2015 - What Can We Expect?

[brokenshoelace]

Well with Rafa we are talking a match 6 years ago when Roger was still great and was big time on grass. Needless to say that's a weak loss on paper

Nobody other than you sees it as a weak loss. You can be disappointed in the way Federer competed in the first two sets and that would be fair, but there is no way anyone sees that as a weak loss, not after what had happened the previous year, and not after what happened the subsequent year. That match was literally in the middle of 5 straight trips to the Wimbledon final for Nadal, and occurred at a time where Nadal was the best player in the world (or at least, that match cemented him as such). I don't think Roger needs to be championed for losing, but he shouldn't be too reprimanded either. It was a great match between two great players and one guy narrowly lost. It happens.

 

[DarthFed]

Well with Rafa we are talking a match 6 years ago when Roger was still great and was big time on grass. Needless to say that's a weak loss on paper

Nobody other than you sees it as a weak loss. You can be disappointed in the way Federer competed in the first two sets and that would be fair, but there is no way anyone sees that as a weak loss, not after what had happened the previous year, and not after what happened the subsequent year. That match was literally in the middle of 5 straight trips to the Wimbledon final for Nadal, and occurred at a time where Nadal was the best player in the world (or at least, that match cemented him as such). I don't think Roger needs to be championed for losing, but he shouldn't be too reprimanded either. It was a great match between two great players and one guy narrowly lost. It happens.

You so sure of that? Seems like a pretty general statement.

As I said before, short of prime Sampras coming in on the Delorean to face Roger there is no such thing as a decent loss for him on grass. Roger is easily the 2nd best grass courter ever and Rafa is barely top 10 if that. Similar for Rafa on clay, even losing to Djokovic at RG would correctly be seen as a weak loss given his resume there. And with him, anyone in history would be a weak loss since he is easily the best clay court player ever.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Well with Rafa we are talking a match 6 years ago when Roger was still great and was big time on grass. Needless to say that's a weak loss on paper

Nobody other than you sees it as a weak loss. You can be disappointed in the way Federer competed in the first two sets and that would be fair, but there is no way anyone sees that as a weak loss, not after what had happened the previous year, and not after what happened the subsequent year. That match was literally in the middle of 5 straight trips to the Wimbledon final for Nadal, and occurred at a time where Nadal was the best player in the world (or at least, that match cemented him as such). I don't think Roger needs to be championed for losing, but he shouldn't be too reprimanded either. It was a great match between two great players and one guy narrowly lost. It happens.

You so sure of that? Seems like a pretty general statement.

As I said before, short of prime Sampras coming in on the Delorean to face Roger there is no such thing as a decent loss for him on grass. Roger is easily the 2nd best grass courter ever and Rafa is barely top 10 if that. Similar for Rafa on clay, even losing to Djokovic at RG would correctly be seen as a weak loss given his resume there. And with him, anyone in history would be a weak loss since he is easily the best clay court player ever.

Darth,, I agree with Broken that it wasnt a weak loss when you look at how competitive the 2007 SW19 final was. The general prevailing thought is Rafa really didnt belive that he could beat Federer there(it was also documented in Rafa's book). Uncle Toni and team perfectly architected Rafa's game plan for the SW19 final.

 

[Kieran]

Rafa's the third best player on grass over the last 25 years. That's better, for example, than Roger on clay. I think Darth - and Roger - should be glad that Roger didn't face him at any of the majors Federer won since 2007...

 

[DarthFed]

^ Debatable if you want to put Rafa ahead of Djoker on grass at this point. Even still Roger probably is the 3rd or 4th best clay court player since 1990. Who is above him aside from Rafa and Guga? Roger has never had any reason to fear someone on grass. If he does what he's supposed to he will win...2008 was close despite a million errors and terrible play in the clutch for the vast majority of the match.

 

[Kieran]

^ Debatable if you want to put Rafa ahead of Djoker on grass at this point. Even still Roger probably is the 3rd or 4th best clay court player since 1990. Who is above him aside from Rafa and Guga? Roger has never had any reason to fear someone on grass. If he does what he's supposed to he will win...2008 was close despite a million errors and terrible play in the clutch for the vast majority of the match.

Well, since you're all so fond of counting slam-titles as the ultimate indicator of greatness, I think there's more than just Guga and Rafa have more slams on clay than Roger.

And Rafa has five Wimbledon finals - and a title at Queens. That's better than Novak...

 

[DarthFed]

Who else won more than 1 RG in last 25 years? Maybe Brugera? so if that's the case than Roger is #4.

Nole beat Rafa in a Wimbledon final. And as mentioned before losing a final is no indication of greatness. Rafa could make 10 finals and that alone holds little meaning, what matters is how many he's won.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Rafa vs Djoker H2H on grass is 2-1 Rafael (won Wimbledon 2007 semi and 2008 Queen final )

 

[Kieran]

Who else won more than 1 RG in last 25 years? Maybe Brugera? so if that's the case than Roger is #4.

Nole beat Rafa in a Wimbledon final. And as mentioned before losing a final is no indication of greatness. Rafa could make 10 finals and that alone holds little meaning, what matters is how many he's won.

Rafa has the 3rd strongest record on grass over the last 25 seasons. Courier has also won 2 FO's.

The main point being, however, that you should be glad that Roger didn't face Rafa in any of the majors he won since 2007. And certainly you know - and I know - who would have won if they met at Wimbledon...

 

[the AntiPusher]

Who else won more than 1 RG in last 25 years? Maybe Brugera? so if that's the case than Roger is #4.

Nole beat Rafa in a Wimbledon final. And as mentioned before losing a final is no indication of greatness. Rafa could make 10 finals and that alone holds little meaning, what matters is how many he's won.

Rafa has the 3rd strongest record on grass over the last 25 seasons. Courier has also won 2 FO's.

The main point being, however, that you should be glad that Roger didn't face Rafa in any of the majors he won since 2007. And certainly you know - and I know - who would have won if they met at Wimbledon...

Darth is as stubborn as the day is long in regards to Rafael

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well with Rafa we are talking a match 6 years ago when Roger was still great and was big time on grass. Needless to say that's a weak loss on paper

Nobody other than you sees it as a weak loss. You can be disappointed in the way Federer competed in the first two sets and that would be fair, but there is no way anyone sees that as a weak loss, not after what had happened the previous year, and not after what happened the subsequent year. That match was literally in the middle of 5 straight trips to the Wimbledon final for Nadal, and occurred at a time where Nadal was the best player in the world (or at least, that match cemented him as such). I don't think Roger needs to be championed for losing, but he shouldn't be too reprimanded either. It was a great match between two great players and one guy narrowly lost. It happens.

You so sure of that? Seems like a pretty general statement.

As I said before, short of prime Sampras coming in on the Delorean to face Roger there is no such thing as a decent loss for him on grass. Roger is easily the 2nd best grass courter ever and Rafa is barely top 10 if that. Similar for Rafa on clay, even losing to Djokovic at RG would correctly be seen as a weak loss given his resume there. And with him, anyone in history would be a weak loss since he is easily the best clay court player ever.

Why does it have to be a "decent" loss? It's just a loss. Not weak, not decent. Just a loss.

Using the "Roger is the 2nd greatest grass courter ever" argument so any loss on that surface is weak is such BS. So basically, if Novak comes playing the best tennis of his career and beats Nadal at the FO in 5 tight sets, it's a weak loss? Because let me break it to you: Nadal on clay is better than anyone else in history on any surface. Or at least, he's more dominant. By your logic, any loss over there is weak. Well, no. Sometimes a loss is just a loss. Not decent, no weak, not embarrassing, just a loss. Just because you're historically great doesn't mean you shouldn't lose ever.

Now had Roger played like garbage or lost to someone he had no business losing to then fine, but he lost to an all time great and a guy who had his number from day 1.

 

[DarthFed]

Who else won more than 1 RG in last 25 years? Maybe Brugera? so if that's the case than Roger is #4.

Nole beat Rafa in a Wimbledon final. And as mentioned before losing a final is no indication of greatness. Rafa could make 10 finals and that alone holds little meaning, what matters is how many he's won.

Rafa has the 3rd strongest record on grass over the last 25 seasons. Courier has also won 2 FO's.

The main point being, however, that you should be glad that Roger didn't face Rafa in any of the majors he won since 2007. And certainly you know - and I know - who would have won if they met at Wimbledon...

I don't think we'd have the same answer honestly. Roger isn't always going to play like he did in 2008...he was a lot better just this past year even. Rafa on the other hand can't beat tweedle dee/tweedle dum's retarded brother.

 

[DarthFed]

Nobody other than you sees it as a weak loss. You can be disappointed in the way Federer competed in the first two sets and that would be fair, but there is no way anyone sees that as a weak loss, not after what had happened the previous year, and not after what happened the subsequent year. That match was literally in the middle of 5 straight trips to the Wimbledon final for Nadal, and occurred at a time where Nadal was the best player in the world (or at least, that match cemented him as such). I don't think Roger needs to be championed for losing, but he shouldn't be too reprimanded either. It was a great match between two great players and one guy narrowly lost. It happens.

You so sure of that? Seems like a pretty general statement.

As I said before, short of prime Sampras coming in on the Delorean to face Roger there is no such thing as a decent loss for him on grass. Roger is easily the 2nd best grass courter ever and Rafa is barely top 10 if that. Similar for Rafa on clay, even losing to Djokovic at RG would correctly be seen as a weak loss given his resume there. And with him, anyone in history would be a weak loss since he is easily the best clay court player ever.

Why does it have to be a "decent" loss? It's just a loss. Not weak, not decent. Just a loss.

Using the "Roger is the 2nd greatest grass courter ever" argument so any loss on that surface is weak is such BS. So basically, if Novak comes playing the best tennis of his career and beats Nadal at the FO in 5 tight sets, it's a weak loss? Because let me break it to you: Nadal on clay is better than anyone else in history on any surface. Or at least, he's more dominant. By your logic, any loss over there is weak. Well, no. Sometimes a loss is just a loss. Not decent, no weak, not embarrassing, just a loss. Just because you're historically great doesn't mean you shouldn't lose ever.

Now had Roger played like garbage or lost to someone he had no business losing to then fine, but he lost to an all time great and a guy who had his number from day 1.

^ That's just a different perspective, one where losing is admirable... Just remember no one is great because they lost a GS final. Roger isn't great on grass because he reached 9 Wimbledon finals, he's great because he's won 7 Wimbledons.

 

[brokenshoelace]

PS: The idea that "Roger was terrible in the clutch" in the 2008 Wimbledon final needs to die away forever. The only reason that match was close was because he was awesome in the clutch.

Case in point:

At 2 sets down, 3-3 in the third set, Nadal gets 0-40 on Roger's serve. They were virtual match points. Federer saves all of them. Later in that set, Roger hits FIVE ACES in the tie-break to seal it.

Then, 4th set tie break, Nadal gets two match points: Roger saves the first with an ace. The second, on Nadal's serve, with one of the best passing shots of his career. Wins the tie-break.

Fifth set: Roger gets one break point: Nadal hits a serve out wide, Federer lands a return inches from the baseline, Nadal flicks a balsy inside out forehand to the corner which Federer barely tracks for Nadal to put away the overhead (literally nothing Federer could have done).

Then, Nadal gets two break points that Federer saves.

A couple of service games later, Roger again saves two break points but ultimately gets broken.

As Nadal is serving out the match, Roger saves yet another match-point with an otherworldly backhand return winner.

I mean, the claim that "for the most part" he was terrible in the clutch is absolute rubbish. It's not an opinion. It's just factually incorrect.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You so sure of that? Seems like a pretty general statement.

As I said before, short of prime Sampras coming in on the Delorean to face Roger there is no such thing as a decent loss for him on grass. Roger is easily the 2nd best grass courter ever and Rafa is barely top 10 if that. Similar for Rafa on clay, even losing to Djokovic at RG would correctly be seen as a weak loss given his resume there. And with him, anyone in history would be a weak loss since he is easily the best clay court player ever.

Why does it have to be a "decent" loss? It's just a loss. Not weak, not decent. Just a loss.

Using the "Roger is the 2nd greatest grass courter ever" argument so any loss on that surface is weak is such BS. So basically, if Novak comes playing the best tennis of his career and beats Nadal at the FO in 5 tight sets, it's a weak loss? Because let me break it to you: Nadal on clay is better than anyone else in history on any surface. Or at least, he's more dominant. By your logic, any loss over there is weak. Well, no. Sometimes a loss is just a loss. Not decent, no weak, not embarrassing, just a loss. Just because you're historically great doesn't mean you shouldn't lose ever.

Now had Roger played like garbage or lost to someone he had no business losing to then fine, but he lost to an all time great and a guy who had his number from day 1.

^ That's just a different perspective, one where losing is admirable... Just remember no one is great because they lost a GS final. Roger isn't great on grass because he reached 9 Wimbledon finals, he's great because he's won 7 Wimbledons.

Where did I say losing is "admirable"? My whole argument is that the loss was neither "decent" (so by very definition it's not admirable) nor "weak." It's just a loss. In fact, I explicitly said in an earlier post that Roger should not be championed for losing that match. But that doesn't mean the loss was weak. The loss was just a loss.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Who else won more than 1 RG in last 25 years? Maybe Brugera? so if that's the case than Roger is #4.

Nole beat Rafa in a Wimbledon final. And as mentioned before losing a final is no indication of greatness. Rafa could make 10 finals and that alone holds little meaning, what matters is how many he's won.

Rafa has the 3rd strongest record on grass over the last 25 seasons. Courier has also won 2 FO's.

The main point being, however, that you should be glad that Roger didn't face Rafa in any of the majors he won since 2007. And certainly you know - and I know - who would have won if they met at Wimbledon...

I don't think we'd have the same answer honestly. Roger isn't always going to play like he did in 2008...he was a lot better just this past year even. Rafa on the other hand can't beat tweedle dee/tweedle dum's retarded brother.

Are you saying that 2012-2014 Fed is better than 2006-2009 Fed or is playing at an higher level from all areas of his game

 

[brokenshoelace]

Who else won more than 1 RG in last 25 years? Maybe Brugera? so if that's the case than Roger is #4.

Nole beat Rafa in a Wimbledon final. And as mentioned before losing a final is no indication of greatness. Rafa could make 10 finals and that alone holds little meaning, what matters is how many he's won.

Rafa has the 3rd strongest record on grass over the last 25 seasons. Courier has also won 2 FO's.

The main point being, however, that you should be glad that Roger didn't face Rafa in any of the majors he won since 2007. And certainly you know - and I know - who would have won if they met at Wimbledon...

I don't think we'd have the same answer honestly. Roger isn't always going to play like he did in 2008...he was a lot better just this past year even. Rafa on the other hand can't beat tweedle dee/tweedle dum's retarded brother.

Depends what majors we're talking about. Wimbledon 2012? Well, I'd like to see Nadal beat Rosol first that year before making claims about him beating Federer.

AO 2010? Tough to say but we'll both agree Nadal would have been the favorite.

Wimbledon 2009? Keep in mind, that was sandwiched between two Nadal Wimbledon triumphs (2008 and 2010), which is far more relevant than losses he withstood 3 years later when his grass game went to $hit. I think it's a 50-50 match at worst. Roger wasn't terribly impressive on grass that year.

FO 2009? Even with tendinitis, give me Nadal any time, any day, especially on the final Sunday.

US Open 2008? I frankly don't think Nadal's game on fast hards was where it needed to be back then, but he definitely would have had the mental edge considering what has transpired. Still, given how well Federer played that weekend, I would pencil him as the favorite.

This what-if game is quite useless though, even though I just played it.

 

[DarthFed]

We were solely talking about Wimbledon and any matches subsequent to 2008 that could've taken place (but didn't).

As for the points you mentioned in the 2008 final that does not equate to "most of the match". Did you forget the first 2 sets or the point Roger got broken on in the 5th, or the match point he lost...1/12 BP's ring a bell?

 

[brokenshoelace]

We were solely talking about Wimbledon and any matches subsequent to 2008 that could've taken place (but didn't).

As for the points you mentioned in the 2008 final that does not equate to "most of the match". Did you forget the first 2 sets or the point Roger got broken on in the 5th, or the match point he lost...1/12 BP's ring a bell?

Actually 3 out of 5 sets, especially when taken into account the length of said set, does constitute most of the match.

 

[brokenshoelace]

We were solely talking about Wimbledon and any matches subsequent to 2008 that could've taken place (but didn't).

I thought Kieran said Roger would not have won any slam after 2008 if he had run into Rafa? I could be wrong.