In the second set, up a set and a break, Wawrinka made a big deal out of the fact that that the chair umpire would not tell him why Nadal had to leave the court, which according to Wawrinka he was entitled to know. I'm not sure what the official ATP rules are and I'll look it up. Either way, I agree with ESPN commentator Gilbert (or was it McEnroe?) who said that Wawrinka shouldn't make such a big deal about it: it only served to make him more nervous. Not that it mattered, since as soon as Nadal came back Wawrinka still won the second set in a rout. Whatever was done to Nadal was either immaterial (either because it didn't work or because he had nothing to begin with) or took a while to kick in, such as painkillers do, since Nadal won the third set with relative ease.
Be that as it may, now all the attention is focused on Nadal's injury (including this piece here, in some sense). Headlines don't read "Wawrinka beats Nadal," but rather "Wawrinka beats an ailing Nadal" or "an injured Nadal." Needless to say, this is unfair to Wawrinka, whose win is now asterisked in many people's minds. "Yes, he won, but." That has to be very unpleasant for a player.
Here's what's upsetting me about it:
- Accusing Nadal of gamesmanship is ludicrous and unfair. The fact is we just don't know what his problem was, and anyone who claims to "just know" that he was faking is a liar and is probably not speaking in good faith. Certainly one can appeal to recent evidence (his back had been fine recently, he only did this when he was losing, it was convenient, etc), but if so then one also has to consider all the past evidence (there were never such suspicions before, he has lost many Slam finals without such antics, his back *did* often trouble him in the past, etc). The simple fact is: nobody knows. Thus, it is useless to try to guess.
- Notice that this is not the same as the Azarenka incident against Stephens last year, for in that case we have clear evidence from Azarenka herself that she was dishonest: she asked for an injury timeout for something that, by her own admission, was not an injury. That's different.
- Diminishing Wawrinka's win is also ludicrous and unfair. First of all, the vast majority of sporting events are affected by the physical conditioning of participants. Nadal's issues were overt, but physical problems surely underlay many other less overt cases. Bartoli routed Lisicki in the 2013 Wimbledon final: was an injury bothering Lisicki? Murray lost two GS finals in three sets and never seemed to get in the game: was there an injury? Once again, the simple fact is that we don't know, and that it is unfair to assume. My point, then, is that we don't diminish a win just because the opponent didn't play their best! To do so is to expect that the result of a competition only "makes sense" or "tells the truth" if both opponents are in top shape or have no problems, but that's a silly expectation. It almost never happens. When it does, such as Wawrinka-Djokovic last year and this one, memories are made--but that's an exception, not the norm. Yes, Nadal probably got injured. But guess what, Wawrinka didn't, and he played great. Plus, Nadal still did win a set, so there.
- All this attention on drama is typical of those who don't understand sports. So there was an incident during the match. Must we focus all our attention on it? What about the play? What about the accomplishments of the players, both Wawrinka and Nadal? This is the same attitude by which some football fans focus on that one blown call by the referee instead of the rest of the match. It is puerile and only motivated by a desire to seek drama. You want drama? Watch a soap opera. Sport is not about petty jealousies and teen magazine angst. Sport is about competition, and competition was had. Did Nadal fake it? It doesn't matter. Did Nadal not fake it? It doesn't matter. Wawrinka won the match, and that's the end of it.
