2016 Wimbledon SF: Federer vs. Raonic

[DarthFed]

^ Bro, losing to Rafa in that match is far different than losing to Raonic, no? I'd say comparing the 2008 final to yesterday would show signs of large decline though obviously I'm not basing the argument off of just one match.

And yes, the Roger of 2008 shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass, it was a weak loss and I stick by that. Granted everything is a weak loss on grass when we are talking someone who was riding a 65 match win steak coming into that. Rafa did well that day, Roger sure as hell didn't. I'd say subsequent grass results kind of prove my point.

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ Bro, losing to Rafa in that match is far different than losing to Raonic, no? I'd say comparing the 2008 final to yesterday would show signs of large decline though obviously I'm not basing the argument off of just one match.

And yes, the Roger of 2008 shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass, it was a weak loss and I stick by that. Granted everything is a weak loss on grass when we are talking someone who was riding a 65 match win steak coming into that. Rafa did well that day, Roger sure as hell didn't. I'd say subsequent grass results kind of prove my point.

That's my point, Rafa played better than Roger that day. Roger gave it his best that he had for "that day". If it wasn't Roger at his very best at Wimbledon then that's where you say ney and a lot of us think it was. It was the 3rd straight time the face off in a SW19 final where Rafa finally figured out a strategy that earned him the title. Does it means that Rafa became a better grass court player than Roger , hell no but it means Rafa was the best that day on Roger best surface. On Rafa's best grand slam surface , RG Roger has had more than 5 or more opportunities to defeat Rafa but he hasn't to. See this is where I and think Kieran may feel the same , you have to see where you have to acknowledge that Roger isn't invincible as you think he is on grass. I still favor a 24-26 in his prime Sampras on grass over Roger, but that's just me because I think Sampras 1st and 2nd served plus his coming in behind them was the most potent weapon I ever seen anyone posses in this game,

 

[lob]

^ Bro, losing to Rafa in that match is far different than losing to Raonic, no? I'd say comparing the 2008 final to yesterday would show signs of large decline though obviously I'm not basing the argument off of just one match.

And yes, the Roger of 2008 shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass, it was a weak loss and I stick by that. Granted everything is a weak loss on grass when we are talking someone who was riding a 65 match win steak coming into that. Rafa did well that day, Roger sure as hell didn't. I'd say subsequent grass results kind of prove my point.

I agree with every single line above. The 2008 Roger would have straightsetted yesterday's Raonic sipping margarita. Even the 2012 Roger would have won in straight sets. The 2014 Roger did win in straight sets. Anyone who thinks otherwise should just watch those matches again after wearing their glasses.

And yes he shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass in 2008. But the dude is such an 'optimist' that he stubbornly refused to listen to the warning signs. Too many. By 2007/8, the second Sunday's grass was bouncing like dirt. Rafa was riding very high on confidence. I was sacred as hell going into that match.

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ Bro, losing to Rafa in that match is far different than losing to Raonic, no? I'd say comparing the 2008 final to yesterday would show signs of large decline though obviously I'm not basing the argument off of just one match.

And yes, the Roger of 2008 shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass, it was a weak loss and I stick by that. Granted everything is a weak loss on grass when we are talking someone who was riding a 65 match win steak coming into that. Rafa did well that day, Roger sure as hell didn't. I'd say subsequent grass results kind of prove my point.

I agree with every single line above. The 2008 Roger would have straightsetted yesterday's Raonic sipping margarita. Even the 2012 Roger would have won in straight sets. The 2014 Roger did win in straight sets. Anyone who thinks otherwise should just watch those matches again after wearing their glasses.

And yes he shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass in 2008. But the dude is such an 'optimist' that he stubbornly refused to listen to the warning signs. Too many. By 2007/8, the second Sunday's grass was bouncing like dirt. Rafa was riding very high on confidence. I was sacred as hell going into that match.

It's amazing how Darth can posts and it translated I am comparing Rafa vs Fed to 2016 .Milos vs Fed. I was starting that regardless of who it is, Rafa, Djokovic , Murray , no one gets the acknowledgement of out playing Roger on grass at Wimbledon

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ Bro, losing to Rafa in that match is far different than losing to Raonic, no? I'd say comparing the 2008 final to yesterday would show signs of large decline though obviously I'm not basing the argument off of just one match.

And yes, the Roger of 2008 shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass, it was a weak loss and I stick by that. Granted everything is a weak loss on grass when we are talking someone who was riding a 65 match win steak coming into that. Rafa did well that day, Roger sure as hell didn't. I'd say subsequent grass results kind of prove my point.

I agree with every single line above. The 2008 Roger would have straightsetted yesterday's Raonic sipping margarita. Even the 2012 Roger would have won in straight sets. The 2014 Roger did win in straight sets. Anyone who thinks otherwise should just watch those matches again after wearing their glasses.

And yes he shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass in 2008. But the dude is such an 'optimist' that he stubbornly refused to listen to the warning signs. Too many. By 2007/8, the second Sunday's grass was bouncing like dirt. Rafa was riding very high on confidence. I was sacred as hell going into that match.

It's amazing how Darth can posts and it translated I am comparing Rafa vs Fed to 2016 .Milos vs Fed. I was starting that regardless of who it is, Rafa, Djokovic , Murray , no one gets the acknowledgement of out playing Roger on grass at Wimbledon

 

[Kieran]

It was the greatest match in tennis history, played on Wodger's home turf, and Rafa scalped him. Shoulda been done in straights, really. Just be glad Wodger faced a kid in 2006 and 2007, bro, or Federer wouldn't have had a 65 match streak to defend... :nono

 

[DarthFed]

Would have been 3 or 4 sets for Roger if he actually showed up ready to play. He wet the bed badly for 2 sets and then played average tennis the rest of the way including a typical ugly end to the 5th set and mostly stunk aside from TB's. I'd imagine 52 UFE's is still one of the highest totals in the tournament's history.

 

[Kieran]

Haha brother, it's been proven it wasn't, during one of the previous bouts of Fedal fever, maybe in 2011 or 2014... :snicker

 

[DarthFed]

^ Bro, losing to Rafa in that match is far different than losing to Raonic, no? I'd say comparing the 2008 final to yesterday would show signs of large decline though obviously I'm not basing the argument off of just one match.

And yes, the Roger of 2008 shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass, it was a weak loss and I stick by that. Granted everything is a weak loss on grass when we are talking someone who was riding a 65 match win steak coming into that. Rafa did well that day, Roger sure as hell didn't. I'd say subsequent grass results kind of prove my point.

I agree with every single line above. The 2008 Roger would have straightsetted yesterday's Raonic sipping margarita. Even the 2012 Roger would have won in straight sets. The 2014 Roger did win in straight sets. Anyone who thinks otherwise should just watch those matches again after wearing their glasses.

And yes he shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass in 2008. But the dude is such an 'optimist' that he stubbornly refused to listen to the warning signs. Too many. By 2007/8, the second Sunday's grass was bouncing like dirt. Rafa was riding very high on confidence. I was sacred as hell going into that match.

It's amazing how Darth can posts and it translated I am comparing Rafa vs Fed to 2016 .Milos vs Fed. I was starting that regardless of who it is, Rafa, Djokovic , Murray , no one gets the acknowledgement of out playing Roger on grass at Wimbledon

I've acknowledged that he's outplayed every time he loses. That's what losing is...failure, weakness, etc. I have said before that with the surface change and Roger's poor play in close matches that he should've finished with more than 7 Wimbledons. I still say the USO is where he's underachieved the most but Wimbledon is catching up. Bad loss in 2008 when he was still a tremendous player and then he had plenty of other opportunities throughout the years including this one. He should've been sitting on at least 9.

 

[DarthFed]

Haha brother, it's been proven it wasn't, during one of the previous bouts of Fedal fever, maybe in 2011 or 2014... :snicker

Proven by who? You and other Wafa nuts? :snicker Roger made Wafa's serve look like Pete Sampras that day.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Bro, losing to Rafa in that match is far different than losing to Raonic, no? I'd say comparing the 2008 final to yesterday would show signs of large decline though obviously I'm not basing the argument off of just one match.

And yes, the Roger of 2008 shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass, it was a weak loss and I stick by that. Granted everything is a weak loss on grass when we are talking someone who was riding a 65 match win steak coming into that. Rafa did well that day, Roger sure as hell didn't. I'd say subsequent grass results kind of prove my point.

That's my point, Rafa played better than Roger that day. Roger gave it his best that he had for "that day". If it wasn't Roger at his very best at Wimbledon then that's where you say ney and a lot of us think it was. It was the 3rd straight time the face off in a SW19 final where Rafa finally figured out a strategy that earned him the title. Does it means that Rafa became a better grass court player than Roger , hell no but it means Rafa was the best that day on Roger best surface. On Rafa's best grand slam surface , RG Roger has had more than 5 or more opportunities to defeat Rafa but he hasn't to. See this is where I and think Kieran may feel the same , you have to see where you have to acknowledge that Roger isn't invincible as you think he is on grass. I still favor a 24-26 in his prime Sampras on grass over Roger, but that's just me because I think Sampras 1st and 2nd served plus his coming in behind them was the most potent weapon I ever seen anyone posses in this game,

Sampras would definitely have gotten the better of Roger on the real grass (not the trash they play on today). On this stuff it'd be close but Sampras obviously would have the edge in a 5th set which could be key if we are talking them playing a hypothetical series of matches.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I agree with every single line above. The 2008 Roger would have straightsetted yesterday's Raonic sipping margarita. Even the 2012 Roger would have won in straight sets. The 2014 Roger did win in straight sets. Anyone who thinks otherwise should just watch those matches again after wearing their glasses.

And yes he shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass in 2008. But the dude is such an 'optimist' that he stubbornly refused to listen to the warning signs. Too many. By 2007/8, the second Sunday's grass was bouncing like dirt. Rafa was riding very high on confidence. I was sacred as hell going into that match.

It's amazing how Darth can posts and it translated I am comparing Rafa vs Fed to 2016 .Milos vs Fed. I was starting that regardless of who it is, Rafa, Djokovic , Murray , no one gets the acknowledgement of out playing Roger on grass at Wimbledon

I've acknowledged that he's outplayed every time he loses. That's what losing is...failure, weakness, etc. I have said before that with the surface change and Roger's poor play in close matches that he should've finished with more than 7 Wimbledons. I still say the USO is where he's underachieved the most but Wimbledon is catching up. Bad loss in 2008 when he was still a tremendous player and then he had plenty of other opportunities throughout the years including this one. He should've been sitting on at least 9.

Trust me on this on , nothing has been as bad for Rafa fans than AO 2012 ( being up 4-2 30-15 in the 5 the set ) and the absolute worst brain cramp by Rafa not being able to pass Novak who had was very below average net game. It was the match that in my mind made Novak a legitimate threat. McEnore is still haunted by loosing RG 84 to Lendl after being up 2 sets to love and a break to completely loose it over a few line calls.

 

[Front242]

lol, that wasn't even break point. Not comparable in any way from going 40-0 up to losing serve and the set and subsequently the match 'cos of 2 awful double faults.

 

[the AntiPusher]

lol, that wasn't even break point. Not comparable in any way from going 40-0 up to losing serve and the set and subsequently the match 'cos of 2 awful double faults.

Front I have said this was one of Roger's worst choke job. However, it was a semifinal lost for Roger not a final as it was for Rafa

 

[DarthFed]

This wasn't Roger's greatest choke either. I'd say the 3 worst came at the USO, 2 vs. Nole and one vs. DP. I'd have this 5th after those 3 and the 2011 Tsonga QF

 

[the AntiPusher]

This wasn't Roger's greatest choke either. I'd say the 3 worst came at the USO, 2 vs. Nole and one vs. DP. I'd have this 5th after those 3 and the 2011 Tsonga QF

The USO mps blown by Roger on the two points when Novak went for broke was the choke.. It's when Roger didn't regroup and close out the match is where the choking occurred

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^ Bro, losing to Rafa in that match is far different than losing to Raonic, no? I'd say comparing the 2008 final to yesterday would show signs of large decline though obviously I'm not basing the argument off of just one match.

And yes, the Roger of 2008 shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass, it was a weak loss and I stick by that. Granted everything is a weak loss on grass when we are talking someone who was riding a 65 match win steak coming into that. Rafa did well that day, Roger sure as hell didn't. I'd say subsequent grass results kind of prove my point.

That's my point, Rafa played better than Roger that day. Roger gave it his best that he had for "that day". If it wasn't Roger at his very best at Wimbledon then that's where you say ney and a lot of us think it was. It was the 3rd straight time the face off in a SW19 final where Rafa finally figured out a strategy that earned him the title. Does it means that Rafa became a better grass court player than Roger , hell no but it means Rafa was the best that day on Roger best surface. On Rafa's best grand slam surface , RG Roger has had more than 5 or more opportunities to defeat Rafa but he hasn't to. See this is where I and think Kieran may feel the same , you have to see where you have to acknowledge that Roger isn't invincible as you think he is on grass. I still favor a 24-26 in his prime Sampras on grass over Roger, but that's just me because I think Sampras 1st and 2nd served plus his coming in behind them was the most potent weapon I ever seen anyone posses in this game,

I believe Roger would have actually preferred to play serve and volley on the old grass. As you know they changed the grass type at around 2000 to make sure that there are longer rallies and that essentially forced Roger to play aggressive baseline style game on grass. I believe it was actually a case of Roger adapting to the change in grass, from him more natural game.

People have only seen Roger play on the new grass and they assume that Roger would play in the old grass the same way. That is simply not the case. In fact Roger would like the type of game supported by old grass than the new grass.

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ Bro, losing to Rafa in that match is far different than losing to Raonic, no? I'd say comparing the 2008 final to yesterday would show signs of large decline though obviously I'm not basing the argument off of just one match.

And yes, the Roger of 2008 shouldn't have lost to Rafa on grass, it was a weak loss and I stick by that. Granted everything is a weak loss on grass when we are talking someone who was riding a 65 match win steak coming into that. Rafa did well that day, Roger sure as hell didn't. I'd say subsequent grass results kind of prove my point.

That's my point, Rafa played better than Roger that day. Roger gave it his best that he had for "that day". If it wasn't Roger at his very best at Wimbledon then that's where you say ney and a lot of us think it was. It was the 3rd straight time the face off in a SW19 final where Rafa finally figured out a strategy that earned him the title. Does it means that Rafa became a better grass court player than Roger , hell no but it means Rafa was the best that day on Roger best surface. On Rafa's best grand slam surface , RG Roger has had more than 5 or more opportunities to defeat Rafa but he hasn't to. See this is where I and think Kieran may feel the same , you have to see where you have to acknowledge that Roger isn't invincible as you think he is on grass. I still favor a 24-26 in his prime Sampras on grass over Roger, but that's just me because I think Sampras 1st and 2nd served plus his coming in behind them was the most potent weapon I ever seen anyone posses in this game,

I believe Roger would have actually preferred to play serve and volley on the old grass. As you know they changed the grass type at around 2000 to make sure that there are longer rallies and that essentially forced Roger to play aggressive baseline style game on grass. I believe it was actually a case of Roger adapting to the change in grass, from him more natural game.

People have only seen Roger play on the new grass and they assume that Roger would play in the old grass the same way. That is simply not the case. In fact Roger would like the type of game supported by old grass than the new grass.

Agreed

 

[Obsi]

Yes, Wawrinka. Do you think the very inconsistent Wawrinka being #3 over Roger wouldn't be a sign of enormous decline from a player who was at 23 straight semis and 18 of 19 finals?

You underestimate Wawrinka.

Wawrinka is the epitome of inconsistency. He at least made the semis of RG so it wasn't as bad a year at the slams as it could have been so far but AO 4th round loss and 2nd round loss at Wimbledon to a guy who hadn't played a slam match in absolutely ages and has a gammy wrist and can only slice on his backhand don't exactly make him shine as anything too amazing except for a handful of matches every decade.

If Wawrinka were the epitome of inconsistency he wouldn't be No. 5.

Yes, Wawrinka. Do you think the very inconsistent Wawrinka being #3 over Roger wouldn't be a sign of enormous decline from a player who was at 23 straight semis and 18 of 19 finals?

You underestimate Wawrinka.

Not at all. His whole career is based on 2 slams and if Nole had done the job we'd be talking of him like we talk of Baghdatis or Gonzalez.

Stan was brilliant against Djokovic at 2014 AO and 2015 FO.

But I'm also guessing the fact he lost to Milos frickin Raonic in an ugly 5 set match at Wimbledon doesn't register as signs of a large decline either.

Djokovic lost to frickin Querrey in the third round. It's a sign of a serious decline, right?