No, I said he made "excuses about 3 matches", not injuries. IW 2011 - "I should have won... till I started to play very badly." "Because the match depended on me at every moment." Because ofcourse Djokovic who is the better hard court player, has nothing to do with that. Saying he started to play very badly is very much an excuse btw, since you're not giving the opponent any credit. Miami 2011 - Heatstroke. US Open 2011 - Hamstring. 3 excuses. And what difference does it make that this was said months after? Heck it's worse, at least after the match one can understand anger and letting your mouth run loose. But months after, when you should have moved on from the loss and have a clear head without emotions affecting your judgement, to drag all these excuses says exactly what about character? Please don't give me "it's analyzing the match" BS, it's excuses and to not recognize it so would be having double standards. Fact is, if you bring it up any time it's bad. You're either gracious and just move on, or you throw about excuses at some point in time, the latter being something that both Federer and Nadal do. Lastly what exactly are we debating here? Do you or do you not recognise that Nadal can very much be a sore loser at times? If yes, then we agree. If no, then let's agree to disagree since I think I've said all that I want to on this topic. EDIT: I just saw your last post, and let's just agree to disagree after all. Our definitions of sore loser do not match at all. I feel that there is no need of a immediate reaction for it to be classified as such. If you're bringing up injury talk long after the match, IMO it's just the same since one is essentially attributing the loss more towards the injury than the opponent's level of play. These pros play with injuries all the time and end up winning as well (Rafa RG 2012, Fed Wimbledon 2012), so it certainly doesn't hinder them so much that they can't win.