Losing is one thing, withdrawing is another. The idea that Nadal can be mentally feeble enough to withdraw from a premiere event just due to temporary burnout seems like a crazy putdown. Not only that but he's apparently weak enough to outright lie about an injury that wasn't there. If that's not hugely disrespectful I don't know what is.
its not just due to temporary burnout like I've stressed repeatedly. Needed a combination - temporary burnout and faced with a daunting draw. Wouldn't happen without either of them.
Lying about injury is just self-interest, not weakness.
It can hardly be coincidence that the three OE ATGs that burned out in their twenties were all active in a short timeframe between mid-70s and late 80s; that would be Borg, McEnroe, Wilander. Those times must have been more difficult to endure, so a comparison with another period wouldn't be proper. There were also Connors and Lendl as contemporaries who didn't burn out; both were hugely motivated by spite, so the ATP snubbing them only fueled their fire. However, both struggled with weakness in big matches at times, Lendl moreso. There hasn't been someone as rock solid as Borg in prime combined with Connors's longevity, Nadal though comes the closest (in OE that is; Gonzales may have been that, not enough data to tell). Adds to the scandalosity of accusing him of running way from a slam o.o
its still some mental weakness on the part of Borg. I do sympathize with his situation, but can't let Borg entirely off hook here.
Borg didn't need to have Connors' longevity obviously, but could have played till 84-85.
Better than being rigid. I end up adjusting my stance often, not always for the better perhaps.
you are mixing up 2 things. I'm talking about applying things in a consistent manner (in this case mental strength wrt to ATGs)
Not about sticking to one view or stubbornness. Which is a different topic.
Point was, it didn't contradict your general Fed bias to say that.
No, it doesn't even matter in this context. I was just thinking of how Djokovic played vs Cilic in that match.
If I say Djokovic played very well Tsonga in 4R of Wim 14 doesn't mean anything else.
When I didn't even think of comparing the respective QFs, bias doesn't even come into the picture.
Got busted easily so you can't establish that. This just opens an infinite can of worms as you can equate an easy loss to a mighty five-set struggle based on level of play just like that, and sure it would have to be true for some comparisons but the potential influence of bias is massive so who can be trusted to evaluate with that huge a differential?
fine, so disagree with the equating.
Gasquet hit 40 winners+errors forced vs 11 UEs in that Wim 06 1st round match
AM was 20.86%.
Was up vs Fed who wasn't SnVing or coming to the net excessively. Up vs Fed playing really well, including moving well..
So yeah, I'd say that's a pretty clear indicator Gasquet didn't play bad.
We'll see yet how wrong I was in fact.
its not the first time you've misread/misrepresented what I wrote. So ....
. Djokodal's turn. It's too bad they're not in their prime so they can't ROFLstomp the field like Fed did.
. I'm just saying again calling me radical (pretty bold/demeaning claim) based on an opinion that's held by the majority. That's pretty much directly against the definition of what radical means.
