your argument, I'm sure, is "if we play that game it's a slippery slope and we can never know..." bla bla bla.

OK sure. Except, we know Nadal was hurt at RG in 2009 as evidenced by skipping Wimbledon and really struggling for the rest of the year. So, how do I know that Nadal losing to Soderling is likely a result of his injury? I look at everything that's happened at the French Open before and after. Yeah, what a coincidence that the 2015 match with Novak aside (where Nadal was playing like garbage all year), it's the only match Nadal ever lost at Roland Garros, when he was visibly moving slower than usual. But yeah, let's also not watch the match and judge for ourselves. It's easier to just assume the injury didn't affect anything and not bother.

I remember posting Magnus Norman's comments from the 2010 final, when Nadal crushed Soderling, where he said that Nadal moved much better in that final than he did in the previous year. But I'm sure it's a coincidence, has nothing to do with injury, and Soderling's own coach is just seeing things. Want me to post the comments?

 

[Moxie]

A chess coach of mine once said, the lesser you know, the more dogmatic you become. "Never make excuses." "If you're hurt you don't play. If you play, you're not hurt." bla bla bla bla...

Please, I'll be the first to admit Rafa fans are excuse makers. And there's no guaranteeing he would have won any tournament he didn't play in, or any match he lost while supposedly being hurt. But, I also have critical thinking ability, as do the rest of you guys, so it wouldn't hurt to just analyze certain things sometimes.

Are you seriously implying no player ever lost a match they would have otherwise won if they weren't hurt? I'm sure you're not. And yes, your argument, I'm sure, is "if we play that game it's a slippery slope and we can never know..." bla bla bla.

OK sure. Except, we know Nadal was hurt at RG in 2009 as evidenced by skipping Wimbledon and really struggling for the rest of the year. So, how do I know that Nadal losing to Soderling is likely a result of his injury? I look at everything that's happened at the French Open before and after. Yeah, what a coincidence that the 2015 match with Novak aside (where Nadal was playing like garbage all year), it's the only match Nadal ever lost at Roland Garros, when he was visibly moving slower than usual. But yeah, let's also not watch the match and judge for ourselves. It's easier to just assume the injury didn't affect anything and not bother.

I remember posting Magnus Norman's comments from the 2010 final, when Nadal crushed Soderling, where he said that Nadal moved much better in that final than he did in the previous year. But I'm sure it's a coincidence, has nothing to do with injury, and Soderling's own coach is just seeing things. Want me to post the comments?

I can't believe this is going to be a Rafa fan v. Rafa fan argument on this, but I'm also surprised you're willing to fall on your sword that Rafa would necessarily have won that match without bad knees. That seems uncharacteristic of you and I thought perhaps someone had hacked your computer. Maybe you're just emphasizing the argument that his knees were indeed pretty fucked.

It was a match played, and Rafa lost, so you only get a little wiggle room to argue against it, in fairness. I absolutely do think that Rafa had very damaged knees and was playing because he's willing to wear a hair shirt for his tennis. However, I think there were extenuating circumstances that also favored Soderling, on that day, too. 1.) Conditions were damp and heavy. (Think Djokovic's 2nd-3rd set run in the final in '12.) 2.) Spite and malice: Everyone wanted to beat Nadal at RG, but ambition isn't nearly as strong a motivator as revenge. There was already bad blood between them, and Nadal had just humiliated Robin in Rome, (and Soderling had also humiliated himself) in a surprisingly close 1-0 blowout. Soderling wanted to beat Nadal probably almost more than anything else in his career, and likewise, Soderling was the absolute last person that Nadal wanted to lose to, especially at RG. 3.) The crowd got behind Soderling. This doesn't usually bother Nadal, but he'd been given a rough ride by the French crowds at RG. Surely, it didn't help.

To me, the first time I ever saw Nadal look stressed and nervous, in the way that Djokovic made him latter look, was against Soderling in that match. The great shock was that Rafa couldn't get past that 4th set TB. But so here's the bottom line: Soderling played the match of his career (to that point) because he wanted to beat Nadal more than life itself. The conditions favored him, and Rafa was more nervous because he so didn't want to lose to RS. I still believe that the knees were an issue, but I think Soderling was the X-factor. I don't think there's any way you can say, with certainly, that Soderling wouldn't have pulled off the upset, anyway. He was Nadal's Panatta on that day.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I can't believe this is going to be a Rafa fan v. Rafa fan argument on this, but I'm also surprised you're willing to fall on your sword that Rafa would necessarily have won that match without bad knees. That seems uncharacteristic of you and I thought perhaps someone had hacked your computer. Maybe you're just emphasizing the argument that his knees were indeed pretty fucked.

Maybe it's because I'm able to differentiate (at least in my mind, not saying I'm necessarily right) between different situations, and that's my big issue here. Look, I'm among the first to call Rafa fans excuse makers, and at times, honestly a tad delusional (again, this is a general statement. There are many exceptions so I don't want to go into the whole "don't generalize" thing). There's no way around it, many of them are. But the question is, are we really pretending certain excuses are never ever valid? Think about that for a second.

You know, I'm aware I'm being condescending here, but just once on these boards I wish people can step outside their usual beliefs and biases and assess each situation individually. So my question is pretty simple: Has a player never lost a match that he would have otherwise won due to something impeding him? I think we all know the answer to that. What makes me chuckle however, is the biases that go into how and when people decide that it's OK to cite injuries without backlash, and when people resort to "OH HERE WE GO AGAIN! EXCUSES!"

This honestly pisses me off because it undermines the quality of the discussion. For instance @Federberg was the one who pointed it out in this thread, in response to my post. Except, Federberg should know through years of interactions around these boards that I don't often make excuses for Nadal. So the "here we go again" thing should not apply. Unless he thinks I speak for all Nadal fans, in which case he should have spared me all those "#NotAllFedFans" posts a while ago when I admittedly harshly generalized to make a specific point.

Now, I get it. I truly understand why people don't want to open this can of worms. Because once you go down that route, then everything becomes fair game and excuses would run rampant. Who's to say when a player is impeded and when he/she isn't? Do we know how many times players are stepping on the court with lingering injuries and win without us ever knowing about their physical issues? Those are fair questions, surely. However, can we not, as smart individuals with years and years of experience watching this sport, and having seen specific players literally hundreds of times, make specific assessments based on what we watch?

Yes, it would be easy to point out to a match that Nadal lost, point out to some injury he disclosed before or after and go: "THERE IT IS, THAT'S WHY HE LOST!" It would be also easy to point out to all those tournaments he missed and award him imaginary trophies despite never participating. That would be lazy, biased and frankly, flat out stupid, because it doesn't lead to an actual instructive discussion. There's nothing to it but wild theories and emotional fans making claims that have no way of being proven.

Now, can I prove that Nadal would have beaten Soderling in 2009? Of course not. However, is it not worth looking at the circumstances before, during and after that match and attempt to make an objective assessment?

So, to me, throughout that clay court season, Nadal was looking slower than usual, and really not hitting the ball well. I remember arguing with Huntingyou about that on the old forums, and nehmeth being particularly surprised with my claims since Nadal was still winning every clay court tournament (this was I believe after Rome 2009). I also distinctly remember Toni mentioning how Nadal's serve and backhands were looking very poor and him needing to improve his level before the French Open.

Coming into the French Open, Elena Dementieva caught the attention of the media when she claimed Nadal would lose at the FO because to her, it seemed like he was moving slower. I couldn't find her exact quotes at the time, but I found these quotes taken a week after the tournament in which she discussed her bold prediction with the media: https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-40388420090617

Of course, the easier thing, when we want to debate this, instead of subscribing to silly restrictive dogmatic notions that one should never make excuses, is to maybe go back and watch some of Nadal's matches from that time, or at least, highlights. Yes, I would understand if people have better things to do, but then if you want to argue about this at least have some arguments that are based on something beyond Nadal fans being typically excuse makers. Yes, they are, but this excuse could actually be valid. The two aren't mutually exclusive. A shocking concept, I'm aware.

Then comes the Soderling match, in which Nadal couldn't defend nearly as well as he used to and was dropping the ball short all afternoon. I wonder, how many people who discuss this match here have actually bothered to re-watch it in the past year or two? Yes. Soderling was hitting the hell out of the ball and played some incredible tennis. Him going hard and flat to Nadal's forehand definitely contributed heavily to Nadal's short balls. It didn't, however, explain why Nadal was moving so below par.

Now what happens after the match? Nadal skips Queens and Wimbledon. He actually tried to play at Wimbledon, by testing the knees in an exhibition match against Lleyton Hewitt. He lost that match in straights and during the match, was overhead telling Toni that he just couldn't bend the knees down low. I wonder how many Fed fans actually remember that. Maybe our resident historian @El Dude knows about it (that was a hilarious graph, I have to admit, and a very good piece of satire... that in no way debunks my argument unfortunately).

So we do know, for a fact, that Nadal was suffering an injury. Just to be clear, is anyone doubting this here? So, since we ARE acknowledging the injury, are you seriously saying it COULDN'T have had an effect on the loss? If so, that is some really stupid logic. "Yeah, he had tendinitis, which hurts, and prevented him from playing at Wimbledon, but it didn't affect his performance." Anyone else realizes how absurd this sounds? So, the other argument could be that Soderling was playing so well that it wouldn't have mattered what Nadal did.

Yeah, except for literally every other match Nadal played at RG (save for the 2015 Novak match when Rafa was a shadow of himself that season), where he won all of them. Interestingly, the same two players met at the Roland Garros final in 2010, and Nadal crushed him in straights.

Kindly, find below the comments made by Magnus Norman, Soderling's coach after that match. 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." http://www.espn.com/sports/tennis/french10/news/story?id=5257268

So Soderling's own coach is stating that Nadal moved better in 2010. Of course, this could mean something else. Maybe it's not that Nadal moved slower than usual in 2009. Maybe Nadal, a year older, and having went through tendinitis, actually moved faster than usual in 2010 (Of course that notion is dumb and absurd, but hey, it's somehow more acceptable than making excuses so let's go with it).

So, does this absolutely prove anything? Of course not. But can anyone seriously tell me this is nothing but bias and delusion?

And my last point is, throughout the whole fucking summer, all I heard from Fed fans was how he was hurt and was dumb to play in Canada. I'm sure @DarthFed remembers that well. Now, of course, we can act dumb and pretend that nobody claimed Roger lost to Del Potro because of his injury... And yeah, I actually don't recall anyone flat out saying it. But are we really pretending ALL that narrative which was spammed over and over didn't serve to maybe suggest as much? Now, is that actually unfair? No. I don't think it's unfair to claim Roger was hampered in New York. I actually think he was. So why is it OK to claim that Roger was hurt and it affected his performance, but not Nadal?

If the answer is that with Roger, it would be an aberration, meaning that it's an isolated and rare case of Fed fans making such a claim, as opposed to Rafa fans who use the injury card more often, then, yes, I cannot deny that this is true. But once again, I ask, how does this debunk the notion that there might be a specific match in which Nadal lost mainly lost due to injury? I mean, it's not like Rafa went on to win the tournament SIX FUCKING TIMES after that Soderling debacle while hardly breaking a sweat throughout. No, I'm sure that, despite knowing that he suffered tendinitis in 2009, which was bad enough for him to pull out of a major immediately after, Rafa's loss to Soderling at Roland freaking Garros was a coincidence. Just a case of Soderling being too good. Rafa had no answer. Luckily, the next year, he found a way to move better that in no way had to do with him being healthier.

 

[El Dude]

There are a couple problems I see with your argument, @brokenshoelace . I mean, first of all, I get and agree with a lot of what you said - and share some of your irritation with peoples' inability to step out of their bias and not fall into habitual reactions. But I think the main problem is that you're looking for an either/or answer: Either Rafa lost that match because he was hurt or because Soderling was playing the match of his life. Why can't it be both?

Another problem is that you are looking for an "objective" perspective, when the very nature of perception is that it is always subjective. Look at that discussion of how Rafa and Roger look in person; everyone is saying something different - some saying that Rafa looks slimmer in person, others that he looks bulky. Which is it? Well, again, perception is subjective.

One thought I'd like to add to the mix is that I think that, in general, great players like Rafa (or Roger and Novak) don't lose if they are playing at their best. Even the best players in their prime lose about 10% of the time, plus or minus a few percentage points, so why is that? I think for one or both of two reasons: Either that great player is injured or simply off their game that day (bad day at the marital office), and/or their opponent is able to do something that keeps them from their A-game. That was Roger's big problem with Rafa: Rafa had a knack (and style of play) that neutralized Roger's best, so it was usually Rafa playing his A-game against Roger's B-game, so Rafa would win most of the time.

Back to Soderling, I don't have the ability to analyze matches like some on this board, and was only a casual fan back in 2009 so didn't watch the match when it happened, but from re-watching highlights a few months ago, my impression was that Soderling was, indeed, playing in a way that neutralized Rafa. He was playing an incredible match, a dominance somewhat reminscient of Stanimal at his best. This isn't to say that Rafa wasn't also injured, but I don't think it was only injury, and in the highlights that I saw it looked more the former than the latter.

Again, I am not saying that Rafa was healthy or that his knees didn't play a factor. But we have to acknowledge, also, that Soderling played great; he did what he needed to do to beat the best clay courter ever on his home turf. Rafa was still playing well enough to beat almost anyone else, so it is no small feat.

 

[Moxie]

Maybe it's because I'm able to differentiate (at least in my mind, not saying I'm necessarily right) between different situations, and that's my big issue here. Look, I'm among the first to call Rafa fans excuse makers, and at times, honestly a tad delusional (again, this is a general statement. There are many exceptions so I don't want to go into the whole "don't generalize" thing). There's no way around it, many of them are. But the question is, are we really pretending certain excuses are never ever valid? Think about that for a second.

You know, I'm aware I'm being condescending here, but just once on these boards I wish people can step outside their usual beliefs and biases and assess each situation individually. So my question is pretty simple: Has a player never lost a match that he would have otherwise won due to something impeding him? I think we all know the answer to that. What makes me chuckle however, is the biases that go into how and when people decide that it's OK to cite injuries without backlash, and when people resort to "OH HERE WE GO AGAIN! EXCUSES!"

This honestly pisses me off because it undermines the quality of the discussion. For instance @Federberg was the one who pointed it out in this thread, in response to my post. Except, Federberg should know through years of interactions around these boards that I don't often make excuses for Nadal. So the "here we go again" thing should not apply. Unless he thinks I speak for all Nadal fans, in which case he should have spared me all those "#NotAllFedFans" posts a while ago when I admittedly harshly generalized to make a specific point.

Now, I get it. I truly understand why people don't want to open this can of worms. Because once you go down that route, then everything becomes fair game and excuses would run rampant. Who's to say when a player is impeded and when he/she isn't? Do we know how many times players are stepping on the court with lingering injuries and win without us ever knowing about their physical issues? Those are fair questions, surely. However, can we not, as smart individuals with years and years of experience watching this sport, and having seen specific players literally hundreds of times, make specific assessments based on what we watch?

Yes, it would be easy to point out to a match that Nadal lost, point out to some injury he disclosed before or after and go: "THERE IT IS, THAT'S WHY HE LOST!" It would be also easy to point out to all those tournaments he missed and award him imaginary trophies despite never participating. That would be lazy, biased and frankly, flat out stupid, because it doesn't lead to an actual instructive discussion. There's nothing to it but wild theories and emotional fans making claims that have no way of being proven.

Now, can I prove that Nadal would have beaten Soderling in 2009? Of course not. However, is it not worth looking at the circumstances before, during and after that match and attempt to make an objective assessment?

So, to me, throughout that clay court season, Nadal was looking slower than usual, and really not hitting the ball well. I remember arguing with Huntingyou about that on the old forums, and nehmeth being particularly surprised with my claims since Nadal was still winning every clay court tournament (this was I believe after Rome 2009). I also distinctly remember Toni mentioning how Nadal's serve and backhands were looking very poor and him needing to improve his level before the French Open.

Coming into the French Open, Elena Dementieva caught the attention of the media when she claimed Nadal would lose at the FO because to her, it seemed like he was moving slower. I couldn't find her exact quotes at the time, but I found these quotes taken a week after the tournament in which she discussed her bold prediction with the media: https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-40388420090617

Of course, the easier thing, when we want to debate this, instead of subscribing to silly restrictive dogmatic notions that one should never make excuses, is to maybe go back and watch some of Nadal's matches from that time, or at least, highlights. Yes, I would understand if people have better things to do, but then if you want to argue about this at least have some arguments that are based on something beyond Nadal fans being typically excuse makers. Yes, they are, but this excuse could actually be valid. The two aren't mutually exclusive. A shocking concept, I'm aware.

Then comes the Soderling match, in which Nadal couldn't defend nearly as well as he used to and was dropping the ball short all afternoon. I wonder, how many people who discuss this match here have actually bothered to re-watch it in the past year or two? Yes. Soderling was hitting the hell out of the ball and played some incredible tennis. Him going hard and flat to Nadal's forehand definitely contributed heavily to Nadal's short balls. It didn't, however, explain why Nadal was moving so below par.

Now what happens after the match? Nadal skips Queens and Wimbledon. He actually tried to play at Wimbledon, by testing the knees in an exhibition match against Lleyton Hewitt. He lost that match in straights and during the match, was overhead telling Toni that he just couldn't bend the knees down low. I wonder how many Fed fans actually remember that. Maybe our resident historian @El Dude knows about it (that was a hilarious graph, I have to admit, and a very good piece of satire... that in no way debunks my argument unfortunately).

So we do know, for a fact, that Nadal was suffering an injury. Just to be clear, is anyone doubting this here? So, since we ARE acknowledging the injury, are you seriously saying it COULDN'T have had an effect on the loss? If so, that is some really stupid logic. "Yeah, he had tendinitis, which hurts, and prevented him from playing at Wimbledon, but it didn't affect his performance." Anyone else realizes how absurd this sounds? So, the other argument could be that Soderling was playing so well that it wouldn't have mattered what Nadal did.

Yeah, except for literally every other match Nadal played at RG (save for the 2015 Novak match when Rafa was a shadow of himself that season), where he won all of them. Interestingly, the same two players met at the Roland Garros final in 2010, and Nadal crushed him in straights.

Kindly, find below the comments made by Magnus Norman, Soderling's coach after that match. 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." http://www.espn.com/sports/tennis/french10/news/story?id=5257268

So Soderling's own coach is stating that Nadal moved better in 2010. Of course, this could mean something else. Maybe it's not that Nadal moved slower than usual in 2009. Maybe Nadal, a year older, and having went through tendinitis, actually moved faster than usual in 2010 (Of course that notion is dumb and absurd, but hey, it's somehow more acceptable than making excuses so let's go with it).

So, does this absolutely prove anything? Of course not. But can anyone seriously tell me this is nothing but bias and delusion?

And my last point is, throughout the whole fucking summer, all I heard from Fed fans was how he was hurt and was dumb to play in Canada. I'm sure @DarthFed remembers that well. Now, of course, we can act dumb and pretend that nobody claimed Roger lost to Del Potro because of his injury... And yeah, I actually don't recall anyone flat out saying it. But are we really pretending ALL that narrative which was spammed over and over didn't serve to maybe suggest as much? Now, is that actually unfair? No. I don't think it's unfair to claim Roger was hampered in New York. I actually think he was. So why is it OK to claim that Roger was hurt and it affected his performance, but not Nadal?

If the answer is that with Roger, it would be an aberration, meaning that it's an isolated and rare case of Fed fans making such a claim, as opposed to Rafa fans who use the injury card more often, then, yes, I cannot deny that this is true. But once again, I ask, how does this debunk the notion that there might be a specific match in which Nadal lost mainly lost due to injury? I mean, it's not like Rafa went on to win the tournament SIX FUCKING TIMES after that Soderling debacle while hardly breaking a sweat throughout. No, I'm sure that, despite knowing that he suffered tendinitis in 2009, which was bad enough for him to pull out of a major immediately after, Rafa's loss to Soderling at Roland freaking Garros was a coincidence. Just a case of Soderling being too good. Rafa had no answer. Luckily, the next year, he found a way to move better that in no way had to do with him being healthier.

While I'm still rather surprised at your tack, I do think I get where you're going, which is an argument that I've been trying to make over the last couple of months. This is why I always think you must have me on "ignore." Has it escaped your notice that I've made the same point? Again and again? Or perhaps it only works for you when you make the argument. You're pointed out your own inclination to condescension. Anyway, you're trying to point out that suddenly Federer fans are caught in the conundrum whereby they want to say that Roger would have done better, had he not been hurt, except that makes them sound like "Nadal fans." It didn't really need that many words. It was actually kind of blatant over the summer. And I believe basically everyone, including non-Fed fans thought that Roger looked injured in the Del Potro match. I'm not sure we'll ever convince Fed fans that part of the reason that Nadal lost in 2009 at RG was due to injury, but they've certainly had a coming to Jesus on the idea that being hampered can result in loss. At least in terms of Roger.

 

[DarthFed]

It's faulty logic to say Rafa lost due to injury based on how he played before and after. Yes he creamed Sod the following year but let's not act like Soderling or any player's level can't fluctuate when comparing different matches. In 2011 mighty Isner took Rafa to 5 and yet he beat Fed in an easy 4 in the final. Tyson lost to Buster Douglas...even Rafa can lose at RG.

As for Fed at USO this year you won't see me blame his back. He lost because he sucked and there may be a bunch of reasons why he sucked including the opponent. Maybe the back played a role but I'm not saying he definitely beats DP that night if he was 100%. Rather you often see me say if Roger plays good there are very few that have a chance and post-injury DP isn't one of them. Fed lost at USO because he played awful just like why he lost to an anorexic Mcfly today.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's faulty logic to say Rafa lost due to injury based on how he played before and after. Yes he creamed Sod the following year but let's not act like Soderling or any player's level can't fluctuate when comparing different matches. In 2011 mighty Isner took Rafa to 5 and yet he beat Fed in an easy 4 in the final. Tyson lost to Buster Douglas...even Rafa can lose at RG..

That's a strawman. Yeah, everything you said above is true. Nadal can lose at RG. Realistically, nobody is unbeatable. And no, I don't think that him beating Soderling the next year validates the injury theory. Him moving much better, coupled with him not moving well the previous year however, puts credence to that theory. Keep in mind most of my logic is based on how he actually looked in that match, which is the one point my whole argument is based on. The better point however, is that we do know for a fact the injury was there. That part is not debatable. So it just dumbfounds me. If the injury IS existent, and it was bad enough for him to skip Wimbledon, why couldn't it have affected his RG performance? Keep in mind, I am not saying Nadal was wheelchair bound. I'm sure if Wimbledon was somehow played on clay, he actually would have participated that year. However, I'm saying that the injury was bad enough that he knew he didn't have much of a chance so he pulled out...and he was the defending champion, and logic dictates that we can safely deduce it affected his RG performance.

As for Fed at USO this year you won't see me blame his back. He lost because he sucked and there may be a bunch of reasons why he sucked including the opponent. Maybe the back played a role but I'm not saying he definitely beats DP that night if he was 100%. Rather you often see me say if Roger plays good there are very few that have a chance and post-injury DP isn't one of them. Fed lost at USO because he played awful just like why he lost to an anorexic Mcfly today.

OK sure, that's the respectable approach, if you will, but are you seriously saying that it's not likely the back injury played a role, given that we KNOW it was there just a few weeks prior? That's my thing with injuries and excuses, why are we so reluctant to accept that sometimes they ARE real when we have real evidence. The Federer back injury isn't some mysterious myth a fan put forward. We know it existed. So there's no need to be in denial just in fear out of being called an excuse maker.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There are a couple problems I see with your argument, @brokenshoelace . I mean, first of all, I get and agree with a lot of what you said - and share some of your irritation with peoples' inability to step out of their bias and not fall into habitual reactions. But I think the main problem is that you're looking for an either/or answer: Either Rafa lost that match because he was hurt or because Soderling was playing the match of his life. Why can't it be both?

From my post above:

"Yes. Soderling was hitting the hell out of the ball and played some incredible tennis. Him going hard and flat to Nadal's forehand definitely contributed heavily to Nadal's short balls. It didn't, however, explain why Nadal was moving so below par."

That pretty much is me recognizing that in fact, it IS both. That is actually my whole argument. Keep something in mind, I truly believe that Nadal would have went on to win the tournament that year even with the injury, had he not lost to Soderling. So I am not saying he was on his deathbed. I'm just saying the state of his knees affected his movement to the point where it was impossible to beat Soderling in that kind of form.

 

[brokenshoelace]

While I'm still rather surprised at your tack, I do think I get where you're going, which is an argument that I've been trying to make over the last couple of months. This is why I always think you must have me on "ignore." Has it escaped your notice that I've made the same point? Again and again? Or perhaps it only works for you when you make the argument. You're pointed out your own inclination to condescension. Anyway, you're trying to point out that suddenly Federer fans are caught in the conundrum whereby they want to say that Roger would have done better, had he not been hurt, except that makes them sound like "Nadal fans." It didn't really need that many words. It was actually kind of blatant over the summer. And I believe basically everyone, including non-Fed fans thought that Roger looked injured in the Del Potro match. I'm not sure we'll ever convince Fed fans that part of the reason that Nadal lost in 2009 at RG was due to injury, but they've certainly had a coming to Jesus on the idea that being hampered can result in loss. At least in terms of Roger.

Wait, just because I didn't reference your posts over the summer, and just because I rehashed an argument you have made earlier because it's relevant to the conversation, doesn't mean I have you on a virtual "ignore." You said it's uncharacteristic of me to make an excuse for Nadal, and I agree, but I also think this excuse is valid. I proceeded to explain why, and in the process went on a tangent that I know you agree with. The tangent was not meant to convince "you." It just fit with the overall spirit of the post. I know you might have viewed it as such since i directly quoted you and it seemed like a response to you but it's more of a general post honestly, hence tagging a couple of different people throughout.

 

[DarthFed]

That's a strawman. Yeah, everything you said above is true. Nadal can lose at RG. Realistically, nobody is unbeatable. And no, I don't think that him beating Soderling the next year validates the injury theory. Him moving much better, coupled with him not moving well the previous year however, puts credence to that theory. Keep in mind most of my logic is based on how he actually looked in that match, which is the one point my whole argument is based on. The better point however, is that we do know for a fact the injury was there. That part is not debatable. So it just dumbfounds me. If the injury IS existent, and it was bad enough for him to skip Wimbledon, why couldn't it have affected his RG performance? Keep in mind, I am not saying Nadal was wheelchair bound. I'm sure if Wimbledon was somehow played on clay, he actually would have participated that year. However, I'm saying that the injury was bad enough that he knew he didn't have much of a chance so he pulled out...and he was the defending champion, and logic dictates that we can safely deduce it affected his RG performance.



OK sure, that's the respectable approach, if you will, but are you seriously saying that it's not likely the back injury played a role, given that we KNOW it was there just a few weeks prior? That's my thing with injuries and excuses, why are we so reluctant to accept that sometimes they ARE real when we have real evidence. The Federer back injury isn't some mysterious myth a fan put forward. We know it existed. So there's no need to be in denial just in fear out of being called an excuse maker.

I don't really disagree with any of the above but I think you know there's a difference between saying Nadal would've won if he wasn't injured and saying the injury probably played a role in his subpar performance.

I'd also add, and have mentioned before, that his tendinitis was probably made a lot worse by that match. He was being run around like a rag doll all day and of course that isn't good when he was already having problems. So the Nadal who pulled out of Wimbledon was likely more injured than the one who faced Sod.