The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[El Dude]

OK, fair enough - you know Nadal's game far better than I, so I'll take your word for it.

It may go back to what I said in this thread or elsewhere--I can't remember--that a truly great player like Rafa (or Roger and Novak) only loses in his prime when either A) he is injured/not feeling well physically or mentally, and/or B) his opponent has a style or strategy that neutralizes his A-game.

I think where you and I both agree is that some degree of A and B were involved, whereas the diehard Rafa fans say it is only or almost entirely A, and the diehard Rafa-haters or Fedfans say it is only/mostly B. You and I might shake hands on either side of that aisle in the middle - not quite agreeing on to what degree it was A or B, but more moderate than the "extremists." Yes?

So if I take your word that Rafa was, indeed, at least somewhat impaired, and couple that with the obvious fact that Soderling was playing an incredible match, we see that the loss is due to both factors. It is just unclear to what degree.

If we look at it as a Likert scale from -3 to +3, with -3 being "injury only" and +3 being "Soderling beast mode only," and 0 being exactly even, then I'm guessing you're at -1 and I'm at +1...or something like that. And what I hear you saying is that it wasn't +2 or +3, but you're also saying it wasn't -2 or -3. Is that about right?

 

[Moxie]

He took TWO WHOLE MONTHS off to rest. What's so difficult to understand? I don't agree with Moxie that his knees were THAT shot by the way. If they were, he would have been out for 7 months the way he was in 2012 (or as you would call it, a silent ban), not 9 weeks, but the idea that him reaching the US Open semis (what a result, he should have gotten a trophy for it! Let's ignore how Del Potro destroyed him by the way...) somehow implies his knee issue wasn't serious at RG/Wimbledon is a joke.

FYI, Nadal lost to Soderling at Roland Garros on May 31. He lost to Del Potro at the US Open on September 13. That's well over THREE MONTHS LATER.

With logic like this you shouldn't call out Nadal fans for "getting on the nerves of anyone." So please, everyone, let's stop calling out fanbases and agree that they all have their problems and admit we're all biased (the fact that a fellow Fed fan liked your post shows how programmed we are for confirmation bias).

I'm not sure why we really have to debate the "extent" of the injury, as long as folks are willing to say that he was injured at that point in his career, and that's why he took a lay-off. I don't really even care if non-Nadal fans think the injury had no bearing on the loss. What's the difference, in the end? As long as folks are not totally denying he was injured, as I believe Front still would prefer to. I have stated (countless times) that I don't think that Nadal lost only because he was injured, and that a lot of factors went into the dynamics of that match.

Now, in my defense, as a Nadal fan, I did followed his progress a lot after he bowed out of Wimbledon, including in the Spanish press, and even translating long interviews/articles for the old forum. I don't expect non-Nadal fans to have cared that much. I can't find any one article, and I suspect no one would read it, anyway, so I'll tell you what I remember: he had a sizable tear on each tendon, and bruising on the bone of each knee. (Ok, not 'hanging on by a thread,' but torn.) His doctors used a variety of therapies, including a machine that he slept with that sent electrical impulses into the tendon to help knit it. Also something to do with platelets. They published X-rays of the tendons when they were knitted back, showing a flat spot where the tears had been, and stating they would never be the same, but they were successfully repaired.

In the long interview that Nadal gave to TVE (the Spanish equivalent of the BBC,) he said that he'd been used to playing with pain, but had failed to recognize/admit to himself that it wasn't normal pain, and that he was doing more damage by playing. For those who keep referring to how Nadal was moving and offering videos to prove it, I think we have established, over the years, that Rafa has a pretty high tolerance for pain. In any case, I appreciate your analysis that shows how the movement can anyway be seen as compromised, upon closer review.

It's interesting how divisive this particular match still is amongst the fanbases. It's like the Rosetta Stone of "Nadal fans only think he loses when injured," no matter what we say. I challenged someone on this thread to say how many matches I've personally claimed that, but I didn't get a response.

 

[El Dude]

It's interesting how divisive this particular match still is amongst the fanbases. It's like the Rosetta Stone of "Nadal fans only think he loses when injured," no matter what we say. I challenged someone on this thread to say how many matches I've personally claimed that, but I didn't get a response.

But it goes both ways, yes?

Also, I see the 2014 AO final as another hotspot for this dynamic.

 

[Moxie]

But it goes both ways, yes?

Also, I see the 2014 AO final as another hotspot for this dynamic.

What's the "other way," really? That Federer only loses when injured or has mono? I don't think there's any equivalent, as none of the other Big 4 have suffered as many injuries and injury lay-offs as Nadal, which is why it's such a topic of discussion.

As to that AO final v. Wawrinka, yes, I think that's the one that got away.

 

[El Dude]

What's the "other way," really? That Federer only loses when injured or has mono? I don't think there's any equivalent, as none of the other Big 4 have suffered as many injuries and injury lay-offs as Nadal, which is why it's such a topic of discussion.

As to that AO final v. Wawrinka, yes, I think that's the one that got away.

No, by "both ways" I meant that Rafa fans are particularly defensive about the 2009 RG. Wasn't talking about Roger at all.

But if we must, I think the Fedfan denial is less about physical injury--as with Rafa fans--and more about mental lapses. Both fan groups tend to think that every match is on their player's racket--which is partially true, which is why it is so easy to think that way.

 

[Moxie]

No, by "both ways" I meant that Rafa fans are particularly defensive about the 2009 RG. Wasn't talking about Roger at all.

But if we must, I think the Fedfan denial is less about physical injury--as with Rafa fans--and more about mental lapses. Both fan groups tend to think that every match is on their player's racket--which is partially true, which is why it is so easy to think that way.

I honestly don't think we are particularly defensive about the RG 09. Funny, it seems to me that it's the Fedfans that like to revisit it so much, which I find slightly incomprehensible. FYI, reading back over this thread, the whole kerfuffle started again because we were debating the 2008 Wimbledon, and why Roger lost. I think you have to say we are WAY less defensive about Nadal losing to Soderling at RG than Fedfans are about Roger losing to Rafa at W in '08. All we want is that you acknowledge that he was carrying an injury, not even that it's why he lost. Which you and Darth have acknowledged, in fairness. That was a painful loss, but I think we're over it. Personally, I only find myself debating it again when you lot bring it up.

Interesting that what you say about RG being about a mental lapse. Perhaps this explains why we see it differently and debate it so much. Ding, ding, maybe the bell goes off, eh? Fed fans want it to be a chink in his mental armor, not the fault of his knees? I can get that. I have said that I think that Soderling was perfectly placed to get under Nadal's skin in that match. I do think it was the first crack in his mental strength, which I've said before. He really didn't want to lose to the Swede on that day, and it hurt him. Does that help?

 

[Carol]

Can someone explain why Nadal didn't play Wimbledon 2009 and also was three months off?

 

[El Dude]

@Moxie, this whole thing really doesn't bother me - so not sure why anything you say would help or not help.

As for the mental lapse, I was talking about how some Fedfans blame his most painful losses on him playing bad, or a mental lapse, rather than just being out-played - because the great maestro cannot possibly be outplayed ;-).

As for 2008 Wimbledon, that is one of those matches that either player could have won - it was so close, that if they had played for 20 sets it would probably be 10-10. In a way Rafa was just lucky enough to go up at the right time. My point being, I don't see it as this terrible loss. Rafa just had the more fortuitous timing in terms of going up in the score when it most counted.

But I do think that the Fedfan complaint about that is similar to the Rafa complaint about RG 2009: how could Roger possibly lose on grass? How could Rafa lose at RG? It is, to quote The Princess Bride, "inconceivable!" But I see it more that by 2008, Rafa had reached his peak and Roger was a year or two removed from his. So Rafa at his very best (2008-10) on grass was = to Roger at his post-peak plateau on grass (2008 and on), not better. I can live with that. Roger was better grass for the years before and after that range, but not in those few years. Sorry, Darth.

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie, this whole thing really doesn't bother me - so not sure why anything you say would help or not help.

As for the mental lapse, I was talking about how some Fedfans blame his most painful losses on him playing bad, or a mental lapse, rather than just being out-played - because the great maestro cannot possibly be outplayed ;-).

As for 2008 Wimbledon, that is one of those matches that either player could have won - it was so close, that if they had played for 20 sets it would probably be 10-10. In a way Rafa was just lucky enough to go up at the right time. My point being, I don't see it as this terrible loss. Rafa just had the more fortuitous timing in terms of going up in the score when it most counted.

But I do think that the Fedfan complaint about that is similar to the Rafa complaint about RG 2009: how could Roger possibly lose on grass? How could Rafa lose at RG? It is, to quote The Princess Bride, "inconceivable!" But I see it more that by 2008, Rafa had reached his peak and Roger was a year or two removed from his. So Rafa at his very best (2008-10) on grass was = to Roger at his post-peak plateau on grass (2008 and on), not better. I can live with that. Roger was better grass for the years before and after that range, but not in those few years. Sorry, Darth.

I hear what you're saying about "mental lapse" and some Fed fans. They, more than any other fan base believe that the match is on his racquet. He is TMF, but it isn't always up to him. I won't disagree with you about Wimbledon '08, in that either could have won. And Rafa was lucky to have been peaking at that particular moment, and he capped Roger by an inch.

I let go of that '09 RG loss ages ago. I only still argue it when folks try to say that Rafa wasn't injured at that point, or that Rafa fans are making excuses about it. Streaks end. It may be sports superstition to say this, but, if Nadal hadn't lost in '09, who'd to say then that he wouldn't have lost, say, in that final to Roger in '11 or the SF v. Novak in '13? 10 in a row would have been "Inconceivable!" to go back to The Princess Bride.

 

[Federberg]

I hear what you're saying about "mental lapse" and some Fed fans. They, more than any other fan base believe that the match is on his racquet. He is TMF, but it isn't always up to him. I won't disagree with you about Wimbledon '08, in that either could have won. And Rafa was lucky to have been peaking at that particular moment, and he capped Roger by an inch.

I let go of that '09 RG loss ages ago. I only still argue it when folks try to say that Rafa wasn't injured at that point, or that Rafa fans are making excuses about it. Streaks end. It may be sports superstition to say this, but, if Nadal hadn't lost in '09, who'd to say then that he wouldn't have lost, say, in that final to Roger in '11 or the SF v. Novak in '13? 10 in a row would have been "Inconceivable!" to go back to The Princess Bride.

Really? With all the injury excuses, you're comfortable leveling that accusation?

 

[Federberg]

Oooooooooooooooooooor, and hear me out, I know this might sound crazy, but you can bother to respond the actual arguments that were laid out relatively objectively and give your own point of view instead of posting something that's more or less worthless. I like you buddy, you know that, but if you guys want to discuss a particular subject, do it, instead of ignoring whatever arguments are presented and resort to ironic statements such as the one above. If you were debating Carol, I'd understand, but that's not the case.

I confess I've not given this topic my full attention this weekend. I'll read through and catch up with your arguments in the next few days

 

[atttomole]

@Moxie, this whole thing really doesn't bother me - so not sure why anything you say would help or not help.

As for the mental lapse, I was talking about how some Fedfans blame his most painful losses on him playing bad, or a mental lapse, rather than just being out-played - because the great maestro cannot possibly be outplayed ;-).

As for 2008 Wimbledon, that is one of those matches that either player could have won - it was so close, that if they had played for 20 sets it would probably be 10-10. In a way Rafa was just lucky enough to go up at the right time. My point being, I don't see it as this terrible loss. Rafa just had the more fortuitous timing in terms of going up in the score when it most counted.

But I do think that the Fedfan complaint about that is similar to the Rafa complaint about RG 2009: how could Roger possibly lose on grass? How could Rafa lose at RG? It is, to quote The Princess Bride, "inconceivable!" But I see it more that by 2008, Rafa had reached his peak and Roger was a year or two removed from his. So Rafa at his very best (2008-10) on grass was = to Roger at his post-peak plateau on grass (2008 and on), not better. I can live with that. Roger was better grass for the years before and after that range, but not in those few years. Sorry, Darth.

Whilst I disagree with Darth on Wimbledon 2008, I think saying that the Nadal of 2008-2010 was as good as the Federer of 2008- on grass is an exaggeration. Yes, Nadal made excellent progress on grass, playing three consecutive finals and winning on his third attempt. He clearly showed that he was becoming a more versatile tennis player, but I think his grass game was never as good as that of Federer. Not even close. However, we all know that he had a mental edge over Federer, after beating him several times on clay.

 

[mrzz]

The whole thing with the 2009 debate is that is based on injured/non-injured binary option, even if all people debating are well aware it is not just black and white. Like this, the debate will go on forever (which maybe is the whole idea...).

What I guess we all agree is that Nadal was not at 100% physical level (and no one is at 100% all the time), and the overall level he showed that day was enough to beat just about everyone else in the world (to give Soderling the credit he fully deserves).

We can agree that he was moving better in 2010 than in 2009 and still not credit this to "injury". In fact, my personal opinion is that he was a bit caught off guard (as I guess Broken at least implied in some posts above). He probably hardly saw someone giving him a proper challenge on clay that particular year, and could well have practiced a tad less. This could also explain his slightly worst movement (I do not have an opinion about this, I only saw the match at the time, and only highlights afterwards), but could also explain his knees starting to show signs of stress before the end of the clay season.

 

[Carol]

I see......a lot of blah blah blah without any sense but still nobody says why Nadal didn’t play in Wimbledon 2009 and was three months out of the court. Well, very simple, because he was playing RG 2009 with a knee injury and that’s the reason why he lost against Soderling who not even in his best dreams would have beat Nadal being healthy. So I can’t understand this ridiculous debate having others a lot more interesting

 

[britbox]

Does anyone really believe that every player is either 100% healthy or injured? There is plenty of grey area... I'd hazard a guess that most top players aren't usually 100% healthy... but if they are on the court then they are *usually* fit enough to play - 100% or not.

 

[Federberg]

Does anyone really believe that every player is either 100% healthy or injured? There is plenty of grey area... I'd hazard a guess that most top players aren't usually 100% healthy... but if they are on the court then they are *usually* fit enough to play - 100% or not.

Exactly! If they're there, we really shouldn't be whining about the result. Take Montreal, I wasn't whining that Roger got injured. I was pissed he went there in the first place.

 

[Carol]

Federer wasn’t injured in Montreal, he just skipped Cincinnatti to be better prepared for the USO, otherwise he would have been out of the court longer. It would be great if some people would be able to see the difference between to be injured or to have a simple discomfort like many players have often

 

[Moxie]

Really? With all the injury excuses, you're comfortable leveling that accusation?

I am. With Roger or Rafa fans, one thinks that against the field in general, of course. Federer fans assume that against even Rafa and Novak.

 

[DarthFed]

Federer wasn’t injured in Montreal, he just skipped Cincinnatti to be better prepared for the USO, otherwise he would have been out of the court longer. It would be great if some people would be able to see the difference between to be injured or to have a simple discomfort like many players have often

With comments like this I know I'm 40+ years too late in telling you to lay off the crack. This may come as a surprise to you but some players actually play while injured especially when it is a big event. Cincinnati is Roger's best tournament off grass and he'd have been going for #1. He didn't pull out to rest for the USO. His stupid plan all along was to play both Montreal and Cincy to chase #1 before the USO.

Going off your logic we can say Rafa wasn't hurt in the 2014 AO final vs. Stan as he did finish the match and didn't miss any time after it.

 

[Carol]

With comments like this I know I'm 40+ years too late in telling you to lay off the crack. This may come as a surprise to you but some players actually play while injured especially when it is a big event. Cincinnati is Roger's best tournament off grass and he'd have been going for #1. Going off your logic we can say Rafa wasn't hurt in the 2014 AO final vs. Stan as he did finish the match and didn't miss any time after it.

Federer right now is not teady to make too many effort so clearly was more focused to play well and fresh in the USO than Cincinnati. He can’t take everything at his age, so he has to make the choice to win maybe another GS or to reach the #1 but not both things, it would be more than impossible
By the way after the AO 2014 Nadal came back to play one month later