Rafa's Remarkable But Injury Blighted Slam Record

First topic message reminder :

Starting at RG in 2008 when Nadal turned 22 and could be counted as a mature player his record in slams has been exemplary when he hasn't been injured.

2008 RG  Won beat Djokovic, beat Federer in final

2008 W Won beat Murray, beat Federer in final 

2008 US  Odd lost to Murray in semi's

2009 AO  Wonbeat Federer in final

2009 RG    Odd/injury Lost to Soderling

2009 W   Didn't play

2009 US   Lost to Del Potro

2010 AO   Retired injured against Murray

2010 RG   Won

2010 W    Won beat Murray in semi's

2010 US   Won beat Djokovic in final

2011 AO   lost to Ferrer

2011 RG   Won beat Murray, beat Federer in final

2011 W   beat Murray, lost to Djokovic in final

2011 US   beat Murray, lost to Djokovic in final

2012 AO   beat Federer, lost to Djokovic in final

2012 RG   Won beat Djokovic final

2012 W    Odd/injured lost to Rosol

2012 US   Didn't play

2013 AO   Didn't play

2013 RG   Won beat Djokovic in semi

2013 W    Odd/injured lost to Darcis

2013 US   Won beat Djokovic final

2014 AO   beat Federer, injured lost to Wawrinka in final

2014 RG   Won beat Murray, beat Djokovic in final

2014 W   Odd. lost to Kyrgios

2014 US   Didn't play

Of 27 slams played Nadal has won 11, lost injured or not played in 8, lost being questionably injured in 3, lost two "odd" matches and lost to Djokovic 3 times.

                      
                
            
    
      

To summarize - When Nadal enters and is fit he usually wins.

Djokovic's wins against Nadal at Wimbledon and the US in 2011 and the 2012 AO were stand out performances. In those tournaments Nadal still put out Federer and Murray twice on the way to defeat in the final.

Federer hasn't beaten Nadal in a slam since Wimbledon 2007 and has lost to Nadal 6 times since then.

Djokovic hasn't beaten Nadal in a slam since the 2012 AO  and has lost to him 4 times since then.

Murray beat Nadal with a retirement in the AO 2010 and has lost to him 5 times since then.

Pointless thread really...the guy is an all time great...as is Federer. The rest are just making up the numbers relatively and literally speaking. Every player loses from time to time, gets outplayed from time to time, gets injured, lost matches they should have won. I see t all the time even with my sons matches...these pros are just bigger and faster versions of that. It's just a game of tennis at the end of the day, they're all humans and can't play perfectly each match. Sh*t happens and both Nadal and Federer have lost key matches they shouldn't but history will see record them as 2 of the best players to ever grace a tennis court. Guys like Rosol and Soderling are only famous because of Nadal, that's the power of their tennis aura in that their losses elevate those they lost to. And of course a guy like Nadal seems to make everyone play well above their usual ability such is the aura of what they're facing. To guys like Rosol and Kyrgios, it's their final come early. So it's not surprising when these losses come, it's just the way it works out when you effectively have living legends still playing the game.

Exactly. It really is splitting hairs between the two of them, and trying to artificially bolster the achievements of Nadal via a subjective metric actually devalues them. His statistics and records at slam record are mind-boggling, and need no defense.

And guys, just add hawkeye to the foe list if you're getting frustrated with his/her posts. It makes browsing the forum much more palatable.

LuvSports! wrote:Outplayed by Murray '08 US Open.
Hit off the court by Soderling FO '09.
Outplayed and was going to lose vs Murray aus '10.
Outplayed by Rosol, no sign of injury. w '12.
Was a set and a break down before Nadal got injured aus '14.

How damn you would forget the blow of the court by Del Po, Nadal was shattered to pieces, and Del Po won 3 matches in a row vs Rafa and was only down 4-3 in h2h, had he not fallen of injury at that juncture my personal view is h2h would have been 13-4 in favor of Del Po.   

Because I thought that was one that HE accepted.

You need to follow the broken hearts. HE literally accepts no defeats other than Djokovic. Every other defeat is either odd or injured. That said, I think Nadal was actually injured versus Del Potro.

Born Slippy wrote:You need to follow the broken hearts. HE literally accepts no defeats other than Djokovic. Every other defeat is either odd or injured. That said, I think Nadal was actually injured versus Del Potro.

I don't think hawkeye watches tennis if Nadal is not playing, so we won't see him/her on the USO matchday threads.

I'm sure hawkeye goes on facebook just waiting for Nadal to comment and be the first to write "Love you legend  "

Born Slippy wrote:You need to follow the broken hearts. HE literally accepts no defeats other than Djokovic. Every other defeat is either odd or injured. That said, I think Nadal was actually injured versus Del Potro.

I don't agree 1 bit, Did you see how well Nadal moved the entire course of that match? if at all there was an injury in that match it was on Nadal's head against Del Po after sequence of loss.

Nah, he was injured, had a stomach tear.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/10/nadal-reveals-major-abdominal-tear-sustained-2009-us-open/49446/#.U_mSMNq9KK0
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/sep/06/andy-roddick-john-isner-us-open
http://www.atpworldtour.com/news/form-and-fitness/2010/nadal-stomach-tape.aspx

Is Rafa ever un-injured in slams? I just think he overplays far too much and has never been wise with his scheduling during clay season. By the time he's arriving at Wimbledon & US Open he's usually cream crackered from his clay exploits. By WTF there's nothing left in the tank.

People need to remember what this years French took out of him, he could barely walk by the end of that final. I still don't know how he won it, just sheer force of will IMO. Then he went straight to Halle...not wise. He just doesn't seem to learn that constant playing on the toughest of surfaces from April to June additively accumulates strains on his body and mind during the latter part of the season. I do think we'll see a different approach in 2015 though...

lydian wrote:Nah, he was injured, had a stomach tear.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/10/nadal-reveals-major-abdominal-tear-sustained-2009-us-open/49446/#.U_mSMNq9KK0
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/sep/06/andy-roddick-john-isner-us-open
http://www.atpworldtour.com/news/form-and-fitness/2010/nadal-stomach-tape.aspx

Is Rafa ever un-injured in slams? I just think he overplays far too much and has never been wise with his scheduling during clay season. By the time he's arriving at Wimbledon & US Open he's usually cream crackered from his clay exploits. By WTF there's nothing left in the tank.

People need to remember what this years French took out of him, he could barely walk by the end of that final. I still don't know how he won it, just sheer force of will IMO. Then he went straight to Halle...not wise. He just doesn't seem to learn that constant playing on the toughest of surfaces from April to June additively accumulates strains on his body and mind during the latter part of the season. I do think we'll see a different approach in 2015 though...

Na thats just an excuse by Nadal team, it didnt interfere a tiny bit of Nadal`s movement, no way a man with stomach tear could run first let alone play for that long.

No version of Nadal would have stood a chance that day anyways. He might have aggrevated that during that match what could have been a simple problem pre- match, but I can assure u he ran and ran pretty hard till the last point, there was even a pumped version of Nadal in the 3rd set.

Had a guy been injured in prematch and getting thrashed the 1st two sets would not show pump up signs in the 3rd set, why would he be pumping up himself when he knew he was badly hurt pre match and aggrevated it further.

Nadal team always covered their back with lame injury excuses several times and this one is no different.

A guy with a stomach tear would not have won a game against that Delpo.. give it up Lydian   

That match was purely a power demonstration just like Rafa is on clay..

Personally I have not the slightest doubt that Rafa has often niggles and pain, be it abdominal pain or stomach ache, migraines, nausea or even sore throats and running nose. The point is can we say the same about his opponents? In particular when and if they are a little less keen to let the audience know about it......

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Personally I have not the slightest doubt that Rafa has often niggles and pain, be it abdominal pain or stomach ache, migraines, nausea or even sore throats and running nose. The point is can we say the same about  his opponents? In particular when and if they are a little less keen to let the audience know about it......

+1

Exactly, no player boards the field 100% fit 100% of the time, the classic example was Klose's interview, a question was raised on him before the world cup that "is he 100% fit to play for Germany" and his typical reply was "I have never been 100% fit and wish I would have have it and thats the goal of every player life time".

To add further, a Muscle Tear is a thing a player can never over come even if given 1 life time, and abdominal tear had it been very serious might have even finished his career as abs tear is something not many athlete or human being can overcome, in Rafa's case he played a marathon running match on the day he had the abs tear   , Rafa's team wanna show case he is super man and not ordinary mortal, but this one is way too far.  

@ Lydian

Rafa's forehand was bullied to submission and Rafa lost not coz of his injury but Del Po was way way better player on that given day on that given surface and rightly deserved the win.

Part 1 -

Part 2-

This is how people got peed off at the excuse making

Some of the following comments in the same article you posted the link earlier

1] "Put the headline together with the picture, and I wonder how long that abdominal tear was....reached all the way to his ear????"

2]No one is hating on Rafa. Rafa is a great player without a doubt. But he is not a humble bull at all. And there is nothing wrong with that. I wish he would just be himself. Instead saying things like I can't believe I win. Of course he is not surprise by a win, this is what he trains for. I Think next year will be fun to watch. I am thinking that Nole is going to take the first major of the year. And that the French my be up for grabs this year

3]"Enough with the injury talk. Every loss he pegs on an injury and it has become what he is known for, unfortunately."

4]"The first two paragraphs were perfect. As for the last, even specifying the extent of the injury (26 mm) is quite telling that he was indeed excusing his loss, a loss that was probably very "painful" to him. As if he were less injured, then the result would have been different. That's why I don't understand why even play with such an injury? A walkover or retirement if things don't improve would be considered more honest, and nobody should criticize the players when they decide for their health."

5]"I always believed that Nadal is the most unprofessional, cunning and immature palyer. His comments now about 2009 US open prove that. Actually, after these comments , looks like he is more immature and cunning than what I thought og him."

6]"First,  "26 millimeters abdominal break" is a bit too graphic and not called for.

Second, "So we cannot count about that match" sounds to humble.

Third, the "humble bull" is giving way too much credit to the players he beat in USO 2009 on his way to the semi.  That is, Gasquet (straight set), Kiefer (bagel), Almagro (straight set), Monfils (bread stick) and Gonzalez (straight set with a bagel).

Rafa is certainly allowed to have injury, as he is allowed to bring them up anytime and anyway he likes."

^  Well yes invisiblecoolers if Rafa had two broken legs and two broken arms there would always be people commenting on tennis.com who would question his injuries.

hawkeye wrote:^  Well yes invisiblecoolers if Rafa had two broken legs and two broken arms there would always be people commenting on tennis.com who would question his injuries.

2 reasons for it,

1) Rafa is a legend so his fans like you will post something eventhough its nothing related with Tennis at the moment, and there will be some counter arguments.

2)Coz Rafa`s team struggle to cope up with loss the often credited injury as the match decider and not opponent skills, which has infuriated several other players fans like me in the above case.

Rafa was clearly pumped as the video posted above showed the proof, if he was really injured and only biting time to complete the match for formal sake why would he kept on running like a rabbit even on 3rd set and celebrated a great point win with air fist pumps?

You could ask Nadal's doctor about his 'injuries' and miraculous recoveries.

IC/JK, because the stomach tear affected the serve in particular, not all shots. Plus Nadal will always still try his best in matches even when injured...to his credit, eg. remember AO14 final? People then turn that around on the guy saying he was fine because he was trying hard. I'm not saying JMDP didn't play well, just that the score line was probably affected, to what degree we don't know. But hey injuries, etc, are part of the game. Sh*t happens. However, I'm not getting into this any further as it was widely reported Nadal was suffering a stomach tear, including from the man himself later. Nadal rarely blames losses on injury straight after a match out of respect. But obviously you think the guy was just making it all up so its a pointless discussion from here on in. BS saw it as injury too.

hawkeye wrote:^  Well yes invisiblecoolers if Rafa had two broken legs and two broken arms there would always be people commenting on tennis.com who would question his injuries.

They are the other side of the coin to yourself HE.

lydian wrote:Pointless thread really...

Quite true...

lydian wrote:the guy is an all time great...as is Federer. The rest are just making up the numbers relatively and literally speaking. Every player loses from time to time, gets outplayed from time to time, gets injured, lost matches they should have won.

Quite true...

lydian wrote: Sh*t happens and both Nadal and Federer have lost key matches they shouldn't but history will see record them as 2 of the best players to ever grace a tennis court. Guys like Rosol and Soderling are only famous because of Nadal, that's the power of their tennis aura in that their losses elevate those they lost to. And of course a guy like Nadal seems to make everyone play well above their usual ability such is the aura of what they're facing. To guys like Rosol and Kyrgios, it's their final come early. So it's not surprising when these losses come, it's just the way it works out when you effectively have living legends still playing the game.

This is why the business of 'injury and lost opportunities' makes very little sense, even if a fan wants to make their favorite be the GOAT. Whether it is Federer losing to Stakhovsky or Nadal to Darcis. Becker's now famous words, should be in every poster's signature.

laverfan wrote:Becker's now famous words, should be in every poster's signature.

These ones? "When I looked at the eyes of my fans, I thought I was looking at monsters. When I saw this kind of blind, emotional devotion, I could understand what happened to us at Nuremberg".

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:Becker's now famous words, should be in every poster's signature.

These ones? "When I looked at the eyes of my fans, I thought I was looking at monsters. When I saw this kind of blind, emotional devotion, I could understand what happened to us at Nuremberg".

  

Certainly LF didnt mean n u know it.

@ Lyd

I just stated a point how injury excuses irritate opponent fans, even if Nadal would have been injured he played those matches n lost, so for goodness sake let the other player`s fan have their moments.

Rafa and his team should learn to keep the injury excuses to themselves and move on rather than spoiling opponents moments.

For me and many it was best of Nadal that day and he had no chance PERIOD.

I think it's this one: "“I honestly have no idea what makes me so sexy. I am neither an Adonis, nor is my weenie hyper-dimensional.”

invisiblecoolers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:Becker's now famous words, should be in every poster's signature.

These ones? "When I looked at the eyes of my fans, I thought I was looking at monsters. When I saw this kind of blind, emotional devotion, I could understand what happened to us at Nuremberg".

  

Certainly LF didnt mean n u know it.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think it's this one: "“I honestly have no idea what makes me so sexy. I am neither an Adonis, nor is my weenie hyper-dimensional.”

No cupboard adventures or trials, but

“I didn’t start a war. Nobody died. I only lost a tennis match, nothing more.” Becker’s thoughts after losing in the second round of the 1987 Wimbledon Championships.

But for entertainment purposes, here is the compendium from one source... http://www.thetennisspace.com/top-10-boris-becker-quotes/

I knew it was that line LF, I just thought the one I quoted might be more appropriate.

invisiblecoolers wrote:@ Lyd

I just stated a point how injury excuses irritate opponent fans, even if Nadal would have been injured he played those matches n lost, so for goodness sake let the other player`s fan have their moments.

Rafa and his team should learn to keep the injury excuses to themselves and move on rather than spoiling opponents moments.

For me and many it was best of Nadal that day and he had no chance PERIOD.

I agree. Hopefully you will remind supporters of other players of this when they come up with their excuses.

Calder106 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:@ Lyd

I just stated a point how injury excuses irritate opponent fans, even if Nadal would have been injured he played those matches n lost, so for goodness sake let the other player`s fan have their moments.

Rafa and his team should learn to keep the injury excuses to themselves and move on rather than spoiling opponents moments.

For me and many it was best of Nadal that day and he had no chance PERIOD.

I agree. Hopefully you will remind supporters of other players of this when they come up with their excuses.

Sure if such a thread is opened, I will cast my views there as well.

invisiblecoolers wrote:@ Lyd

I just stated a point how injury excuses irritate opponent fans, even if Nadal would have been injured he played those matches n lost, so for goodness sake let the other player`s fan have their moments.

Rafa and his team should learn to keep the injury excuses to themselves and move on rather than spoiling opponents moments.

Nadal only mentioned this 4 years later...not straight after the match. If he was genuinely affected by the injury and it affected his performance significantly then of course it's in his rights to mention it whenever he wants. However, he rarely does after a match. Even when he was practically playing on 1 leg to Ferrer at AO10 he just congratulated Ferrer afterwards. Similarly he did so with Del Potro in the aforementioned match.

But then you turn in a curious phrase above -  I bolded it.
To paraphrase, you say "even if Nadal was injured...let the other players fan have their moment"

You see, I just can't side with that mentality. It's almost tantamount to cheering double faults in my opinion. I draw no satisfaction or "moment" from my player beating another player when injured. It might be matter of fact match condition but where is the joy in beating someone who is hampered? Likewise, if Nadal won the US Open over say a clearly injured Djokovic, I wouldn't be celebrating afterwards. Yes I'd be glad Nadal won but wouldn't see it as a cause for celebration/"moment". So the question here is, just how injured does a player have to be until the result isn't considered competitive and the victor's fans don't celebrate it like it was a properly fought contest with both players fully able bodied?

Lydian, I think that was the AO11 vs Ferrer, not AO10.

Afterwards (post-match presser) Rafa congratulated Ferrer but then also said "But is obvious that I didn't feel at my best. I had a problem during the match, in the very beginning. After that, the match was almost over."
After the JMDP match he spoke at some length about how the injury had developed and how it affected e.g. his serving on the ad side.

This idea that Rafa doesn't mention his injuries is not correct. When players are asked about their injuries they all tend to reply with such information - which is OK, but fans of the players should at least acknowledge that they do so.

It's can't be that easy for any player who wasn't 100% to handle the post-match interview well - they have to do a lengthy press conference with lots of questions about their condition. They end up giving out a "I don't want to talk about the injury..." type answer which only annoys their detractors and fans of the victorious player. I think Nadal does try to be fairly respectful to his opponent in that particular regard (when Toni weighs in later though, he doesn't necessarily follow the same rules....).

On Lydian's point about whether there is a satisfaction to be had on beating an injured player, I think there is more of a grey area. On one extreme, you can have a player who is so afflicted they have no chance of winning and are only staying on court out of respect for opponent or occasion (e.g. a final). On the other, you can have player suffering an injury who happens to also wins a lot of matches while suffering that injury. So using Nadal as an example, he may have had problems with his knees in his match with Rosol a few years ago. However, he has won many matches while having similar problems. So even if Nadal was not 100%, it was still quite an acheivement for Rosol - he still had to focus on his shots and not choke in what was a very tight match (we've all seen that kind of thing before, right - perhaps in the last 24 hrs). I don't see why Nadal should not be able to confirm his condition after the match, but nor is there any need to dismiss the level of performance required by Rosol to get the win.

Fair enough JHM...I'm not a walking encyclopaedia on Nadal but you get my gist, which Yvonne (nice post) also picked up on.

Absolutely agree on the ROSOL match, Lukas won that fair and square.

In other matches, he's been clearly hampered but doesn't want to go on about it.

I remember Sampras carrying an ankle injury at Wimb one year (98?) and still cruised the title.

Nadal talks about his injuries more than just about any other top player on tour.

He talks about them during tournaments, before tourneys, straight after losses (as Julius has shown) and many weeks, months and years later. Not only that, but his team  (Toni) do the same.

Some of his injury talk is downright pathetic. Just man up and play and keep it shut, or don't play. Lots of players play with niggles but the difference with Nadal is that we actually hear about EVERY single niggle he has ever suffered.

Steffi Graf always had some sort of strapping on various parts of her body but she rarely felt the need to give lengthy exegeses on her injuries.

The bottom line is that it stinks of excuse making. No loss is a legitimate loss, always comes with a caveat. With team Nadal it's a case of get your excuses in early, before and late.

I also suspect he is more obsessive about preserving his aura vis a vis his fellow professionals in a way that, say, Federer is not. Federer loves to play tennis and probably because of that always puts himself out there, even at times when he isn't feeling anywhere near 100%. Rafa is the opposite. He will not play unless he is 'competitive and has good chances to win'. He has said as much on may occasions.

YvonneT wrote:It's can't be that easy for any player who wasn't 100% to handle the post-match interview well - they have to do a lengthy press conference with lots of questions about their condition. They end up giving out a "I don't want to talk about the injury..." type answer which only annoys their detractors and fans of the victorious player. I think Nadal does try to be fairly respectful to his opponent in that particular regard (when Toni weighs in later though, he doesn't necessarily follow the same rules....).

On Lydian's point about whether there is a satisfaction to be had on beating an injured player, I think there is more of a grey area. On one extreme, you can have a player who is so afflicted they have no chance of winning and are only staying on court out of respect for opponent or occasion (e.g. a final). On the other, you can have player suffering an injury who happens to also wins a lot of matches while suffering that injury. So using Nadal as an example, he may have had problems with his knees in his match with Rosol a few years ago. However, he has won many matches while having similar problems. So even if Nadal was not 100%, it was still quite an acheivement for Rosol - he still had to focus on his shots and not choke in what was a very tight match (we've all seen that kind of thing before, right - perhaps in the last 24 hrs). I don't see why Nadal should not be able to confirm his condition after the match, but nor is there any need to dismiss the level of performance required by Rosol to get the win.

I suspect very few times in a tennis career a players feels 100%. It's part of the grind of the tour to carry niggles. Just as it is in many other sports. Hell, I play for fun, and I'm always hurting somewhere or another.

it was widely reported Nadal was suffering a stomach tear, including from the man himself later.

Without it he would've likely won right?

emancipator wrote:Nadal talks about his injuries more than just about any other top player on tour.

He talks about them during tournaments, before tourneys, straight after losses (as Julius has shown) and many weeks, months and years later. Not only that, but his team  (Toni) do the same.

Some of his injury talk is downright pathetic. Just man up and play and keep it shut, or don't play. Lots of players play with niggles but the difference with Nadal is that we actually hear about EVERY single niggle he has ever suffered.

Nadal's injuries are of course talked about more than any other player. He has huge chunks missing from his prime playing time missing through injury. Since 2008 he has lost injured or not played because he was injured 8 times with another 3 losses due to questionable injuries. That's nearly 3 years worth of slams missing from a top players record. What is the etiquette for talking about injuries? Are we meant to pretend they don't exist when the evidence is there before are eyes. Is an injured player expected to lie so that his opponents and his opponents fans can have a fantasy memory? This hardly gives credit to the players who have played brilliantly against Nadal and lost.  

Lots of players play with niggles including Nadal but an injury that prevents participation or can be seen to seriously inhibit play is very different to a niggle. Are people seriously suggesting that Nadal didn't attempt to defend Canada, Cincinnati and the US Open because of a "niggle"

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

it was widely reported Nadal was suffering a stomach tear, including from the man himself later.

Without it he would've likely won right?

We don't know if Nadal would have won that match but he would definitely have a much higher chance of winning if he was able to serve.

hawkeye wrote:

emancipator wrote:Nadal talks about his injuries more than just about any other top player on tour.

He talks about them during tournaments, before tourneys, straight after losses (as Julius has shown) and many weeks, months and years later. Not only that, but his team  (Toni) do the same.

Some of his injury talk is downright pathetic. Just man up and play and keep it shut, or don't play. Lots of players play with niggles but the difference with Nadal is that we actually hear about EVERY single niggle he has ever suffered.

Nadal's injuries are of course talked about more than any other player. He has huge chunks missing from his prime playing time missing through injury. Since 2008 he has lost injured or not played because he was injured 8 times with another 3 losses due to questionable injuries. That's nearly 3 years worth of slams missing from a top players record. What is the etiquette for talking about injuries? Are we meant to pretend they don't exist when the evidence is there before are eyes. Is an injured player expected to lie so that his opponents and his opponents fans can have a fantasy memory? This hardly gives credit to the players who have played brilliantly against Nadal and lost.  

Lots of players play with niggles including Nadal but an injury that prevents participation or can be seen to seriously inhibit play is very different to a niggle. Are people seriously suggesting that Nadal didn't attempt to defend Canada, Cincinnati and the US Open because of a "niggle"

So, just to clarify, do you think it could be seen that Nadal's play was seriously inhibited during his losses to Soderling, Rosol and Darcis or are you prepared to give those players full credit for their wins?

Nadal should be Rank 1 when it comes to players talking injuries after a loss, yes I have seen almost all players talk about it a few times but when it comes to Nadal its almost always the case.

I found it funny when I read a comment which stated Nadal very rarely talk about injuries after a loss, you should be from a different planet for sure, where there is no media, no electricity after Nadal's loss that no information reaches to you.

Born Slippy wrote:

So, just to clarify, do you think it could be seen that Nadal's play was seriously inhibited during his losses to Soderling, Rosol and Darcis or are you prepared to give those players full credit for their wins?

No problem

If you refer to my chart I have classified Nadal's losses to Soderling, Rosol and Darcis as As far as credit for their wins didn't Soderling, Rosal and Darcis get that? All the records show them as winners and they have also have a small place in tennis history for their wins. Or by credit do you want everyone to forget the evidence and pretend that Nadal was beaten playing the match of his life but they topped it? What would be the reasoning for doing that?

Hmm, not sure I follow. The code means "odd/injury". I saw all of those matches and, so far as I can recall, there were no signs Rafa was seriously inhibited.

I don't think they were Rafa's best ever matches but, of course, players can play below their absolute best without being seriously inhibited. My abiding memory of each match is how exceptionally well each of those three players played.

Of course each player got credit. My question was whether you personally gave them credit or whether you just think they were fortunate recipients of a severely inhibited Rafa.

Born Slippy wrote:Hmm, not sure I follow. The code means "odd/injury". I saw all of those matches and, so far as I can recall, there were no signs Rafa was seriously inhibited.

I don't think they were Rafa's best ever matches but, of course, players can play below their absolute best without being seriously inhibited. My abiding memory of each match is how exceptionally well each of those three players played.

Of course each player got credit. My question was whether you personally gave them credit or whether you just think they were fortunate recipients of a severely inhibited Rafa.

I follow BS. So allow me...........it's utter and total garbage. For the many reasons already pointed out.

emancipator wrote:I suspect very few times in a tennis career a players feels 100%. It's part of the grind of the tour to carry niggles. Just as it is in many other sports. Hell, I play for fun, and I'm always hurting somewhere or another.

Yeah, I get that. I tried to choose my words carefully and not feeling 100% can cover anything from minor niggles, chronic conditions (knees, back etc) and acute injuries. I'm guessing most players will have niggles most of time, but something more serious only occasionally (and some will have chronic conditions which are generally managed but get more troublesome occasionally).  
Anyway, in terms of the post-match press conferences, I guess that after a loss, most players would just rather pack up and go home. But because fans are interested in what the losing player has to say, the media are interested and the post-match press conference is compulsory. And in the case of an upset loss to a top player like Nadal, the media will be looking for explanations for the loss and asking lots of questions about the knees and, this year, the back/the wrist, whatever. There's plenty I don't like about Nadal's (and his team's) behaviour, but answering these questions as reasonably as he can seems fine to me - I just doubt he makes stuff up and I suspect that minor niggles are brushed over. Press releases and coach interviews arranged subsequently by the PR team of course are a different matter.

lydian wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:@ Lyd

I just stated a point how injury excuses irritate opponent fans, even if Nadal would have been injured he played those matches n lost, so for goodness sake let the other player`s fan have their moments.

Rafa and his team should learn to keep the injury excuses to themselves and move on rather than spoiling opponents moments.

Nadal only mentioned this 4 years later...not straight after the match. If he was genuinely affected by the injury and it affected his performance significantly then of course it's in his rights to mention it whenever he wants. However, he rarely does after a match. Even when he was practically playing on 1 leg to Ferrer at AO10 he just congratulated Ferrer afterwards. Similarly he did so with Del Potro in the aforementioned match.

But then you turn in a curious phrase above -  I bolded it.
To paraphrase, you say "even if Nadal was injured...let the other players fan have their moment"

You see, I just can't side with that mentality. It's almost tantamount to cheering double faults in my opinion. I draw no satisfaction or "moment" from my player beating another player when injured. It might be matter of fact match condition but where is the joy in beating someone who is hampered? Likewise, if Nadal won the US Open over say a clearly injured Djokovic, I wouldn't be celebrating afterwards. Yes I'd be glad Nadal won but wouldn't see it as a cause for celebration/"moment". So the question here is, just how injured does a player have to be until the result isn't considered competitive and the victor's fans don't celebrate it like it was a properly fought contest with both players fully able bodied?

Come on Lyd this is purely fan boyish , or you were joking when you said Nadal rarely complains about the injury after the loss.

Nadal straight away raised the issue of injury after his loss against Del Po, he didn't raise the issue as that serious when he was walking through most opponents till that match, he didn't even say anything about the injury before the start of the match, so how on earth the injury magically appeared during the match in which he was running like a rabbit, so you seriously buy the myth that somebody with a stomach tear of 26 inches before the match could play the match like he did? even man of steel would bow to such statements.

Nadal a great player? undoubtedly
Do Nadal top the list on giving excuses after a loss? Seriously not many who compete with him in this aspect either.

The top players never liked to lose and always wanted to keep the opponents fear factor on them, Fed did on few matches on his prime, Pete did this on few matches on his prime, who would forget the Pete-Rafter controversy, Nadal and his team just over does it at times however.

hawkeye wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

So, just to clarify, do you think it could be seen that Nadal's play was seriously inhibited during his losses to Soderling, Rosol and Darcis or are you prepared to give those players full credit for their wins?

No problem

If you refer to my chart I have classified Nadal's losses to Soderling, Rosol and Darcis as As far as credit for their wins didn't Soderling, Rosal and Darcis get that? All the records show them as winners and they have also have a small place in tennis history for their wins. Or by credit do you want everyone to forget the evidence and pretend that Nadal was beaten playing the match of his life but they topped it? What would be the reasoning for doing that?

This is a cowpat claim, Federer lost to Tsonga in Toronto , do that mean Federer even when plays his best can never beat Tsonga? on that given day what ever Federer's best was wasn't good enough to get past an inspired Tsonga, like wise nobody claims Nadal's best is lower than Rosol or Darcis, but on that given day Nadal's best wasn't good enough on that surface against inspired opponents.

invisiblecoolers. I don't think I have seen any evidence that Federer was injured when he lost to Tsonga in Toronto unlike Nadal's matches with Rosol and Darcis. Didn't Federer win Cincy just a week later and there is much talk that he is playing his best tennis since 2012. Federer has lost a few matches recently that perhaps he should have won but that's a whole different story that has little to do with injury.

All the matches I have listed that Nadal lost in slams due to injury have a lot of evidence to back this up. Individually they were all reported as injury affected losses and when they are talked about now more often than not the word "injury" is used. All I have done is list them all highlighting the effect of injury on Nadal's career.

Much like we didn't see any evidence that Nadal was injured in the games vs Rosol and Darcis. You do realise that a lot of the people watched those games. We are quite capable of making a decision based on what we watch.

Just because someone says something after defeat doesn't mean it's true. We are basing our judgement from what we have witnessed. Something we are entitled to do.

For example, I could say: Hawkeye is world-class tennis commentator whose unique way of categorising and explaining defeats should be adopted across the entire tour. In fact, the ranking points that are awarded should be altered to reflect odd or injured wins/defeats. Hawkeye should be the sole arbitrare of this.

However all the evidence, from what we have all witnessed on multiple threads, tell us that this is not the case and would be a very bad idea.

If he was injured..he wouldn't have played!

Oh, and unsuprisingly you have completely missed the point IC was trying to make. If in doubt..just keep throwing the word injured around eh?

hawkeye - Just a bit of general advice, if I may.

If you ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of facing trial in a Court of Law, then do be sure to

a) say as little as possible, and/or
b) hire a top barrister with the ability to separate fact from opinion, whilst presenting only the former on your behalf

Based on your comments / reaction to fellow-posters throughout this thread, I think it's pretty clear that any attempts to defend yourself without professional help would be doomed ; and that's simply because the more you say, the greater the certainty of incriminating yourself. Something of an "odd" situation (to borrow one of your own much-loved adjectives) but paradoxically very much in tune with the overall pattern of so many of your contributions on the forum, the majority of which are no more credible or rational than those we see from you here.

That said, even the best defence barrister in the country might baulk at the prospect of taking on a case as weak as the one you present in the opening article here.

If Djokovic hadn't choked in RG2013 and USO2013 that would be 2 less slams for you to sponge on.. 2 disgraceful chokes.

hawkeye wrote:invisiblecoolers. I don't think I have seen any evidence that Federer was injured when he lost to Tsonga in Toronto unlike Nadal's matches with Rosol and Darcis. Didn't Federer win Cincy just a week later and there is much talk that he is playing his best tennis since 2012. Federer has lost a few matches recently that perhaps he should have won but that's a whole different story that has little to do with injury.

All the matches I have listed that Nadal lost in slams due to injury have a lot of evidence to back this up. Individually they were all reported as injury affected losses and when they are talked about now more often than not the word "injury" is used. All I have done is list them all highlighting the effect of injury on Nadal's career.

Federer was certainly not injured and so was Nadal on several of those matches listed.

lags72. If a top barrister had to prove that Nadal was injured on the occasions mentioned on this thread there would be a wealth of evidence that they could present in court to help win the case. I certainly haven't suggested that Nadal was injured in any match without there being a certain amount of consensus that he was.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:If Djokovic hadn't choked in RG2013 and USO2013 that would be 2 less slams for you to sponge on.. 2 disgraceful chokes.

Maybe you could compile a list of Djokovic's remarkable but choke affected slam record? You could perhaps use this or maybe to represent a choke (I am kidding!)