By that same token, would you say Del Potro's MTO was also unjustified? Did you see him hobbling afterwards? Why pick on Nadal exclusively if not for sentimental reasons?
I don't really want to go into Del Potro's MTO (which also happened behind the scenes more), because I've got less of an opinion of it and less of a clear idea about it. I'm equally fan or non-fan of Del Potro and Nadal, by the way, so sentimentality has nothing to do with it. Still, if you want to know, personally I thought there were three crucial differences: 1) Del Potro's injury, in contrast with Nadal's, was acute: he couldn't get up and walk properly anymore (or he was a better actor!); 2) it was at a much less crucial junction in the match; 3) this may very well be a personal interpretation, but I found him hampered for the rest of the match (in contrast with Nadal), having the impression that he swung less from the hip and let his arm/wrist do the work. I wouldn't dare make a judgment on this one though, even though I think those first two things are rather important differences.
Anyone who watched the match neutrally watched Nadal play and lose a few shaky points (at a very delicate junction of the match) then go on as if nothing had happened. Just a harmless pull that might as well have been healed by a kiss from his mum? Analgesics? Good bandaging? I wouldn't know, but still don't see how it was for his benefit.
Agreed; but it was to his benefit because he could take the time to mentally recompose before going into the tie-break. He was, as you said, mentally shaken a bit, and was likely genuinely a bit worried. That pull was in his mind; mentally, he wouldn't win a directly ensuing tie-break like that. So he took a time-out that is normally only meant for acute injuries. Sportsmanlike conduct would be: realizing that he could still play, that there was nothing acute about it, and getting on with business. The gamesmanship here was abusing an existing rule (meant for another type of injury) to sit down, let someone look at it and put your own mind at rest, regardless of what it does to your opponent.
Hypochondria is a different discussion altogether, I don't think it is an unreasonable explanation, given what little we know about Nadal's psychology and how injuries have affected his career.
Indeed, and we're heading into the realm of interpretation here. I'm a trusting person by nature, so it took a lot of Nadal's MTO's to make me look into something more here. And still it wouldn't surprise me at all if in this instance Nadal himself really believed what he was doing and saying (how he didn't lie, etc.). That said, I think he also knew very well his MTO was rather dodgy. But hypochondria would make sense of a lot of it; I'm not into psychology but perhaps his injuries are the one thing that he doesn't have in OCD-hand, and perhaps that's why he freaks out even if he misplaces his foot a tiny bit. But again, disregard what I just said, because it just isn't to the point, and it's speculation - as are 95% of all these MTO threads (from both pro- and anti-Nadal fans).
The rule leaves the decision to the trainer, and any health professional worth the name will tend to err on the side of caution until a thorough diagnosis can be performed before calling out an hypochondriac. It is difficult to see how any trainer is going to deny any player a MTO if he asks for it.
I agree entirely. This is also why I'm convinced it was gamesmanship: Nadal knew very well that there already was a medical time-out before there ever was one.
What happened yesterday was both:
- within the rules: umpire called trainer, trainer looked at it, eventually called it a medical time-out - yes, the whole procedure was followed correctly, as Woodrow was quick to make clear.
- outside the rules: because there was no acute injury at all (as the remainder of the match & the MTI have made clear). But the trainer made it "legal"; as you said, he can't deny an MTO at that point. It follows that there was gamesmanship from Nadal not to start the tie-break immediately. All the rest that is dragged in here by pro- and anti-Nadalfans here is irrelevant.
PS 1: just to be clear, there's no problem with the rule itself whatsoever. But the case yesterday has shown that the rule presupposes some form of sportsmanlike behaviour from the player himself.
PS 2: I could make a whole list of irrelevant arguments about this in this thread, but one I'll single out: you can't use who won what points in the tie-break. It could be 7-0 for Nadal, it could be 7-0 for Del Potro; it remains gamesmanship, because at the time he took a break for the purpose of mental recomposure, not an acute physical injury which the time-out was meant for according to the rules.
