Soderling defeat worse than Rosol: Rafa.

abmk

Bionic Poster
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 )
 
Last edited:

augustobt

Legend
Nadal is the only player that is sick when loses AND when wins. How doesn't remember the AO '09, where he was injuried, tired...
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Yes but the real question is, can a player be 100% and be injured at the same time?

:twisted:
Obviously not. Being 100% means that you're in perfect condition, and therefore injury free. But in tennis, you're fit to play if you start the match.
 

cknobman

Legend
Its amusing, yet pathetic, to see the same little band of Nadal fans jump in every single thread in existence spouting the same hateful tripe towards Federer regardless of if the thread is about Federer or if his name or likeness has even been mentioned in the thread.

Classy.

On topic of course the Solderling defeat hurts worse than the Rosol defeat. Nadal was undefeated playing on his best surface when Solderling beat him vs playing at Wimbledon where he had already been defeated previously and on a surface which was not considered his best.
 

dudeski

Hall of Fame
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).
Thank you for clarification :)

I am surprised LOLvile isn't back after all those Federer's defeats in the fall.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
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 mean the one that was clearly strapped earlier in the event? As opposed to the knees that were killing Nadal but ok enough to play both singles and doubles at Queens.. Nadal either is exaggerating the injury or he is really stupid
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
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 )
I hope the mod ban them. If Razoredge and Prisoner of Birth got banned, these banned posters don't deserve to be around either.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
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.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
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.
Yea right! i don't know what press conferences you've been listening to :confused:

FYI; the best you can do while being injured is certainly worse than if you were not injured!

Live and learn...
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
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.
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.
 
That match against Rosol was a very closely contested match. He played well, chased down shots, and fought hard. Nadal looked 100%. Rosol, too played very well.

So this crap about his knees and that he couldn't play is just BS. If he couldn't play, he would've quit midmatch saying the pain being unbearable. He should just admit it, he was beaten in that fifth set. It was a close one but nonetheless, he lost. End of story. Don't tell everyone you were injured after the fact.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Thank you for clarification :)

I am surprised LOLvile isn't back after all those Federer's defeats in the fall.
Actually, LOLville did post quite a bit lately under his double accounts (like Smoledman, Djokovic2008 etc.) but if you mean why didn't he go back to his JV account yet? I guess he just got owned far too much after Fed's Wimbledon win this year so it's easier for him to "hide" :).

It's also due to the fact that he can claim Fed is still playing peak tennis easier by using his other accounts because whenever he did that under JV handle he got embarrassed with his disgusting double standards being thoroughly exposed given his history of claiming (under JV account obviously) that 24 year old Nadal declined.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
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.
He did claim what TMF said he did but the overall tone of the interview wasn't that much accusing, sort of a -Nadal's medical time-out could have been fake but I'm also pissed right now because I lost a match so maybe I don't see things clearly-attitude (atleast that's the impression I got), see for yourself:

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=64530




Q. Can we analyze first.
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: Yeah, tough to analyze right now. I'm pretty sad a little bit pissed off of myself that I couldn't hold the focus after he had the injury timeout. I don't know what happened there.

Q. Your timeout or...
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: No, his timeout. Yeah, it was pretty clever, I think. Right now I'm not happy. This will maybe come tomorrow or in two days.
Right now I'm just pissed off and sad that I lost the match.

Q. Are you suggesting there might have been a bit of gamesmanship involved there?
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: I cannot say this. You have to ask him what it was. But I didn't feel any difference afterwards or before.
So he was -- I thought he was moving great. I only could say if I would be injured like this once I would be happy. No, but I don't know. Maybe he had something. Maybe it was just a clever part to take a timeout there.
I don't know. He played really good, really solid the whole time. I had two really good sets, but I couldn't keep the level up till the end.
So he deserved definitely the win.

Q. Is that the only difference between a player like you and him, that he's clever enough to know when to take a timeout maybe?
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: No. I don't assume that he didn't had anything, that there was just a timeout for no reason. I mean, you know that he has problems with his knee all the time. I think he got treatment for his knee again.
So I don't assume that he just did to break my rhythm. But that's what happened, and that's mostly my fault. Yeah, that's what I have to work on.

Q. You were complaining to the referee about the coaching by Rafael with...
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER:No, I didn't complain.

Q. No?
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: No.

Q. Did you hear it?
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: No, I just heard words, but it could have been "vamos" or whatever. It's anyway tough to hear if you're down on the court, because the whole arena is pretty loud.
So I don't know why he gave the warning for or if it was coaching or not. I have absolutely in idea. I can just tell if you are down there, you almost understand nothing from up there, even if they are screaming at you.
I think there was no coaching involved. That's what I think.

Q. Can you explain your game plan?
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: My game plan? (Laughing.) Play crazy. (Laughing.) I don't know. I just tried not to give him any rhythm. Yeah. I had a really bad service game starting off. Yeah, then I played good.

Q. The reaction of Rafa to the coaching warning was quite strong. Again, sort of gesturing and talking back to the umpire. Did that unsettle you at all?

PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: No. It's always a question -- I mean, if there was really no coaching, then I maybe would react the same like he did. But you have -- these questions you have to ask him. I mean...

Q. I'm just asking if it unsettled you.
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: No, no. Me, not at all. It was about him, his coach, and the referee. Whatever happened there, I have no idea about.

Q. But some injury has to be, because he's going to quit Davis Cup. He said that, and we all knew that. He says he's not gonna play anymore until the U.S. season in August.

PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: This is still none of my business, to be honest. I don't really care. If he's injured, it's fine. I never said that this was just a timeout to break my rhythm and he wasn't injured.
I think he's injured. He always has problems with his knee. Everybody knows it. This question you have to ask him. I don't know if it's bad or not bad.
I just can tell you how it felt, and it felt like he was still running the same for five sets. And I think he could run another two or three sets, and I couldn't. So that's how it felt on the court and that's how it is.
If he's injured, okay. If not, I don't know. Ask him. He's the fittest player on tour. He's moving great around on the court. Yeah. So I have no idea.

Q. What, fitter than Mahut?
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: That's a tough question right now. I think so.

Q. You think so?
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: Well, I have no...

Q. Any thoughts on the match tomorrow, or you're not into football?
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: Um, that's a good question. I think we win 3-Love. Easy. (Laughter.)

Q. Would that raise your spirits at all after today, or have no impact?
PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: No, definitely I invited a couple of Germans who are still here. I have a house up in Wimbledon Village. We're all going to watch soccer tomorrow, have a nice barbecue, and cheer for Germany.
And if the English, if they don't cheat at us, we should win, I think. Because the last ten times we won.

Q. If they don't cheat? Are you talking about '66?

PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: Could be.

Q. I think it's gonna a miserable weekend for you double time then, huh?

PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: I don't think so. I have faith in our players in South Africa.

Q. What was wrong with your leg? I couldn't quite tell from the stands.

PHILIPP PETZSCHNER: No, I had already hip problem in Madrid. Yeah. So I had it also after Halle, but that's why I took a week off. It just comes and goes. The problem is it came back after I was sitting there for four or five minutes. Like my muscles were getting little bit cold, I was getting little bit stiff, and so I felt it again.
But I think it didn't change anything.
 
N

nikdom

Guest
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
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.
I couldn't agree more.
 

underground

G.O.A.T.
It is true though that Rosol's style fits perfectly against Nadal's. We've seen on that one day how his shots are strikingly flat, perfect against moonballing.

I think when he means there is that there is no guarantee that Federer and Nadal will win 100% of matches and upsets will happen from time to time, so low-ranked players like him do have a *possibility* of beating them.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
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:
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
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:
I have to agree with you here, Federer just like Nadal and Djokovic and others makes excuses. No one is a saint on the tour, they all have their moments. And yes fading lights is a cheap excuse because the opponent was also dealing with fading lights, just like saying the balls are too heavy is a cheap excuse because the opponenet was also dealing with the same heavy balls and was doing just fine.
 

TTMR

Hall of Fame
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.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
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).
 

TTMR

Hall of Fame
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.
 

tudwell

Legend
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.
Marat and David did take hardcourt slams away from Federer. If Nalbandian hadn't beaten Federer at the 2003 U.S. Open, who would have? He owned Roddick, and Ferrero's only big win against him came in 2000 (although he did beat Fed at Madrid that year, so it wouldn't have been a walkover in the final or anything). And obviously Federer would have been a huge favorite in the final of the 2005 Australian Open considering the way he stomped Hewitt at the 2004 U.S. Open and then beat him twice in straight sets at the Masters Cup.

Sure, that's only two examples, but two slams is a big swing.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
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.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
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.
True, Fed owes most of his success to Nalbandian's infatuation with racing and fishing and Marat's exotic lifestyle.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
Good point. However I have a funny feeling that had Federer won the USO in 2003 and gone on to dominate Roddick as he has, the "weak era" brigade would be out in full force to discredit Federer's slam win. As it is this is a moot point, but I thought I'd point it out anyway because I can guarantee you it would happen.

Funny everybody likes to bring up Nalbandian as weak competition though, even though he always gave Federer a tough time prime or not. The only problem with Nalbandian was that he couldn't stop Federer at slams in his prime. The only one we could possibly count is the USO 2003.

Just as an example, the H2H (yes that H2H) between Federer and Nalbandian before Federer first beat him at a slam (AO 04) was 5-1 Nalbandian who had scored win at the AO and USO the year before, yet everybody says "Oh Safin was tired" meanwhile conveniently "forgetting" that Fed beat Nalbandian. He also beat Hewitt at that years AO who he had a losing record (2-7) to at the time.

He then would beat Hewitt at Wimbledon that year in a deceptively close match, and he withstood one of Roddick's best performances in the final, although this is often discredited because "Roddick would've had him if not for the rain delay arghh!!!!!!"

Then the next time he played Nalbandian he slaughtered him at the 05 USO which automatically discredits the win because he clobbered him, and then of course he beat Hewitt in a tight 4 set match, but because he had a pretty big winning streak against him at the time this win means nothing, and then of course he played Old Agassi and beat him in 4 sets as well, but because he played Old Agassi this win is useless.

It's the old cliche "Hindsight is 20/20." Because Federer dominated those guys in his prime/peak depending on your use of the term, they're useless, but nobody looks at the situation at the time.

This is more of a rant than anything directed at you NA, but you've triggered it.
 
Last edited:
Top