Why do people forget about Federer's Mono?

[jackson vile]

By these standards, Federer has been in decline since the end of 2007, when his W/L started going south and he stopped winning every tournament he entered. And I would agree. He's still good enough to make it to the finals at majors, but he isn't good enough to dominate anymore.

In the past two years Roger is playing less ( due to the fact that he has achieved and set all the records he wanted), and is all and the field is much much stronger. Take a look at the new standard, it is much greater, the new players are amazing even when the are sucking ie Novak.

To say Roger's decline starts with a 68-9 W-L ratio is complete ignorance and incompetence. Reaching the final of everysingle slam in one year is not a decline.

When we talk about Pete, we are talking about him not making the finals in slams, with a 50/50 W-L ratio and 1-0 titles etc.

Roger has to face a much much stronger field now, and his desire is for slams now explaining is mixed results as masters and other tournaments. Also won the french the same year he made the final of all 4 slams, what decline????


****s are full of excuses and it is pathetic.

In ending the field is far stronger than any field Roger has ever played in before, Roger is playing less, let me know when Roger #1 stops making slam finals #2 has a W-L ratio of 50/50.

Being out played is not a decline, you just can't accept that Roger is beatable like the rest of the players, DEAL WITH IT

 

[jackson vile]

The fact is that even monoFed gave Nole trouble in that 2008 AO semifinal. Remember he was up a break in the 1st set. A healthy Fed would have taken it in 4 sets for sure. Then easily beat Tsonga in the final.

de·ni·al (d-nl)
n.
1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request.
2.
a. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction.
b. Law The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff.
3.
a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.
b. Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation.
5. Abstinence; self-denial.

 

[akv89]

In the past two years Roger is playing less ( due to the fact that he has achieved and set all the records he wanted), and is all and the field is much much stronger. Take a look at the new standard, it is much greater, the new players are amazing even when the are sucking ie Novak.

To say Roger's decline starts with a 68-9 W-L ratio is complete ignorance and incompetence. Reaching the final of everysingle slam in one year is not a decline.

When we talk about Pete, we are talking about him not making the finals in slams, with a 50/50 W-L ratio and 1-0 titles etc.

Roger has to face a much much stronger field now, and his desire is for slams now explaining is mixed results as masters and other tournaments. Also won the french the same year he made the final of all 4 slams, what decline????


****s are full of excuses and it is pathetic.

In ending the field is far stronger than any field Roger has ever played in before, Roger is playing less, let me know when Roger #1 stops making slam finals #2 has a W-L ratio of 50/50.

Being out played is not a decline, you just can't accept that Roger is beatable like the rest of the players, DEAL WITH IT

68-9 is a decline if he went 92-5 the previous year and 81-4 the year before. I don't define a player's decline on absolute terms like you did (a player must make only one slam final to be considered in decline) but rather on how well he's playing in comparison to his best. Still, I would consider much of 2007 as part of Federer's peak. Federer was still playing his best tennis through much of 2007, but since 08 he hasn't been brining out his best as often.
You say that Federer is losing because the field is stronger. I ask, is the field stronger or does it just look stronger because Federer can't dominate anymore? I know for sure that Federer is losing the guys he never lost to in late 2004, 2005 and 2006. So I can say with some confidence that Federer is not at his peak anymore. Whether or not the field is stronger is up for debate.

 

[mandy01]

^^ you just cant accept that others have more technical knowledge of the game than you do and have seen the cracks in Roger's game.Roger's decline as far as his game was concerned began in 2007 right after the AO as someone pointed out.
It is his level of play which people here are talking about.Obviously you understand nothing of it.
It has nothing to do with the overall field which is no better than what it was before.

 

[doublebreak]

For me it's not even an issue of whether he would lost to Nadal or Novak if he didn't have mono as I regard staying healthy as simply another part of the game.Sure I do believe Fed had mono and it somewhat affected his game and confidence but that's not Nadal nor Novak's problem,if Fed shows up to play them than he's in good enough condition to participate in a match,period.

What my issue is that Nadal fans are apparently so paranoid that Fed's mono takes something away from Nadal's incredible 2008(while really it doesn't for the reasons I said above)that they will accuse Fed of lying but on the other hand they give Fed zero credit for winning FO+Wimbledon this year(he won by default and similar nonsense)and beating Nadal in Madrid(the amount of excuses for that match was pathetic,they sounded like all Fed needed to do was show up),those are double standards.

I agree 100%. I just wouldn't call them fans though, many other words come to mind. Of course there are many reasonable Nadal fans out there.

 

[kraggy]

Fed's mono was real as was Nadal's knee injury. I think there is more that enough evidence to suggest that both happened. While it may be debatable as to how much this affected their play, once you are on the court , you CHOSE to be there and there are no excuses. Being able to deal with adversity is part and parcel of the game.

As far as era comparisons though, I don't think it is fair to say the current era is better or worse than the previous. It is unfair to say that a prime Fed or prime Sampras would blow every one of the court , just as it is unfair to say that Novak, Delpony and Murray are way better than Roddick, Hewitt and Safin were. in fact we don't even know if the youngers guys are in their prime yet! Having argued both sides though, I am of the opinion that all athletes, no matter what sport, get better, stronger and faster. Natural talent is probably constant across different eras. So overall it would seem that every generation should on an average be at least a little better than the previous generation.

At the end of the day what counts are your results. 10 yrs from now nobody will remember Feds mono or Nadals knee. But they will remember that Djoker won the AO 2008 and that Fed won FO 2009.

 

[mandy01]

^^ well said indeed.

 

[TheMusicLover]

^^ well said indeed.

+1. Perhaps a bit too much common sense for an internet forum?

 

[Anaconda]

The Federer 'Monoglandular Fever' saga is frowned upon for being over-exagerated.

Firstly, it didn't really effect him. He made the semi's at the Australian Open and then Made the FO & W finals back to back and won the US open; owning Murray in the process.

People would have never recognised Federer was ill if he had never announced it. Yes, his game from the backcourt has dipped slightly but blaming losses to the world #2 on mono is pretty pointless as it never hurt him against everyone else.

 

[mandy01]

If your too injured to play then you dont play. Dont get on the court and then whine your injured when you lose. Absolutely pathetic sore loser.

Sampras threw up all over the court.....you dont see him whiming like Roger!

Did you even know that Sampras suffered from a far worse disorder than mono?

I think we should apply this to Nadal as well..geez what whiner :roll:
Always tired and injured...duuh.

 

[mandy01]

uh no......

Nadal has said many times that he simply was beaten by many players. Federer has NEVER said this and always has some excuse.

Will someone please call a waaaaaambulance.:shock:

Hahaahahaha..yeah right!
So the I was injured,I never played with calm,I have pain in my famous ass,etc is very humble,no?!

Ah..typical Nadal fanatics..or should I say-troll in this case.

 

[TMF]

uh no......

Nadal has said many times that he simply was beaten by many players. Federer has NEVER said this and always has some excuse.

Will someone please call a waaaaaambulance.:shock:

And after a loss, Nadal said many times he was not 100%, tired, burn out, lost confidence, and of course injured.

 

[volleynets]

If your too injured to play then you dont play. Dont get on the court and then whine your injured when you lose. Absolutely pathetic sore loser.

Sampras threw up all over the court.....you dont see him whiming like Roger!

Did you even know that Sampras suffered from a far worse disorder than mono?

Good point about Nadal. He really should just not play when he is injured.

 

[mandy01]

^ no actually.I gave a few examples.There's a whole list of instances when Nadal dosent give players credit or acts like does and then goes on to 'explain' his injuries.
And you spamming the board with useless pictures does nothing to prove your point either.Like I said-you're just a troll who's sole aim is to bash Federer.

 

[TMF]

Federer has NEVER said this and always has some excuse.

STOP LYING!

Federer have said he was beaten by a other players and praises them. You need to read all of his interview scripts.

Again, STOP LYING!

 

[TMF]

No you do. Show me even one. He will always qualify it. every single time. Go ahead i dare you.

He praise them and giving them credits for beating him. What's your problem?

 

[TMF]

The media has always said Federer is a sore loser not me.

Again, this is another LIE.

 

[hoodjem]

Get real, no one cares about the mono because it is A MYTH like Ulysses' mermaids and cyclops :lol:

I think mermaids and cyclops are more real.

 

[Jchurch]

If your too injured to play then you dont play. Dont get on the court and then whine your injured when you lose. Absolutely pathetic sore loser.

Sampras threw up all over the court.....you dont see him whiming like Roger!

Did you even know that Sampras suffered from a far worse disorder than mono?

Yep. I sure did. Thalassemia Minor. A disease which isn't always treated and doesn't affect people huge amount. It isn't Thalassemia Major which does require treatment.

http://www.medicinenet.com/beta_thalassemia/article.htm

Furthermore, Federer said that he was over his glandular fever by mid year. These are Federer fans that are bringing it up and not Federer himself.

 

[Jchurch]

The best you got is "I never played with calm" or "I have pain in my ars"?

well all I have to say is this:

Better to make it to the final than to have this happen

http://pacejmiller.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/nadal-soderling.jpg

 

[Jchurch]

First of all Sampras tried to keep his ailment a secret and did everything he could to hide it.

Unlike Federer who said he was fine and then when he lost blamed it on Mono.

The guy is an artist on the court but as a person.....well I dont want to comment.

Please show me the links that have your evidence?

And having disease which at its worst causes MILD ANEMIA is no where near as debilitating as Mono

 

[Jchurch]

I thought he acted like a gentleman, unlike this:

Now what is worse, breaking a racket or saying "When I see him holding the US Open trophy, it pisses me off?"

One shows frustration while the other shows a blatant disregard for the achievements of someone else.

 

[zagor]

Don't throw them all on the same pile. There are very reasonable Nadal fans around, who understand very well that 'keeping healthy' is a very important matter in a pro's career - and that we don't always have that in our own hands. Those dreadful double standards come from the ****S, not from the reasonable fans.

I agree 100%. I just wouldn't call them fans though, many other words come to mind. Of course there are many reasonable Nadal fans out there.

You're both right,I should have said some Nadal fans.There are a lot of good Nadal fans here,in fact those fans whose sole purpose on this forum is to bash Fed are probably a minority,just a very vocal one.


Edit:I added that smiley by accident,damn laptop.

 

[zagor]

In the past two years Roger is playing less ( due to the fact that he has achieved and set all the records he wanted), and is all and the field is much much stronger. Take a look at the new standard, it is much greater, the new players are amazing even when the are sucking ie Novak.

To say Roger's decline starts with a 68-9 W-L ratio is complete ignorance and incompetence. Reaching the final of everysingle slam in one year is not a decline.

When we talk about Pete, we are talking about him not making the finals in slams, with a 50/50 W-L ratio and 1-0 titles etc.

Roger has to face a much much stronger field now, and his desire is for slams now explaining is mixed results as masters and other tournaments. Also won the french the same year he made the final of all 4 slams, what decline????


****s are full of excuses and it is pathetic.

In ending the field is far stronger than any field Roger has ever played in before, Roger is playing less, let me know when Roger #1 stops making slam finals #2 has a W-L ratio of 50/50.

Being out played is not a decline, you just can't accept that Roger is beatable like the rest of the players, DEAL WITH IT

Actually 68-9 is a decline compared to 92-5,81-4 and 74-6,that's some basic math.

However if we go by your logic of counting only slam finals(that seems to be your main argument)consider the fact that Pete reached 2 slam finals in 2000 which is more than he did in 1996,1998 and 1999 and equal to what he did in 1993,1994 and 1997.

In fact the only time Sampras reached more than 2 slam finals in his entire career was in 1995.

So was Sampras in decline in 2000? Yes or no?

 

[kraggy]

Actually 68-9 is a decline compared to 92-5,81-4 and 74-6,that's some basic math.

However if we go by your logic of counting only slam finals(that seems to be your main argument)consider the fact that Pete reached 2 slam finals in 2000 which is more than he did in 1996,1998 and 1999 and equal to what he did in 1993,1994 and 1997.

In fact the only time Sampras reached more than 2 slam finals in his entire career was in 1995.

So was Sampras in decline in 2000? Yes or no?

Your logic is spot on as far as saying that reaching slam finals is not a sole indicator of playing form. However Fed's declining win-loss record doesn't tell us whether Fed declined or whether the competition caught up or whether both happened.

I think a good indication of a decline would be the number of losses to players outside the top 10. If this number increases significantly, that is a sure sign of decline. Unfortunately Fed has such a spotless record that if he goes from 300-0 to 295-5 , people will call that a decline. Statistically though, I would argue that you need much more of a deviation to make a claim like that.

I'm not saying Fed couldn't have declined, I'm just saying it's kind of hard to prove it.

As a fan, we always want to believe that if our player had played at their best level they would have won. As a Nadal fan, I'd like to believe that a fully fit Nadal would have beaten Soderling at the FO. But I have no way of providing strong enough evidence to support this.

 

[Messarger]

This. Nadal was fit enough to make the Madrid final and Federer fit enough to make the FO and W finals, obviously they were not suffering that much.

Take nothing away from Federer's wins. But there's a difference between being fit enough to make the match and being fit enough to actually win the match.

Look at Nadal's performances between the final against Federer and the semi final against Djokokvic. Totally different player in terms of movement and footwork.

 

[dh003i]

Your logic is spot on as far as saying that reaching slam finals is not a sole indicator of playing form. However Fed's declining win-loss record doesn't tell us whether Fed declined or whether the competition caught up or whether both happened.

I think a good indication of a decline would be the number of losses to players outside the top 10. If this number increases significantly, that is a sure sign of decline. Unfortunately Fed has such a spotless record that if he goes from 300-0 to 295-5 , people will call that a decline. Statistically though, I would argue that you need much more of a deviation to make a claim like that.

I'm not saying Fed couldn't have declined, I'm just saying it's kind of hard to prove it.

As a fan, we always want to believe that if our player had played at their best level they would have won. As a Nadal fan, I'd like to believe that a fully fit Nadal would have beaten Soderling at the FO. But I have no way of providing strong enough evidence to support this.

Well, 15 slams suggests that ouside of clay, at his best, Federer beats everyone. And 4 FO's in a row including winning the FO without losing a set in 2008 -- the final over Federer, SF over Djokovic -- suggests the same for Nadal on clay. Soderling is a tough matchup for Nadal on clay; Delpo would be too. But if Nadal is at his best on the surface, there's just no question what-so-ever who is going to win.

 

[TheMusicLover]

STOP LYING!

Federer have said he was beaten by a other players and praises them. You need to read all of his interview scripts.

Again, STOP LYING!

It's not just a matter of Mr. Troll not having read Fed's interviews - he's apparently never watched a match of his either.

Furthermore, Federer said that he was over his glandular fever by mid year. These are Federer fans that are bringing it up and not Federer himself.

Hmmm, might I point out to you that I see the whole mono-business being brought up by Federer HATERS much more often than by his fans?

 

[Emelia21]

Please show me the links that have your evidence?

And having disease which at its worst causes MILD ANEMIA is no where near as debilitating as Mono

I am in awe of super Federer, reaching a semi-final at AO, making the final of FO and Wimbledon and winning US Open with such a debilitating disease as mono is :shock: :shock:

The guy is superman, I wonder what the fit and healthy players made of Rogers debilitating disease and his wins :shock:

Roger = superman

 

[Jchurch]

I am in awe of super Federer, reaching a semi-final at AO, making the final of FO and Wimbledon and winning US Open with such a debilitating disease as mono is :shock: :shock:

The guy is superman, I wonder what the fit and healthy players made of Rogers debilitating disease and his wins :shock:

Roger = superman

I never said that mono is the most debilitating disease. I said that it is more debilitating than thalassemia anemia. Which it is.

 

[Jchurch]

It's not just a matter of Mr. Troll not having read Fed's interviews - he's apparently never watched a match of his either.



Hmmm, might I point out to you that I see the whole mono-business being brought up by Federer HATERS much more often than by his fans?

I agree that Federer haters bring it up quite a bit but only to make fun of him instead of an explanation for why his 2008 results were subpar(by his standards)

 

[nCode2010]

When Fed *only* makes 2 slam finals in 2010 we can say he's in decline. When he *only* makes 1 slam final in 2011 we can say his career is *over*. When he makes no slam finals, but still continues his semifinal streak to like 30+, we'll say *HE NEEDS TO RETIRE*.

 

[TheMusicLover]

I agree that Federer haters bring it up quite a bit but only to make fun of him instead of an explanation for why his 2008 results were subpar(by his standards)

At a certain point - and I'd say, some two friggin' years after it happened is surely close to that point - it gets tiresome and lame. I don't mind my favs being made fun of at all, but one should expect folks to be a little more creative.

When Fed *only* makes 2 slam finals in 2010 we can say he's in decline. When he *only* makes 1 slam final in 2011 we can say his career is *over*. When he makes no slam finals, but still continues his semifinal streak to like 30+, we'll say *HE NEEDS TO RETIRE*.

It depends on how you look. If you merely look at his RESULTS, you are spot-on. However, if you have followed him closely during his career, you cannot close your eyes that his game is indeed in decline. He isn't the player he was during his prime (2005 - 2007) anymore, even if his results are still very decent.

 

[nCode2010]

TheMusicLover - who cares if his game is in decline since 04-06? He still wins slams and at this point that's all that matters. He'll still find a way to pick up the odd Masters win.

 

[TheMusicLover]

TheMusicLover - who cares if his game is in decline since 04-06? He still wins slams and at this point that's all that matters. He'll still find a way to pick up the odd Masters win.

Well it's not a matter of 'caring about it' (at least not that much for me), but just a natural process which I can't help but notice - and I'm not the kind of fan to close my eyes for reality. Of course, as long as he still manages to do well in the slams and the odd Masters, I'll be pleased to see that, but I'm no longer taking him as the absolute favourite to win 'everything' (outside of clay of course).

 

[Deleted member 21996]

I was re-watching the Madrid 2009 win for Federer today and the Wimby final. I was pretty upset with the youtube comments, claiming that Federer beat Nadal in Madrid because Nadal was tired, so i thought i'd share my views and maybe get some opinions from you.

This year, prior to his French Open victory, everyone was talking about how Federer beat a tired, injured Nadal in the final of Madrid, and that this result would not pertain to the outcome of the French. Maybe we all seem to forget that Federer lost to Nadal in 2008 injured/ill as well?

In my mind, the only loss that i count is the AO 2009 loss to Nadal, where Federer played a horrible match. But lets face if, even if Federer won, Nadal was tired.

typical lame *** excuses for a generation of spoiled brats...

i dont remember or imagine Laver and Rosewall, Borg et. al. coming up with such BS... and they played with wood clubs and canvas plimsoles...

 

[jackson vile]

Actually 68-9 is a decline compared to 92-5,81-4 and 74-6,that's some basic math.

However if we go by your logic of counting only slam finals(that seems to be your main argument)consider the fact that Pete reached 2 slam finals in 2000 which is more than he did in 1996,1998 and 1999 and equal to what he did in 1993,1994 and 1997.

In fact the only time Sampras reached more than 2 slam finals in his entire career was in 1995.

So was Sampras in decline in 2000? Yes or no?

In the past two years Roger is playing less ( due to the fact that he has achieved and set all the records he wanted), and is all and the field is much much stronger. Take a look at the new standard, it is much greater, the new players are amazing even when the are sucking ie Novak.

To say Roger's decline starts with a 68-9 W-L ratio is complete ignorance and incompetence. Reaching the final of everysingle slam in one year is not a decline.

When we talk about Pete, we are talking about him not making the finals in slams, with a 50/50 W-L ratio and 1-0 titles etc.

Roger has to face a much much stronger field now, and his desire is for slams now explaining is mixed results as masters and other tournaments. Also won the french the same year he made the final of all 4 slams, what decline????


****s are full of excuses and it is pathetic.

In ending the field is far stronger than any field Roger has ever played in before, Roger is playing less, let me know when Roger #1 stops making slam finals #2 has a W-L ratio of 50/50.

Being out played is not a decline, you just can't accept that Roger is beatable like the rest of the players, DEAL WITH IT

 

[ksbh]

^^^ Exactly! Great post, Vile!

Also, to the OP ... what is so difficult to forget about something that never existed? One of Federer's great advantages is that his fans are mostly immature teenagers who will buy any reason for a loss without using logic or common sense. Playing in the searing Aussie heat with mono! Yeah right!

 

[Telepatic]

@ OP
I suppose pros can decide by their own decision whether to play or not, if they did and got beaten, they lost fair and square in those cases.

 

[zagor]

Your logic is spot on as far as saying that reaching slam finals is not a sole indicator of playing form. However Fed's declining win-loss record doesn't tell us whether Fed declined or whether the competition caught up or whether both happened.

I think a good indication of a decline would be the number of losses to players outside the top 10. If this number increases significantly, that is a sure sign of decline. Unfortunately Fed has such a spotless record that if he goes from 300-0 to 295-5 , people will call that a decline. Statistically though, I would argue that you need much more of a deviation to make a claim like that.

I'm not saying Fed couldn't have declined, I'm just saying it's kind of hard to prove it.

As a fan, we always want to believe that if our player had played at their best level they would have won. As a Nadal fan, I'd like to believe that a fully fit Nadal would have beaten Soderling at the FO. But I have no way of providing strong enough evidence to support this.

I agree with you,it's hard to prove either way and maybe it's a combination of both.stronger competition and Fed's natural decline of skills.My issues was with Jackson Vile applying double standards to Fed when compared to Pete.

However there is a difference between level of play and achievements.For example even if Fed say won a calendar grand slam this year(won those matches against Nadal and Delpo)I would still consider his actual level of play to be higher in 2005 even though this year achievement wise would have been much greater.

Or another example,IMO of all the slams this year Fed's level of play was the highest in AO even though he lost,now he had a bad serving day against Nadal in the final and played relatively poor on big points but overall IMO he played great from the baseline,reminded me of his peak play,FO and Wimbledon he mostly won on mental strength and fitness.

In the past two years Roger is playing less ( due to the fact that he has achieved and set all the records he wanted), and is all and the field is much much stronger. Take a look at the new standard, it is much greater, the new players are amazing even when the are sucking ie Novak.

To say Roger's decline starts with a 68-9 W-L ratio is complete ignorance and incompetence. Reaching the final of everysingle slam in one year is not a decline.

When we talk about Pete, we are talking about him not making the finals in slams, with a 50/50 W-L ratio and 1-0 titles etc.

Roger has to face a much much stronger field now, and his desire is for slams now explaining is mixed results as masters and other tournaments. Also won the french the same year he made the final of all 4 slams, what decline????


****s are full of excuses and it is pathetic.

In ending the field is far stronger than any field Roger has ever played in before, Roger is playing less, let me know when Roger #1 stops making slam finals #2 has a W-L ratio of 50/50.

Being out played is not a decline, you just can't accept that Roger is beatable like the rest of the players, DEAL WITH IT

I already answered this post and you still haven't answered my question,given that we look at reaching slam finals as a sole indicator,was Sampras more in decline in 1996 and 1998 than in 2000?

 

[abmk]

Or another example,IMO of all the slams this year Fed's level of play was the highest in AO even though he lost,now he had a bad serving day against Nadal in the final and played relatively poor on big points but overall IMO he played great from the baseline,reminded me of his peak play,FO and Wimbledon he mostly won on mental strength and fitness.

IMO, He played better at the wimby than at the AO...

He just did enough at the AO in the first 3 rounds, played badly the first 2 and half sets against berdych, then recovered. Played great against del potro and roddick, served awfully against nadal, but played great from the baseline.

At wimby, he only needed the first 3-4 games to get attuned to the surface in his first match, had only one slight hiccup against kohlschreiber, making errors to give away a set, played well against karlovic and soderling and extremely well against haas, played well against roddick ( serving was ridiculous, though ground game and returns were patchy )

 

[No Worries]

The year Fed lost to the joker at the AO he claimed that he was completely cured of the Mono and then when he lost to the Joker he turned around and used the Mono as an excuse.

 

[Azzurri]

You're kidding me right? Roger is his former self? The guy was in every single final in 2009 unlike 2008.

How the hell that is a decline I dont' know LOL

Listen Roger was out played at the AO, Roger was again out played at the USO.

Roger a decline, you saw Wim, you can't really believe that. Roddick will never play the well agian in his entire life, and he still could not beat Roger.

The difference has nothing to do with Roger and everything to do with the fact that the top 10 is more competitive than possibly even Pete's golden era.

I think she means "decline" as in not as dominant as he was in 06-07. He is still very strong, but when you lose 10 matches in a 2 year span, anything less is a "decline".

 

[Azzurri]

Fed's mono was done by March 08. But the consequence of not being able to do 2 training blocks(Dec 07, Feb 08) would prove fatal vs Nadal in the spring/summer matches.

he never had mono.

 

[Azzurri]

So Nadal's tendinitis and knee injuries are just a myth and he really just lost to Soderling on clay. You can't have a double standard. Supposedly according to many reports Nadal's injuries occurred during the clay season. Ok, so how does a guy with severe tendinitis that keeps him out of the most prestigious tournament in the world is capable of winning 2 Master Tournaments, including another smaller tournament, on the most physically exhausting surface where rallies last the longest?

I thought Nads was secretly suspended for roids? tendinitis???