[seodiary]

Where does the nick "Raja" come from?

I thought P-Mac (Patrick McEnroe) spawned this one in the ESPN2 booth. He says is so it practically rhymes with "droppa!"

[pongeystrhjst]

That's how I look at it too. At the AO this year before JJ's match against Maria, the commentators were talking about Maria's camp wondering how many injury time-outs JJ was going to take. She took about two per match leading up to it with different injuries per match. Now it's not our place to question whether she's legit or not but I guess with the frequency one can't help.

I have questioned some of Serena's myself but she generally plays through the pain. And while I was quick to question JJ again at Wimby this year we really should give players the benefit of the doubt.

Foxy

When Serbia played in the Hopman Cup, Jelena was injured to the point where they had to save her for doubles and give the single match to their opponent.

[Feflyinvelf]

That's one way to look at it.

But if Rafa hadn't choked away that 0-40 game at 4-3 in the third set (not to mention his 5-2 lead in the 4th set breaker) the match would never have approached darkness in the first place, never would have gone down as the best ever played, and Raja might very well have been humiliated by failing to win even a set against Rafa in consecutive Slam finals.

Both players had to deal with near-darkness, not just Raja.

Rafa deserved to win. Raja deserved to lose.

That's sports.

I don't think he was necessarily suggesting Roger would have won if it hadn't gotten dark, just that it would have been great to see them battle it out until the score was 20-18 or something - to me it was similar to last year's Wimbledon final, you didn't really want either player to lose. His last comment summed it up - Rafa won the match, but it wasn't because Roger ceded it to him.

[Falik]

I base my theory about the subject on my gut reactions in similar situations.

If I like the player, I get upset when people question their injuries. If I don't like a player, I'm usually among the first to throw stones.

But I'm working on it.

The same principle applies to interpretation of post-match interviews, btw.

Your candor is much appreciated.

[Falik]

As for the darkness part, Roger was in trouble on his serve in each of the last few games. It wasn't like he was holding easily and then it got dark and he was broken. And I'm a Federer fan.

[JonDopl]

When Serbia played in the Hopman Cup, Jelena was injured to the point where they had to save her for doubles and give the single match to their opponent.

I know but some of the commentators still questioned how seriously injured she was. I think the fact that she still played the doubles at Hopman Cup while stating it could be threatening her career, and so close to the AO left some doubts. Like Serena, JJ is probably the only other player whose injuries are often questioned and while Serena might play it out. retire or not show up at the next tournament, JJ often play week in and week out while injured, and for that one might question how bad they really are or if they even exist.

Like Dry say when we like a player we are quick to accept the injury and when we don't we questioned it. I for one questioned JJ a number of times, but I'm doing my best on not trying to judge her or any other player when they take an injury time out.

And I apologise now if I am offending any of JJ's fans.

Foxy

[JonDopl]

As for the darkness part, Roger was in trouble on his serve in each of the last few games. It wasn't like he was holding easily and then it got dark and he was broken. And I'm a Federer fan.

Agreed and I knew he was going to be the first to be broken and no way in hell he was gonna break Rafa (unless Rafa broke himself) like he did in the tiebreak.

Foxy

[zlZ95pjt]

I don't think he was necessarily suggesting Roger would have won if it hadn't gotten dark, just that it would have been great to see them battle it out until the score was 20-18 or something - to me it was similar to last year's Wimbledon final, you didn't really want either player to lose. His last comment summed it up - Rafa won the match, but it wasn't because Roger ceded it to him.

The match ended before darkness fell so the only way they might still be playing is if Raja held serve at 7-7. But he didn't, so I'm not sure what else the writer could be implying except that near-darkness caused him to lose his serve.

But mainly I took issue with the notion that Raja didn't deserve to lose the match. I don't see it that way.