Yup, you can't just lose right? Nobody just loseHe lost bcoz he had a S.H.I.T.ty day.
Sick
Hindered
Injured
or
Tired
Yup, you can't just lose right? Nobody just loseHe lost bcoz he had a S.H.I.T.ty day.
Sick
Hindered
Injured
or
Tired
Never outplayed.Yup, you can't just lose right? Nobody just lose
Yes, if he had substituted a bagel for that last breadstick, he would have been invincible and gone on to a second Channel Slam.In the previous round, Nadal beat Hewitt 6-1, 6-3, 6-1. If anything, Nadal's great performance against Hewitt made his loss to Soderling all the greater. People have mentioned Nadal beating Soderling 6-1, 6-0 in Rome a month earlier too.
In the previous round, Nadal beat Hewitt 6-1, 6-3, 6-1. If anything, Nadal's great performance against Hewitt made his loss to Soderling all the greater. People have mentioned Nadal beating Soderling 6-1, 6-0 in Rome a month earlier too.
Hmm, I don't know that he's Del Potro level. Pony proved he could do it in a final, Soderling may have the dual plaudits of defeating Rafa at Roland Garros, and ending Fed's semi final streak, but the two times he made it to the actual final he totally wet the bed.Soderling, like Del Potro, was a Top player no less than Novak, Federer and Nadal on a good day on his favoured surface.
Hmm, I don't know that he's Del Potro level. Pony proved he could do it in a final, Soderling may have the dual plaudits of defeating Rafa at Roland Garros, and ending Fed's semi final streak, but the two times he made it to the actual final he totally wet the bed.
I think this is the best explanation. Combo of shock from losing at Paris+some injury+family situation probably contributed to him not playing Wimby.Not embarrassed of course but more like a shock to the system. If Wimbledon wasn't so close after FO I think Nadal would have played, I think he was injured but not to a degree that he couldn't play at all (most players are always playing through some injury or other). 1st week of Wimbledon is usually tough for Nadal (even in those years he made the finals), he needs to be mentally zoned in to get through it.
Think about how Fed was distraught after Wimbledon 2008, lost in the 1st round to Simon in Canada, then in the 2nd round to Karlovic then to his pigeon Blake at Olympics. However USO was far enough that he could recuperate.
Nadal's a fighter but he's not a machine, everyone draws their confidence from something.
Federer's PIGEON Hewitt comes through AGAIN ROFLMAO...seriously Federer should dedicate HALF of his slams to that MUG.Yes, if he had substituted a bagel for that last breadstick, he would have been invincible and gone on to a second Channel Slam.
Nadal was hitting so short in the match that this was the dominant factor. Over and over again short. Injury is the obvious answer.I voted Nadal's injury as the primary reason.
Soderling was in awesome form that tournament. I was worried that he might mow down Fed in the final (let's not forget that he did mow down Fed the year after!).
However, the 2010 final for me is powerful evidence that the primary reason was Nadal's drop in form. Nadal took care of Soderling in routine fashion the next year, despite the fact that Soderling's level in 2010 was as good as 2009.
And three to the current #1 MUG who can cry like fedr but it's a shame he can't play like him.Federer's PIGEON Hewitt comes through AGAIN ROFLMAO...seriously Federer should dedicate HALF of his slams to that MUG.
Look, Soderling deserves enormous credit for that 2009 match. It was a career-defining win for him. He achieved something that Fed and Novak at their very best never could.
But my point is that as good as Soderling's level was, it wasn't good enough to beat the very best version of Nadal.
Was Fed's level at 2013 Wimbledon just as high as always? Clearly Stakhovsky played an excellent match, but let's get serious here.
Also, Rosol is an interesting case. People often put Soderling and Rosol into the same sentence. But let's be honest--beating Nadal on grass is NOT the same as beating him on clay at the French. Hats off to Rosol (and Darcis, and Kyrgios, and Brown) for fine grass court tennis, but Soderling achieved the impossible in 2009.
The stars are different for different people, do you not know?! Pink is all about God mode for Stan but completely opposite for Nadal.Lmao those pink checkered shorts or w/e though seemed to work wonders for Stan though
It would be pointed to in the history books and lauded if Sod had one more miracle that week and could have backed it up in the following year's final.Even as a Nadal fan there is absolutely no mystery here. Soderling played like a lunatic pegging winners from everywhere and deserves all the credit for the win.
He may have felt slightly emboldened if he had an inkling that Nadal wasn't at 100% and it may have helped him but that point is moot because he still had to do all the work in executing and playing at that insane level for an extended period of time.
It's a time capsule match, because Soderling played idiosyncratic, but very effective claycourt tennis. The style will never catch on because it takes a rare player to be able to do that.
It became historic because it was Nadal's first loss at F.O. but I wish more was made of Soderling winning and less of Nadal losing. Really, that day should have been a celebration for Soderling.
It would be pointed to in the history books and lauded if Sod had one more miracle that week and could have backed it up in the following year's final.
Sign that man in black to a tryout contract for my New York Jets!No one was beating Fed in 2009 F.O. - despite this idiot's efforts to ruin the day:
Agree. Particularly frustrating for Soderling in that he handled Federer the following year only to come a cropper this time against Nadal in the F.
Simple, look at what led up to it in 2009: Fed's Aussie Open sobfest and who wanted to see "tennis" get another black eye credibility-wise in the sportsworld by having yet another losing finalist breaking down in tears like he/she lost a beauty pageant. Nadal being the compassionate team player took one for "the team" (i.e. the tennis fraternity).This is becoming one of the great mysteries in recent years.
How did a guy as dominant as Nadal, playing near his absolute peak, lose to a guy that he had destroyed 6-1, 6-0 just weeks before in Rome?
But what was the single most plausible reason among these various factors?
Soderling's peak was just better than Nadal's peak and Nadal was lucky that he developed a severe health problem and had to retire.
This is becoming one of the great mysteries in recent years.
How did a guy as dominant as Nadal, playing near his absolute peak, lose to a guy that he had destroyed 6-1, 6-0 just weeks before in Rome?
Most of us would agree that no single factor could explain an anomaly of this magnitude. A confluence of things had to come together, including a drop in Rafa's form (due to some injury that also kept him out of Wimbledon), Nadal's potential overconfidence going into the match, Nadal's mental state (recent divorce of parents), weather conditions (Nadal play's better in the bright sun and it was very overcast that day), and Soderling achieving God mode and achieving genuine self-belief after the first set.
But what was the single most plausible reason among these various factors?
Simple, look at what led up to it in 2009: Fed's Aussie Open sobfest and who wanted to see "tennis" get another black eye credibility-wise in the sportsworld by having yet another losing finalist breaking down in tears like he/she lost a beauty pageant. Nadal being the compassionate team player took one for "the team" (i.e. the tennis fraternity).
*Rafa through his teeth* calling out Fed:
"Roger, again with the tears?.....pleeezzee amigo, this is getting embarrassing...."
* ..."hmmm, aw what the hell...there will be others.." *
"Look, I'll tell you what....if I tank the French, will you knock it off and smile?"