The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Moxie]

I feel tainted for liking one of Ricardo's posts, but he made the same point I've made several times about Rafa. His greatness and propensity for injury are two sides of the same coin: his style of play. A less-injured Rafa would also almost certainly be less great because his style is so physical, so hard on the knees, and because he is relatively bulky.

@Ricardo has been on a good roll lately. (Secretly, I think we're pals.) I mostly agree with his post above, though I think he and others misunderstand my points, a bit. I didn't say anything about Nadal being unlucky, firstly. And my point as to his attritional style is that if you buy that, and certainly if you "blame" him for it, then you have to buy that injuries have been real. It was really just about injury-deniers.

That said, you say that Rafa is "bulky," but you know he's the same size as Roger, right, in terms of height and weight? I think it's just distributed differently. (Roger carries his weight is in his ego. :lulz2: Sorry...I couldn't resist.) But I totally agree that the way Rafa plays is hard on his body. And he himself has said that he doesn't want to change too much because he's comfortable with the way he wins. Remember that he didn't want to go with the bigger serve because he was more accustomed to rally points, and didn't want to mess with his own rhythm. We all think he's going to have to re-visit some of that, now post-31. But, like Roger, he's been stubborn about changes.

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, @Moxie. I don't deny his injuries. Rafa is a warrior and wants to compete and is not afraid of losing.

Weird about Rafa and Roger being same height and weight. I don't think it is as much distribution as Roger seems slimmer all around, but perhaps density of muscle. Roger is more lean and sinewy, Rafa more bulky.

It is a bit silly to me strategizing for these guys who have been so successful. I mean, as a Roger fan I get the "what if" talk about Slams that got away from him, but he has won more than anyone else as it is. Similarly with Rafa. Any criticism of their strategy is just nitpicking.

 

[Moxie]

I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. I was complaining about Roger playing Montreal before the tournament started. Where you leap to me making excuses about his not winning in NY truly floors me. Frankly I thought it served him right and is possibly the worst scheduling decision he’s ever made. You must be mixing me up with someone else. My biggest beef was his wasting his Tim on rankings rather than slams. The rest would take care of itself. Try again As for the rest. I’ll attend to that tomorrow

As I said, you can debate how much you participated in that, but I don't think you can clearly say that there wasn't a great groundswell of Federer fans rewriting history over the "if only" he hadn't played Canada. I didn't think I'd have to dig it up, as I was on those threads complaining about how much people were counting on what would have happened if Roger had beat Del Po. IMO, it was presuming a lot for folks to go from there to the title, but there were some that were.

Basically all Federer fans were complaining about him playing Canada from the start. There was some debate about reaching for the YE#1, but it did seem that the consensus was that it wasn't wise. You don't have to convince me of that. But there was a certain leap into "what ifs" by some. I'm only saying that you can't just accuse Nadal fans of it, when it can happen on both sides.

 

[Moxie]

I hear you, @Moxie. I don't deny his injuries. Rafa is a warrior and wants to compete and is not afraid of losing.

Weird about Rafa and Roger being same height and weight. I don't think it is as much distribution as Roger seems slimmer all around, but perhaps density of muscle. Roger is more lean and sinewy, Rafa more bulky.

It is a bit silly to me strategizing for these guys who have been so successful. I mean, as a Roger fan I get the "what if" talk about Slams that got away from him, but he has won more than anyone else as it is. Similarly with Rafa. Any criticism of their strategy is just nitpicking.

I'm surprised that you've never noticed that they have been listed, all these years, at essentially the same size. (6'1"/185lbs.) I think that Rafa is fleshier, and as you say, Roger more sinewy, but it's muscle-mass that weighs.

I didn't think you were saying what Rafa should do. Or anymore than we all do, to both of them, and Novak and Andy. It's what we do. Armchair coaches, all of us. And mostly they and their teams are smart, but sometimes they're stubborn, too, and we see it, and it's frustrating.

 

[Moxie]

Uh what? When did I say he was faking injury yesterday? What I said was the clown commentators were making a big deal out of only one guy when Goffin had very obvious, visible knee strapping and has done for months now. That's just biased and dumb on the part of the commentators like steroid abuser Rusedski. Quite sure Goffin has knee pain too but not a single word was said about him...

Front, don't play coy: you've always liked to imply that all Nadal injuries are fake. You and I don't watch the same feeds, so you won't have seen that the commentators here made a lot of the fact that Goffin's knee was taped when they started. You also know that Rafa had talked about his knee before the YEC even began, and everyone wanted to know if he'd play the tournament. So both players had dodgy knees. But Rafa did pull up rather clearly a bit lame somewhere in the middle of the 2nd set. Goffin's problem yesterday was not his knee, but his head. His knee may have been achy, but his problem was between the ears. Carrying an injury and being hampered in a specific match by it is not the same thing. You get that, right? I certainly wouldn't say that Rafa lost that match due to his knee, except that Goffin was really trying to hand it back to him. You can say that David G. might have been tentative due to his own knee injury, but I think everyone watching the match felt it was more about his mental inability to close.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

@Ricardo has been on a good roll lately. (Secretly, I think we're pals.) I mostly agree with his post above, though I think he and others misunderstand my points, a bit. I didn't say anything about Nadal being unlucky, firstly. And my point as to his attritional style is that if you buy that, and certainly if you "blame" him for it, then you have to buy that injuries have been real. It was really just about injury-deniers.

.

It is not about denying that Rafa had injuries. It is denying that he would have won if not for injuries. As has been said by several people, if he does not punish himself to the extent of getting injured, he would not have accomplished as much as he did. So, to expect that he would be injury free throughout the year and year after year, is pointless.

 

[Moxie]

It is not about denying that Rafa had injuries. It is denying that he would have won if not for injuries. As has been said by several people, if he does not punish himself to the extent of getting injured, he would not have accomplished as much as he did. So, to expect that he would be injury free throughout the year and year after year, is pointless.

Right, but that's my point. Most of us are not saying, in most cases, that he would have won, but for injury. Oh, some do. But as Federberg pleaded with Broken: don't paint me with the brush of all Nadal fans.

I don't necessarily think that Rafa would have beaten Soderling, had it not been for the knees. There was a lot of spite and bile in that match, and conditions, etc. played into Soderling playing one of the best matches of his career. (The other best was the one he beat Roger in RG '10.) I've already said that there was nothing wrong with Rafa in '11 that wasn't about stubbornness and intimidation, and basically Rafa getting out-played. I've also said that even despite an ab tear at the USO '09, I only think that Rafa would have lost less badly to delPo. I do think that Rafa's back going in the AO '14 final was unfortunate, but not definitive. So I'd ask you to tell me what match Rafa played that I would say he'd won had he not been injured.

 

[DarthFed]

As I said, you can debate how much you participated in that, but I don't think you can clearly say that there wasn't a great groundswell of Federer fans rewriting history over the "if only" he hadn't played Canada. I didn't think I'd have to dig it up, as I was on those threads complaining about how much people were counting on what would have happened if Roger had beat Del Po. IMO, it was presuming a lot for folks to go from there to the title, but there were some that were.

Basically all Federer fans were complaining about him playing Canada from the start. There was some debate about reaching for the YE#1, but it did seem that the consensus was that it wasn't wise. You don't have to convince me of that. But there was a certain leap into "what ifs" by some. I'm only saying that you can't just accuse Nadal fans of it, when it can happen on both sides.

I don't see any Fed fans awarding him the USO title if his back hadn't gone lame. Yes we are/were pissed he was dumb enough to chase it by playing Montreal with no practice. And my thought is that if he was healthy going into USO he'd have been the clear favorite. Doesn't mean he would've won but clearly he screwed the pooch by playing Montreal with no rest. Should've taken him and his team 5 seconds to decide to play 1 warmup and another half second to choose Cincy instead of Montreal. He practices for a week + before Cincy, goes there as the overwhelming favorite and chances are he'd have been healthy going into USO. Just be glad it worked out for your guy...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I would not agree with 5 seconds and 1 second. Actually, it is a little bit of difficult decision. After winning two slams, not even giving #1 a try is bit difficult. We can say what we want in retrospect. But, he should not have gone there without proper conditioning and practice. No point entering any tourney with half heart.

 

[DarthFed]

The fact of the matter is there was a lot of tennis after Montreal. Roger should've known that if he had outperformed Rafa at USO he would've easily been #1 at some point as he is far superior in the Fall season. Chasing it hard before the USO was stupid. A tough decision was to not play Paris. He had to have been very fatigued after Basel otherwise he'd have given it a go IMO.

 

[Moxie]

The fact of the matter is there was a lot of tennis after Montreal. Roger should've known that if he had outperformed Rafa at USO he would've easily been #1 at some point as he is far superior in the Fall season. Chasing it hard before the USO was stupid. A tough decision was to not play Paris. He had to have been very fatigued after Basel otherwise he'd have given it a go IMO.

Thanks to you and GSM for basically proving my point. Only barely cautiously avoiding saying "woulda coulda," and that after I warned you.

 

[Front242]

Fatigued and back flare up at Basel. Obvious when watching him serve. His first serve percentage was terrible at Basel and he hit a ton of double faults and seems to be an issue at the WTF again going by the poor serving. I'd say he'll be glad to see the end of the season and rest and heal up.

 

[Haelfix]

I hear you, @Moxie. I don't deny his injuries. Rafa is a warrior and wants to compete and is not afraid of losing.

Weird about Rafa and Roger being same height and weight. I don't think it is as much distribution as Roger seems slimmer all around, but perhaps density of muscle. Roger is more lean and sinewy, Rafa more bulky.

When you see them in real life, you would guess the opposite. Rafa is much more slender than he appears on TV, and Roger is much bigger and more powerful looking than he appears to be.

Novak looks approximately what you would expect (long and sinewy), and Murray is pretty huge.

 

[Federberg]

When you see them in real life, you would guess the opposite. Rafa is much more slender than he appears on TV, and Roger is much bigger and more powerful looking than he appears to be.

Novak looks approximately what you would expect (long and sinewy), and Murray is pretty huge.

hmmm... I didn't find Roger that powerful looking to be honest. But I guess when I met him he was in a suit, and I'm not a small fella either

 

[Federberg]

And you may claim that you don't go in for the woulda coulda thing, but you did agree with Darth recently when he was complaining about Roger playing Montreal and how it kept Roger from winning the USO.

This is getting a bit surreal! First of all Darth and I were having that conversation before Montreal started, so this wasn't some 20/20 hindsight excuse making (which is generally what we get from Rafa fans). But frankly who wouldn't agree with that assessment of what happened? Federer plays Montreal, which most Fed fans didn't want him to do, he gets injured there making it impossible for him to compete at his best. How is that woulda coulda? I for one did not say that Roger would win the US Open if he didn't play Montreal. If I said anything about it, it would have been he wouldn't win the US Open if he played Montreal

 

[Federberg]

As I said, you can debate how much you participated in that, but I don't think you can clearly say that there wasn't a great groundswell of Federer fans rewriting history over the "if only" he hadn't played Canada. I didn't think I'd have to dig it up, as I was on those threads complaining about how much people were counting on what would have happened if Roger had beat Del Po. IMO, it was presuming a lot for folks to go from there to the title, but there were some that were.

Basically all Federer fans were complaining about him playing Canada from the start. There was some debate about reaching for the YE#1, but it did seem that the consensus was that it wasn't wise. You don't have to convince me of that. But there was a certain leap into "what ifs" by some. I'm only saying that you can't just accuse Nadal fans of it, when it can happen on both sides.

I think it would be best if you stop saying "all Federer fans". You don't hear us accusing you of believing all of Carol's nonsense for example! And I repeat our complaining about him playing Canada from the start does not mean that we were presuming that the US Open was a lock if he didn't play there. We are a fairly nuanced lot, Darth and I were arguing about the importance of YE#1 for goodness sakes. All I care about is Roger winning slams, I couldn't care less if he was ever #1 again. If he keeps winning slams that could very well happen anyway. At this stage in his career slams and catching Connors are the only things that count to me. I don't see anyone of the current lot challenging his weeks at #1

 

[Ricardo]

I'm surprised that you've never noticed that they have been listed, all these years, at essentially the same size. (6'1"/185lbs.) I think that Rafa is fleshier, and as you say, Roger more sinewy, but it's muscle-mass that weighs.

Don't think they update the player info too often, so i would take it with a grain of salt. Seeing them in person, Federer has very wide shoulder, somewhat thin chest and is generally lightly built. Nadal on the other hand is very meaty, for lack of better word. In any case i believe Nadal would prefer to play like Federer if he could, as it's a style that's much less demanding than his own, yet still rewards you with some of the best results in history......so technically that makes Roger the overall superior tennis player, as he wins more with less (effort/duration), agreed?

 

[Ricardo]

The fact of the matter is there was a lot of tennis after Montreal. Roger should've known that if he had outperformed Rafa at USO he would've easily been #1 at some point

This is totally true. People say that Roger is so smart with scheduling, and mostly he is but playing Montreal was quite amateurish actually. At his age he should know better that he could wait a few weeks until he is properly recovered before trying to close the deal (getting the top ranking right there and then). Must have been too tempting for him to resist, when he knew winning Montreal was gonna do it. He knows better than anyone else that by waiting a few more weeks, he'd have faced the most watered down USO field in decades and it actually was maybe even a weaker field than Montreal itself. I have no idea why he did it (with his tennis IQ), but suspect Mirka the boss might have something to do with the decision. As it turned out he was so bad almost losing first or second round and played like crap anyway.

 

[Federberg]

This is totally true. People say that Roger is so smart with scheduling, and mostly he is but playing Montreal was quite amateurish actually. At his age he should know better that he could wait a few weeks until he is properly recovered before trying to close the deal (getting the top ranking right there and then). Must have been too tempting for him to resist, when he knew winning Montreal was gonna do it. He knows better than anyone else that by waiting a few more weeks, he'd have faced the most watered down USO field in decades and it actually was maybe even a weaker field than Montreal itself. I have no idea why he did it (with his tennis IQ), but suspect Mirka the boss might have something to do with the decision. As it turned out he was so bad almost losing first or second round and played like crap anyway.

If I remember correctly Mirka & Co weren't there with him. He looked unshaven like she'd kicked him out of bed. My sense was that he did this entirely on his own

 

[Ricardo]

If I remember correctly Mirka & Co weren't there with him. He looked unshaven like she'd kicked him out of bed. My sense was that he did this entirely on his own

Or maybe she told him to piss off to Montreal, and Fed reluctantly went and didn't bring home the bacon. i was just saying, but in any case it was a very poor decision and don't think anyone would dispute that.