GameSetAndMath said:
Broken_Shoelace said:
GameSetAndMath said:
So much for people not believing when Fed said that his back has healed and he could not
perform well against Monfils due to his lack of practice (which was caused as he wanted to
give time for the back to heal).
Yeah you're right, because winning a match means your injury has healed. No player ever won a match injured, ever, especially against the mighty Richard Gasquet.
I swear logic on these boards is going down the toilet.
Are you claiming that you saw something in that match that indicated to you that Fed's play is hampered due to back injury (leaving aside that he won)? Although I did not see the whole match,
I did not see any lingering effect based on the portions of it that I saw.
No, I can't claim that I did. And yet, that's the most misunderstood part of injuries around here. People want to see a player paralyzed before conceding (and even then, I had to hear that Rafa wasn't moving that poorly against Wawrinka in the final two sets of the AO).
Federer looked stiff as hell against Monfils and his level was garbage. The things normally associated with a back injury were all present and evident through his lackluster play. The next day, Fed claimed it wasn't the injury, but lack of practice that affected the outcome. I call bull$hit, because lack of practice will only affect your timing, and if you're still playing like crap after two sets of competitive tennis (which should serve as practice, wouldn't you think?), then something is wrong. Now, of course you could claim Fed just had an off day then, but I think that would be hugely coincidental (almost as coincidental as Nadal's garbage results post-US Open, but we all know, that was purely because he "always stunk indoors.").
Now, did Fed make a miraculous recovery in two days, or did he just run across an opponent who he can manage, even with an injury? Your injury is obviously going to be magnified and bother you further against an opponent who tracks down your shots, moves you around, and has huge fire power, especially if he's having a great day. But if you're dominating off of both wings, and moving on your terms, AND you happen to have Roger's experience at dealing with these things and pacing yourself, you could very well have smooth sailing (nobody accused this injury of being career threatening), especially against, shall we say, a docile opponent.
The problem around here is we treat a win as a sure fire sign of no injury being present (but somehow refuse the injury notion when a player loses just the same). Case in point, any time someone says "Oh, X Player lost due to an injury? Then how come he beat player Y the previous day?" Here, it's almost the same in reverse, which is even more dumbfounding: "Oh, Fed was injured against Monfils? Then how come he beat Gasquet two days later?"
Well, I don't want to touch the first question with a 10 inch pole for now, for obvious reasons, but I'll answer the second question further: With pain killers, careful management, and an extra two days, it might very well be that his back got better.
Of course, what your initial sarcastic post fails to mention is when the debate about Fed's injury arose, it was after the Monfils match and the double's match. Nobody claimed he couldn't be feeling better on Sunday. In fact, I even predicted he'd beat Tsonga, let alone Gasquet.
