Lol.....look at how well it worked. When everyone looks back on that match, they think about Nadal's retirement and most people give him a pass for the loss, saying "he was hurt." Maybe you personally don't care about such things, but you shouldn't presume to speak for everyone.
What would he accomplish exactly? Maintaining a mental edge over others with the notion that he supposedly can't be beaten unless he is hurt. And, like I said - look at how well it's worked. Everyone gives him that excuse to this day.
Yes, he pushes himself to his limits and has better stamina than everyone, but that doesn't mean he is invincible either.
A part of the season that he has always had a tendency to play a limited schedule during. Do you seriously think he would have skipped Rome or Roland Garros if they were in October/November?
How the hell is a limited autumn schedule inconsistent with Nadal's playing history?
Those aren't the only two choices. You can retire to send a message . It's not just about "quitting" or sulking.
It's a lot easier to say "you beat me because I was hurt and tired" rather than "you straight up beat me."
What I said was that the loss was mainly about fatigue. Nadal was moving just fine in the first set but he lost it, knowing that with limited energy after the Thiem loss he had a huge uphill battle in front of him trying to come back against Delpo. When you're tired injuries become more pronounced and difficult to bear - especially if you're losing.
Also, for you to downplay the mindgame aspect here is, characteristically on your part, oblivious. Nadal (just like Djokovic against Wawrinka) did not want the tennis world to see Delpo put a 6-1 or 6-0 set or worse on him on one of tennis's biggest stages with everyone watching. So he retired to put an asterisk in everyone's mind about Delpo's win. And, like I said, it has clearly worked because that's how most people remember it.
And if Rome and Roland Garros were in October/November, I assure you he would have returned sooner.
Yes, and one factor as well is if you want to stand on the court while getting humiliated on the scoreboard. Nadal did not want Delpo to do a 6-1 or 6-0 set on him. By retiring he gave the world a very convenient excuse of "I was hurt."
Btw, do I blame him? No, not at all. I think it was smart. Not only did he avoid further injury, he also put an asterisk in most people's minds about Delpo's victory.
But you and Moxie are too psychologically disconnected to realize what he was doing and you would prefer to attribute the highest virtue to him because he's your favorite player. And, again, I am not even saying that I have a problem with what Nadal did there (I think Hamburg 2008 was much worse). I just think it is ridiculous to deny it.
Last edited:
