But it goes both ways, yes?
Also, I see the 2014 AO final as another hotspot for this dynamic.
I'm glad you brought up the 2014 AO final, because I think the two situations are very different. Now, to get one thing out of the way, yes, it is entirely possible, even probable, that Wawrinka would have won that match anyway, especially in light of what we know now (ie that he doesn't wilt under pressure on the big stage).
However, I look at that injury as a) far more tangible, b) far more impactful on the dynamics of the match, and c) far more unfortunate. There is a weird dismissive attitude when it comes to Nadal injuries as being of his own making. In other words, he made that bed, and should accept the consequences. However, while that argument is perfectly understandable when it comes to say, tendinitis, as it is surely related to his style of play, I'm not nearly as willing to accept that when it comes to a back injury he sustained mid-match in a major final at the beginning of the year (meaning it happened coming off the off season when his body is well rested and the pressure of a loaded schedule hasn't yet come into play).
Moreover, unlike the 2009 tendinitis, the evidence of the AO 2014 injury is much more concrete. In the second set, Nadal was flat out barely moving, and although he was a bit more mobile after that, it is clear that he was struggling immensely and the only reason he avoided retirement is due to it being a major final. Meanwhile, we have to look at small nuances to spot evidence of the 2009 injury, and even that, I'll be the first to admit, is more debatable.
Now, the reason I bring this up, is to highlight certain issues I have, with other fanbases' takes on specific Nadal matches in which injury may or may not have had an impact on the result.
To do this, I'm going to put forth 3 examples: 1) the 2011 Australian Open quarter final vs. David Ferrer, 2) the 2009 4th round match with Soderling and 3) the 2014 Australian Open final against Wawrinka. Those matches trigger very different reactions re: excuses and injury from both Nadal fans and other fanbases alike. It's understandable, but at the same time very instructive as to the different biases.
The 2011 AO match with Ferrer is the least controversial. Nadal injured his hamstring in the third game of the match, took a long medical timeout right away, was visibly affected throughout and lost in straights. This is one of those "shit happens" injuries. It happened early on in the season, early on in a match, against a guy he'd normally beat, etc... it's also the least controversial because simply put, non-Nadal fans don't have much respect for Ferrer so they don't have a problem when Nadal fans claim he lost that match due to injury (this is where the different biases come into play). This injury though, has nothing to do with wear and tear and playing style. Sometimes athletes just hurt a hamstring with one sudden movement. It happened to Nadal, and it was unfortunate.
The 2009 Soderling match has been covered in great detail already but it's the most compelling issue to discuss. From a bias standpoint, it's really easy to understand why it triggers the most extreme reactions among the two fanbases. For Nadal fans, Nadal was unbeatable at the French Open. It was almost literally unimaginable that he could lose, let alone lose to a "nobody" (Soderling was nothing special at that point). After all, there is a reason the loss is widely regarded as one of the biggest shocks in tennis history (to me, it's the biggest by a mile and nothing else is particularly close). So obviously, when it was revealed that Nadal would be pulling out of Queens with an injury and that his Wimbledon participation is in question, from a Nadal fan's perspective, the injury angle just made too much sense. When Nadal took 3 months off, it made even more sense. It was the perfect excuse. Of course they'd want to believe the injury caused the loss.
From a Fed fan's perspective, it's the exact opposite. Indeed, Nadal was close to unbeatable at Roland Garros and he was the only reason Federer hadn't won it yet. So when someone else took care of business, clearing the way for Roger, who then goes on and wins it (fair and square, to be clear), of course they don't want to hear anything about an injury, because in a way, it is used to put an asterisk on Roger's win by many (that part to me, is stupid. You beat who's in front of you and Roger did). Again, it makes a lot of sense.
As far as the match itself, and the injury, this is what I truly believe: For starters, I reject two notions: the first, which has been used by some Nadal fans in the past (especially on the old glory days of the tennis.com forums), is that Nadal pushed his body to the limit leading up the FO, his knees gave in, and he lost to Soderling as a result. It has been further argued, even recently, that the loss was inevitable -- that his knees were so bad that if it hadn't been Soderling, it would have been the next guy. That, I don't believe.
The other notion I reject, is to simply dismiss the injury as one of those "players play hurt all the time. Nobody is 100% all the time" which has been re-used by my good friend britbox in this very thread. Now to be clear, the statement itself is absolutely correct, obviously. There's not much to discuss there. Furthermore, it is a very reasonable response to someone acting as though this was a tragic piece of misfortune for Nadal that hit him at just the wrong time. In that sense, I agree with the statement, and unlike the aforementioned Ferrer match, or the to-be-discussed Wawrinka match, I'd further add that you can easily make the case that this was in a lot of ways, of Nadal's own doing due to his style. However, if the argument is used to shoot down whether or not the injury played a part in the loss, then I think it loses credence. Yes, players play hurt all the time, but not every injury is equal, and not every injury affects a player the same way. In this specific match-up, given the way Soderling was playing (again, it is impossible to deny Soderling credit. He didn't hit his forehand cleanly because Nadal was hurt. He hit it well because he was playing great), the injury had a big effect on the result... This is where this "players play hurt all the time" thing gets to me. Yes they do, and Nadal was far from being on his deathbed. But just because players play hurt all the time doesn't mean injuries don't affect outcomes in one way or another. In that sense, I don't see what the point of this argument is. Is it to say that injuries can't affect players because they happen all the time? Surely that's not what's being suggested. So, is it to say "get over it, it happens all the time?" Then I agree with the spirit of that, except, and I'm only speaking for myself here, I am not suggesting Nadal's injury is tragic or even unfortunate. I agree, athletes suffer occasional injuries. It's part of the job. I'm merely saying it affected the result.
This last idea is what I want to focus on. Tennis, at the highest level, is a game of small margins, especially between evenly matched players (at least on the day, not necessarily in general). Often times, what determines the result are little nuances, specific instances, or small tactical adjustments. Let's start with what is undeniable: On the day, Soderling played incredible. Served great, hit huge off of both wings, put Nadal on the backfoot, and most importantly, had the perfect strategy. He went hard and deep to Nadal's forehand side and used that to draw shorter replies before running around his own backhand and finishing the point (or finishing with the BH itself if need be). In similar situations, especially on clay over five sets, Nadal typically stays patient, uses his defense to prolong points, tries to retrieve everything, slowly starts working his way further up the court, drawing more errors from the opponent by making him the extra shot, and eventually doing his own dictating. We've seen that countless of times.
Now, it needs to be said that Soderling played better than just about anyone else who's ever played Nadal on clay. Furthermore, in vacuum, just because Rafa was unable to do those things does not mean he was impaired. However, knowing what we know about the injury, and through some observation, you can see the signs, and how the injury rendered him unable to do some of those things. When you look at the fact that Nadal was up a break in the 4th set, only to lose it on a tie-break, two major conclusions are on hand: A) Nadal's injury was far from crippling (there had been tendency to over-dramatize it throughout the years, and B) despite Soderling playing the match of his life, it was still very competitive and could/should have went to five sets even with Nadal's injury, and therefore, it is hardly outrageous to claim that a healthy Nadal probably wins that match. This is Roland Garros we're talking about. There's a reason he's won it 10 times. I understand why this ruffles feathers but I truly think that once you get past biases and extreme narratives offered by both fanbases, it is hardly preposterous logic.
When Soderling's own coach acknowledged the following year that Nadal was moving much better (and we saw what happened when he did), it becomes very evident what impact movement has on Nadal's game on clay, especially against a player like Soderling. Yes, Soderling was not as sharp in the 2010 final as he was in the 2009 QF, that's for sure, but remember he was in excellent form, having played out-of-this-world to beat Roger in the QF (in hindsight this might not be earth-shattering, but everyone can attest that at the time this was a HUUUUUUUGE deal as it broke Roger's ridiculous semi final streak). Tennis matches are frequently decided by the tiniest of details, and movement is the most important aspect of Nadal's game. Making you hit the extra ball, turning defense into attack, etc... If you can take some of that away you're changing the match-up dramatically.
Which brings me to the Wawrinka match from 2014. This has been a long post already so I'll try to keep it brief. The post-match reactions to that match continue to baffle me to this day. Luckily, this isn't ancient history and everyone here was around when that match took place. For whatever reason, Nadal fans were crucified for lamenting his injury, simply because "Wawrinka was outplaying him and he was down a set and 2-0" and that "there's no evidence Nadal would have won without the injury." Again, both statements are accurate, but both highlight how tunnel visioned and narrow we get because of our biases. Yes, Wawrinka outplayed him and yes we can't claim that Nadal would have found a way to win, but we do know that the injury pretty much killed off any chance he had of actually winning the match. And yet, somehow, it was a taboo to even say that. Let's get one thing clear, being down 6-3 2-0 in a major final is hardly an insurmountable obstacle, especially for Nadal, against a man who had yet to win a major. The way Stan was playing, I would have favored him, truly, but I ask anyone here claiming he was going to win anyway if they were ready to bet the house on it when was up 6-3 2-0 before it was apparent that Nadal had hurt his back, because I'm sure every non-Nadal fan was dreading a comeback. Let's remind everyone that Nadal actually managed to win a set while being barely functional...and somehow Wawrinka received more sympathy for losing that set as he was thrown off by Nadal's injury than Nadal did for the injury itself. Really odd logic.
The reason I write this long-winded post is to highlight how consumed we get in our own biases and how oblivious we get, while calling out other people on their bullshit. I still think Nadal fans are major excuse-makers by the way.
