zagor
Bionic Poster
Jackson vile?
You don't know your Nadal trolls son.
The_Order is Sharpshooter (banned poster), not LOLville (he does have quite a few additional accounts but this one doesn't belong to him).
Jackson vile?
You don't know your Nadal trolls son.
The_Order is Sharpshooter (banned poster), not LOLville (he does have quite a few additional accounts but this one doesn't belong to him).
Yes but the real question is, can a player be 100% and be injured at the same time?
:twisted:
You don't know your Nadal trolls son.
The_Order is Sharpshooter (banned poster), not LOLville (he does have quite a few additional accounts but this one doesn't belong to him).
Not as "classy" as Fed 2010 after being hammered by Berdych at Wimbledon QF. "I have a leg injury" which leg? "uhhh.....umm......the left one".
You don't know your Nadal trolls son.
The_Order is Sharpshooter (banned poster), not LOLville (he does have quite a few additional accounts but this one doesn't belong to him).
not sure about LOLville's additional accounts, but yeah The Order is Sharpshooter (banned poster) ( so is Blocker I think )
It doesn't take a criminal mastermind to know that someone is lying when he uses the same excuse every time he loses, yet moves like a rabbit.
Nadal haters want it both ways. Firstly, they say that Nadal's style causes injury and would lead to early retirement, while in the next breath they say the things that you're saying above.
Don't compare Roger to Rafa. Roger comes out and says "I shouldn't have lost, this is why....I played ok but he did x,y,z right".
Rafa on the other hand says "No I did my best.." and then a week later says I was injured the entire time, just a FYI.
They both have large ego's but Federer accepts loss easier than Nadal.
Hate just makes people dumb I guess.
This is not a good post. I suppose you believe PMac is a Nadal hater too because he suspected Nadal's injury in 2010 Wimbledon. Nadal destroyed Petzschner after the MTO, and he moves like he had two bionic legs. Petz even said he wishes he can be injured for once and be able to move that good. Getting injured and then become superhuman doesn't add up. That's why people doubt his injury, no way Petz is a hater who was actually playing him.
Nadal haters want it both ways. Firstly, they say that Nadal's style causes injury and would lead to early retirement, while in the next breath they say the things that you're saying above.
Thank you for clarification
I am surprised LOLvile isn't back after all those Federer's defeats in the fall.
If I recall correctly, Petzschner didn't criticise Nadal at all after that match, neither directly nor via insinuations, even though the media were trying to push him into saying something controversial.
Let's do the adult thing and split this down the middle -
YES, Nadal has been injured in his career and there's no doubt he could have been playing with pain or discomfort during some of his losses AND wins.
NO, he should not be bringing up these injury issues post loss for two reasons
1. It completely ignores the opponent's hand in the outcome. No matter what Nadal has to say, Rosol played unbelievable tennis that day.
2. It's just unsporting for a player of Nadal's level to be peddling excuses. Just come back and let your racquet do the talking - Nadal is too good a tennis player (yes, I'm saying it, even as a Fed fan) to let himself be painted by anything other than his work on the court.
Finally, my two cents on his injury as well -
All Nadal fans like to take his injury pronouncements at face value. They want to say, hey, you can't have it two ways. But what they don't want to admit is that his injury events are also very telling by their convenient timing - after a loss. Is it then irrational to question some part of his injury retirements are not also psychological? That the guy needs to lick his wounds so to speak. I always get the sense that if one positive aspect of not giving up is that he fights for every point, then the downside is that this seems like a guy who cannot take defeat very easily - always telling himself that there was an excuse.
Rosol---"It is possible for me to beat Nadal again" lol
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...st-Nadal-says-Rosol/articleshow/17849032.cms?
Let's do the adult thing and split this down the middle -
YES, Nadal has been injured in his career and there's no doubt he could have been playing with pain or discomfort during some of his losses AND wins.
NO, he should not be bringing up these injury issues post loss for two reasons
1. It completely ignores the opponent's hand in the outcome. No matter what Nadal has to say, Rosol played unbelievable tennis that day.
2. It's just unsporting for a player of Nadal's level to be peddling excuses. Just come back and let your racquet do the talking - Nadal is too good a tennis player (yes, I'm saying it, even as a Fed fan) to let himself be painted by anything other than his work on the court.
Finally, my two cents on his injury as well -
All Nadal fans like to take his injury pronouncements at face value. They want to say, hey, you can't have it two ways. But what they don't want to admit is that his injury events are also very telling by their convenient timing - after a loss. Is it then irrational to question some part of his injury retirements are not also psychological? That the guy needs to lick his wounds so to speak. I always get the sense that if one positive aspect of not giving up is that he fights for every point, then the downside is that this seems like a guy who cannot take defeat very easily - always telling himself that there was an excuse.
Fwhahahahahaha as if Fed never makes excuses and ignores his opponents hand in the outcome. He has said on countless occasions that he is in control and the match outcome is in his hands. He also uses cheap excuses like fading lights (as if his opponent wasn't dealing with the same thing), saying they got lucky (against Berdych and Novak)......... :lol:
1. If you start playing in a match, you are fit to play
2. You can both be injured and be fit to play by starting the match. It doesn't make the victory/loss any more/less legitimate.
True, but what does make a victory less legitimate is when your opponent is a years-past-his-prime mono-ridden 30 year old starting at age 26. No win is a true win when your opponent is thus.
Yeah but what makes victories even less legitimate is when you beat up on bunch of babies barely out of their cribs or weak choking clowns (who had no business clumsily trying to play tennis).
Even less legitimate when you consider the two greatest players of all time, who would have taken most or all of Federer's hard court slams away at their best, were oft-injured, headcases or just plain too deferential to the Swiss. I mean, of course, the incomparable tandem of Marat and David.
Even less legitimate when you consider the two greatest players of all time, who would have taken most or all of Federer's hard court slams away at their best, were oft-injured, headcases or just plain too deferential to the Swiss. I mean, of course, the incomparable tandem of Marat and David.
Wrong. I support honesty (Nadal). I don't support liars (Federer).
Federer had lost to Roddick on hard courts the summer of 2003, so he wasnt certain to win the U.S Open if he hadnt lost to Nalbandian.