Just started watching tennis two years ago, so I was not aware of all of Nadal’s past injuries that threatened his career and him playing through them.

In retrospect Nadal would have withdrawn from Wimbledon if he felt “any” sign of significant weakness during those two exhibition matches.

Nadal wants to keep an image of invincibility and by withdrawing he may have hoped to preserve that. His loss in the French was a big dent in his ego and makes him seem “vulnerable” now. The ATP players are vicious against any sign of weakness, since each player below Nadal is fighting to take is #1 spot.

Furthermore whenever a top player is playing a lower ranked player the first mental aspect talked about is “does the non-favorite “believe” that they can win”. Whenever a top player is beaten it is usually because the lower player did believe they could win.

This difference can be shown between Soderling and Haas during interviews regarding Federer:

(I)Soderling post match said comments such as “He is the Greatest of all time” and “he doesn’t have any weaknesses”. Soderling seems to respect Federer too much and may have been what kept him from winning during those key points in Wimbledon.

(II)Haas said during an interview after beating Cilic that “I feel like nothing can really stop me if I have the chance to play again without any pain…If I’m playing well I can have good success and play really well against top players”. Considering those comments that’s one of the reasons why he beat Djokovic and is the reason why I really want to see his semifinal match against Federer on Friday.

Nadal may have believed that by withdrawing he is preserving his image from further weakness (fear of another “unthinkable” early round upset). If that happened then many more players would have the belief that they could beat Nadal.

This situation parallels what happened to Federer during early 2008 while having mono (thanks to David for reminding me). The American announcers kept on saying “he seems human” or “I’ve never seen this Federer before”. This is because Federer was able to keep this aura of perfection from the media and by his amazing results. Although nobody is perfect Federer convinced everyone that he was.

After his loss of the number one ranking one analyst said that “Federer will never be as dominant as he used to be”. What changed was everyone’s perception of Roger. That’s one of the reasons Federer has had trouble outside of majors.

Although Nadal was able to dodge the pressure of having to play Wimbledon as the defending champion, he will be under more accumulative pressure to do well in the hardcourt season.

-Nick

I too had some of the same thoughts when I first read Nadal’s comments saying he was going to withdraw from Wimbledon. Despite the language barrier that some other commentators have called out in defense of Nadal, I do still tend to think there is something more to his withdrawal than just the knees. In fact, if you just take his words at face value, he is actually saying as much – I didn’t feel ready to win Wimbledon and if I am not, then I will not play at all. He could have used much less controversial words – just say, my knees are not recovered and I need more time, so I can’t play. Why go into all this about only being able to play if he is ready to win? Maybe it was more an issue of him being too honest?

Another thing, not trying to draw anyone into a Federer vs Nadal argument (both of them are great in their own right), but consider that Fed had mono when he went into the 2008 Aus Open – he knew he was not 100% (he just didn’t really know why at the time), but he didn’t withdraw, he had the courage to go in knowing that 127 other guys would be gunning to take him down and take his crown (and Djoko did do that). But even not being at 100%, he still did the best he could. When he had back problems earlier this year, he didn’t pull out of several major masters tournaments either, even though he must have known he was not at 100%.

Just food for thought.

not hatin’, just sayin’ !

That’s just your interpretation. I see no attack here (it was also not my intention to attack), just trying to wake up people.

Read the post and tell me whether you could discuss anything reasonable, neutral or even negative about Nadal with such a biased person?

By the way, discussing means listening to other person’s points and considering them…

“so what if some people like nadal and want to defend him?!” Nothing. All their comments are published. What was your point?

The difference in the sentences above is in ego and external motivation. Win is an ego based motivation and ego doesn’t want to get hurt. Therefore ego wants to avoid disappointment.

Competing to one’s best is an internal motivation and one cannot be emotionally hurt (maybe just feeling slightly disappointed). It is exactly nitpicking and looking for subtle nuances of one’s words that reveal true intentions.

But I see now that I have gone too deep in psychology and it’s tough to grasp it. Will stop explaining my thoughts and will welcome any other opinions on Nadal’s withdrawal…

but the comments posted, none was attacking you personally. in fact, that person who wrote an emotional message of support to nadal up there got “attacked” by you in a way. you immediately diagnosed him/her with “celebrity worship” and implied that he/she should go google to see what’s going on with him/her.

i respect your experience in psychology but personally i think you’re overreacting, so what if some people like nadal and want to defend him?! i can’t call myself a fan, but i can understand it.

my intention was in no way to change your mind. my intention was to write my own opinion based on what you wrote, ergo respond to your opinion. it’s what this comments section is for, right? for us to comment points from your article and give our own opinion.
i only reacted to the way you treated people (i didn’t know about the attacking messages you were getting) but i proceeded to give my view on the situation.

but anyway, i can detect the subtle difference in those two statements…he feels he can’t win now, he can’t win one match, let alone the tournament so why do you think that his decision was not brave?
do you think he should have risked further injury just because he *could* play but not win?

athletes are using such expression all the time. they don’t always say “i’m not ready to play at my best level”, but sometimes say “i can’t win with the condition i’m in and i want to fight to win”…
anyway, i really think it’s nit-picking cause the nadal we’ve known for years isn’t the nadal you’re suggesting he is; the nadal who is afraid of losing that he’s cancelling the tournament.

tendinitis can be a serious problem and i don’t think it’s okay to speculate about things like this without knowing his true diagnosis and we know how much he’s been battling with those problems.

Even your previous post had a slight intention to change my mind, right? That’s an attempt to control…

” i also didn’t see any personal attacks on you in the comments posted. ” Because they are not published. There were many, believe me. So many people cannot stand if someone writes something negative about their worshipped super hero…

I give you another hypothetical question to think about and see what’s the difference in these two statements:

a) “When I start a tournament like Wimbledon, it is to try to win,” the No. 1-ranked Nadal said, “and my feeling right now is I’m not ready to play to win.”

b) “When I start a tournament like Wimbledon, it is to try to compete to my best ability,” the No. 1-ranked Nadal said, “and my feeling right now is I’m not ready to play to compete to my best ability.

Can you detect the subtle difference in these two statements?

speaking of “should’s” and “shouldn’t's” i think the reason people didn’t agree with your idea was because you proceeded to criticize nadal for saying that. you came with that assumption and then you said professional athletes shouldn’t be saying that. maybe you should’ve just left it open, without the criticism, then your point would’ve been accepted differently, me thinks.

cheers mate: )

i wouldn’t go that far to say that people want to impose their power over you, i mean it’s an interesting psychological question to see how each one reacts to disagreement (including our own), but still i don’t see any reason why anyone would want to ‘control’ you.
i also didn’t see any personal attacks on you in the comments posted.

also, i don’t understand why you say that about “should”, “shouldn’t” etc. because in one of the previous posts, you said that you question everything. i thought it was great what you said cause i question things myself. but that also includes questioning my own attitudes and behavior. i don’t dismiss people when they tell “you should…do this or that”, my opinion isn’t written in stone, it can change if i realize that i’m wrong.

i’m not saying you’re wrong but just it’s not good to be so strict and dismissive. it’s good to question yourself too from time to time as well.

but anyway, ’nuff about you, back on topic:

- about your hypothetical question; yeah i think he would’ve played wimbledon if he’d won those matches, even if feeling pain in his knees. winning those matches easily would mean that his knees aren’t that bad and that they’re not preventing him from playing at a necessary level.

BUT, the reality is he didn’t win, he could barely win a set, he lost all 4 sets, and he couldn’t bend his knees. it means the condition is bad. IMO he should’ve withdrawn long time ago but i believe it was precisely his inevitable desire for playing and competing that kept him driving thinking he could force himself to play even with pain.

plus, there’s nothing about nadal that would make us all believe that your conclusion’s right.

this guy came back after that career threatening foot injury when he admittedly said he thought he couldn’t play again, let alone at a great level, yet he came back to find his winning ways.
- he came back and won rg after being defeated by federer in hamburg prior to roland garros
- he came back to win monte carlo 08 after 8 months of not winning a tournament at all
- he came back from tendinitis in 09 to win australian open, indian wells, monte carlo, barcelona and rome.

there are far other things IMO that are wrong like his bad scheduling, doubtful decisions, playing too much, not thinking enough about his body etc.

but if there’s anything we know about nadal it’s that he’s a fighter, he comes back after victories, after defeats, after injuries, every time stronger and hungrier.

so i think the least he deserves is the trust.

he ain’t the type of guy who would get destroyed over losing roland garros for the first time that he would cancel his most important tournament.

in fact, i believe he’s the one wanting badly to play wimbledon too but it’s probably his medical team and toni strongly insisting he doesn’t.

i think this is the most realistic view..

These people are arrogant and are here to control me and to impose their power over me. Perhaps I sense that much more because I have been in the psychology field for 15 years and can immediately detect someone’s INTENTIONS when they write or say something.

If someone INTENDS to force me into something (should, shouldn’t, you must not, …) or if someone writes to me personally (this article is an affront, you are an idiot, …) then these people need to get off this blog as fast as they can – because they do not bring anything valuable to the discussion.

I am not interested at all in what someone thinks about me and whether I should or shouldn’t do because you don’t like my opinion. If you cannot stand it, then don’t read this blog.

I am only interested in opinions and thoughts about the TOPIC of the post and I don’t mind different opinions at all. 90% of the opinions here are different than mine and they are all published. 90% of the opinions of the previous Nadal article were different than mine (because only Nadal fans got pissed…) and they were published.

So your statement that I don’t publish comments that disagree with me is totally wrong. I don’t publish comments where people tell me what I should do, what they think of me and which are not polite.

It’s as simple as that. Hope you can see the difference now…

P.S. And just to add some facts to your comments which are incorrect, for example this one:

“i get that you don’t like nadal, but i don’t understand why. most of your posts about him are negative (even though you tend to analyze, your initial conclusion is negative whether it’s regarding his game or his character).”

On the right hand side of this blog you’ll see a category Rafael Nadal which currently has 12 articles posted. These last two point out some things I didn’t like, the rest are either neutral (I just analyze the match) or POSITIVE since I praise Nadal for his tactics, fighting spirit and other qualities.

Go through all 12 posts and let me know whether MOST of my posts about Nadal are neutral, negative or positive…

I clearly stated that that’s a normal thing every professional player should do and I support that. The key sentence which we discuss here is “When I start a tournament like Wimbledon, it is to try to win,” the No. 1-ranked Nadal said, “and my feeling right now is I’m not ready to play to win.”

This sentence can mean something different than just withdrawing because of an injury. It can also suggest not trusting in your own game and trying to avoid defeat.

The discussion here is about this sentence and this sentence only and not whether someone should withdraw because they are injured. I gave my interpretation of it and my thoughts are that it’s quite possible that Nadal felt insecure of his current form and this may have added the extra 20% to his decision to withdraw.

This article has been read over 500 times and NO ONE has answered my hypothetical questions from above, for example; would Nadal have withdrawn even if he had won both exhibition matches easily a few days ago? (and still felt pain in his knees – as he has been feeling it for the last year…)