It so happened that in the early days of October 2010, one Rafael Nadal lost to one Guillermo Garcia-Lopez. High and wide did the shouts and acclaims sound. Oh no! a loss! what does this mean?
Pretty much nothing, I would say. And I don't think anyone's going to disagree with me on that one.
Rafa was due a loss, and semis of Bangkok, where he was probably getting a huge appearance fee and didn't really have the biggest incentive to bring his a-game? I'm not surprised. This is no harbinger of the beginning of the end. It's nothing to take seriously. It's a minor loss in a minor tournament that doesn't mean anything, really.
And people are totally ready to agree with me on this one. So here's a question - I might sound like a sore Federfan, but it's relevant. Why doesn't Roger get this kind of treatment? Every loss he takes makes it seem like it's the end of the world, that players aren't scared of him any more, that the end is extremely f*cking nigh. But with Rafa, it's like... yeah, well, whatevs.
I'd say the relative merits of losses for both dudes are about the same. Both usually win their matches, both sometimes lose the odd one. I don't think either player would disagree with me on that one. So why does Rafa get the whatevs treatment while any Roger loss is apocalyptic?
1 month ago