Injury, or some trace thereof, is not just the topic du jour each and every day, it’s corrupted and clouded the relatively straightforward art of figuring out and communicating what happened in any given tennis match, and why.
You’ll remember that right after Roger Federer lost to Tomas Berdych at Wimbledon about two weeks ago, practically the first (unsolicited) words out of his mouth in the postmatch press conference were that he had a bad back and a sore leg.
And although Nadal played and looked fit, we weren’t very deep into the postmatch dialogue when one of the ink-stained wretches called out, “How are the knees, Rafa?”
I felt like smacking the guy. Here we go again. There’s nothing more straightforward than a tennis match. There are only two guys — or women — out there. One of them wins, the other loses. That’s the beauty of the game. One of them makes 82 percent of his first serves, the other makes 25 and adds 22 backhand unforced errors, just in case you thought he might still win. It isn’t rocket science. So it’s all the more pity that players, as well as the press, spend so much time discussing injuries.
I will give Nadal a break on (hence, I’m accused of having a double standard by foaming-at-the-mouth Federer fans), because we know the guy has had trouble with his pins. You don’t miss the chance to defend your Wimbledon title, earned in what many call the greatest tennis match every played, unless you have a darned good reason.
Federer’s case is a little different. Often when he loses a big match, injury becomes a critical element in the narrative — sometimes through no fault of his own. You’d think he were 650-0 in matches played in the full bloom of health. There was the mono thing and the bad back at different times down in Australia. (I’ve gotten lengthy e-mails from Federer fans who swear — swear! — that they could tell that Federer was borderline crippled by the look of his service motion.) At Wimbledon, it was the back and leg.
WATCH TV LINK
I do agree with Bodo’s gripe about injury talk in post-match press conferences – yes, it detracts from what happened on the court and unfairly focuses attention on the guy who lost instead of the guy who won. But I’m not sure what the point of his Roger vs. Rafa comparison is, except to rile up the various fanatic contingents into leaving dozens of comments on his post (And there are some enlightening ones – do you know that there are now Peter Bodo conspiracy theories? This guy really has made it!) Since when have Roger’s injuries become “a critical element in the narrative” of his losses? I thought we were all blaming them on the twins and his supposed desire to “save it for the majors”? And really, how was Roger’s “mono thing” not rightfully newsworthy? (Please excuse me while I wipe the foam from my mouth. . .)
You’ll remember that right after Roger Federer lost to Tomas Berdych at Wimbledon about two weeks ago, practically the first (unsolicited) words out of his mouth in the postmatch press conference were that he had a bad back and a sore leg.
And although Nadal played and looked fit, we weren’t very deep into the postmatch dialogue when one of the ink-stained wretches called out, “How are the knees, Rafa?”
I felt like smacking the guy. Here we go again. There’s nothing more straightforward than a tennis match. There are only two guys — or women — out there. One of them wins, the other loses. That’s the beauty of the game. One of them makes 82 percent of his first serves, the other makes 25 and adds 22 backhand unforced errors, just in case you thought he might still win. It isn’t rocket science. So it’s all the more pity that players, as well as the press, spend so much time discussing injuries.
I will give Nadal a break on (hence, I’m accused of having a double standard by foaming-at-the-mouth Federer fans), because we know the guy has had trouble with his pins. You don’t miss the chance to defend your Wimbledon title, earned in what many call the greatest tennis match every played, unless you have a darned good reason.
Federer’s case is a little different. Often when he loses a big match, injury becomes a critical element in the narrative — sometimes through no fault of his own. You’d think he were 650-0 in matches played in the full bloom of health. There was the mono thing and the bad back at different times down in Australia. (I’ve gotten lengthy e-mails from Federer fans who swear — swear! — that they could tell that Federer was borderline crippled by the look of his service motion.) At Wimbledon, it was the back and leg.
WATCH TV LINK
I do agree with Bodo’s gripe about injury talk in post-match press conferences – yes, it detracts from what happened on the court and unfairly focuses attention on the guy who lost instead of the guy who won. But I’m not sure what the point of his Roger vs. Rafa comparison is, except to rile up the various fanatic contingents into leaving dozens of comments on his post (And there are some enlightening ones – do you know that there are now Peter Bodo conspiracy theories? This guy really has made it!) Since when have Roger’s injuries become “a critical element in the narrative” of his losses? I thought we were all blaming them on the twins and his supposed desire to “save it for the majors”? And really, how was Roger’s “mono thing” not rightfully newsworthy? (Please excuse me while I wipe the foam from my mouth. . .)
