Good article from BB there...but

You may still be right in the end but - at the very least - it is not nearly as clear-cut as you make it sound.
-------------------------------------
You will see on Friday how clear cut it is.
The player who beat Djoko last year at this same stage is going to have his mouvement seriously exposed.

And it was clear cut so far. Federer struggling to qualifiers as poor as Mahut on clay is a clear statement that's something is wrong. The player who has a great record versus delpo was being hammered by him until he himself could not move.

Finally what do you make of the "I was starting to feel better?"

He was talking about feeling better about his game.

I totally disagree with your view that commentators never bring up any injuries unless the player somehow admits to it (either explicitly or via an MTO or similarly).
----------------------------
Your tomic example is a strange example as Tomic was, it seems, purpsedly "acting.".

I am talking a case when a player doesn't not want to reveal a problem.

Again take the example of Federer's Wimby 2010. No commentator was talking about Fed being injured (certainly not in the UK). It was clear Fed was injured as he even had a visible bandage in his training sessions but purposedly took it away during match not to be seen hampered. That is a choice journalists have to respect I am pretty sure cause they coudl be accused of revealing weaknesses.

This is why I believe that journalists twice asked him whether he is injured to be able to talk about it.

Injured or not I am happy I will get to watch the old man play tomorrow.

Yes but at the time commentators did not know wheter or not Tomic was just acting. Also, that is just one example that stuck in my mind. Obviously I do not keep record of such things but it seems it is quite often that I hear commentators veer towards injury talk.

"Perhaps the most telling statistic at the end of the match was the total unforced error count, with Federer guilty of a whopping 46 compared with Djokovic’s 17. To win tennis matches you need to keep the ball in the court, whatever the level, and the usually metronomic Swiss simply did not manage to do that today."

Fed played very aggressive tennis - more so than he usually does. On this surface and in these conditions, the odds were never going to be good. The bad ratio of W/UE is more a reflection of the strategy he employed rather than the quality of his play. Also, "the usually metronomic Swiss" quite often ends up with high error counts against Nadal and Nole.

It may perhaps be that he chose the highly aggressive play because he knew his body was not in the shape to handle protracted rallies but the execution itself did not reveal any clear injury.

If anything, I am more willing to go with GP's suggestion from a few days back where he said that Federer may not be injured now but his preparation for the tournament may have suffered enough due to whatever niggle he had after Madrid that he knew he would not be able to mount a sustained challenge here.

In general, one problem with the way you argue is that when you make a prediction which then does not come true, instead of willingness to reassess your initial position you show tendency to readjust the explanation to fit your position.

In this case, the good example is Feds return game. Before the match you said his return game would show he was injured. When Fed was breaking Nole left and right, instead of reevaluating your injury claim you switched to talking about how he was now losing service games to love.

It may be that you are still right - after all the more data may provide additional insights without invalidating your hypothesis. However, as a rule of thumb, if one needs to revisit their predictions after the fact it tends to point to incorrect initial hypothesis. In those cases, one should definitely show willingness to review their initial claim.

It may perhaps be that he chose the highly aggressive play because he knew his body was not in the shape to handle protracted rallies but the execution itself did not reveal any clear injury.
-----------------------------------------
Of course he knew he had to be aggressive! more so than usual. A clear injury at this level means not participating or losing versus a WC, so it can only be as clear as having a slight impediment but which has a huge consequence on timing, like we saw with Delpo as soon as his knee aggravated.

It is however still very clear and obvious that he performed way under par since Madrid but in particular since that 2nd round in that FO.

I am not sure I understand now the "preparation" reason explaining this lack of form. Playing 5 matches of 3 sets each would have prepared him very well. Especially since he was playing very well for nearly the first 2 rounds.

All those UEs were also a very clear indication that he could not move freely. and if yesterday I referred to the "scorboard" it was to support the point and not the reason why I think he is injured (or not 100%). But since you and many cannot see the slower mouvement i was using his strange results since that second round and the UEs as so unlike teh form he had shown in his last 6 months.

I noticed it took you a good few days of arguing to finally acknowledge that there was something really dodgy with some draws and I was pleasantly impressed by your change of mind on that matter. Not many admit or are keen to change position. so maybe you will be able to change your mind on this soon.

On my side, unfortunately i cannot change views of what i simply see. Federer was not moving as freely as in his first 2 rounds. as simple as that. You may also check that I allude to a problem before Federer loses a set in that FO. How strange it wen on to lose so many afterwards to players who woudl have been very unlikely to do so just a few weeks ago.

In this case, the good example is Feds return game. Before the match you said his return game would show he was injured. When Fed was breaking Nole left and right, instead of reevaluating your injury claim you switched to talking about how he was now losing service games to love.
---------------------------------------------------
I only adjust if I am wrong. And I may have been wrong on the details. I always left open the nature of injury. GP thought it was teh back, i thought it was more likely to be the groin injury. I am not that good in pinpointing where the problem is exactly but it clearly affect his footwork speed.. But in both cases the return of serve shoudl have affected him. i am not wrong about it. Now two things, unlike the other days Federer started well and got worse over time, while in the previous round he was slow to play better but he improved (slightly) as the match went on.

SO you of course observe different things and I try to understand why so. GP came with teh fact he had an injection before the semi and that was certainly a possibility but the wind also made the return on one side much easier.

There is nothing wrong is trying to explain what you see. Suggesting possibilities, like the adrenaline kicking in enabling Federer to play better as the match goes on. I can only guess that's the reason I cannot be sure. What I am sure is that he did not play his usual form in that FO something he confirms in his interview though of course he is not going to give precise "excuses". He learnt his lesson from Wimby 2010.