View Single Post
Old 09-27-2009, 10:33 AM   #76
David L
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London
Posts: 2,581
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson vile View Post
Take a look at what I am saying, I contend that Roger was just fine in 2008 and that is why there is not much of a difference between 2008 and 2009.

As for Nadal if 2010 ends up same as 2009 then I say he is full of BS also. I don't see Roger being ill and palying better in Wim 2008 than wim 2009, how the heck does that work??? 2008 and 2009 wim were the exact same scinerio except it went the other way this time.

Listen if you are sick you aren't able to play more, you play less and have to withdraw a heck of a lot of tournaments, further more you don't make it to all these finals in slams.

How does a sick injured man playmore and make it to all the slam finals, and then blame losing ont he sickness when they paly the same way the year they are of good health????
Well sorry, I'm afraid you're wrong. The effect of Federer's illness, not only on his health, but also on how well prepared and fit he was able to be in 2008, is well documented. After missing out on training blocks in December 07 and February 08, he was playing catch-up all year with his fitness and form and said so at the US Open last year. His trainer, Pierre Paganini, has given a detailed account about the havoc mono created for his game in 08. You can choose to ignore this, but these are the facts. Sure he was still able to play once the acute symptoms had passed, but he was nowhere near as fit, prepared, confident or effective as he would have been throughout 2008 had he not contracted glandular fever in the first place, not to mention the stomach bug in Australia and the back problem. All of this is part of sport however. I doubt there is any player, let alone Federer and Nadal, who go through an entire year in perfect health with no setbacks or niggling ailments. We just don't hear so much about them.

Federer had his biggest health problems in 2008 and Nadal in 2009, and either can be said to have benefited from the other. The slight difference with Nadal is that his success depends on him running himself into the ground. He is not adequately equipt to win and remain physically okay for long stretches of time, so this is really a limitation in his game, not bad luck. I doubt 2009 will be the last time Nadal has some sort of physical problem which makes him pull out of an event.
David L is offline   Reply With Quote