2017 Australian Open Final: FEDAL XXXV

[GameSetAndMath]

anyone think adding Ljubicic to his crew helped fed improve his backhand?

Na, It is just a case of anything that does not kill you makes you stronger. People (and beasts :cool) kept pounding his back hand eventually strengthening it.

 

[Kieran]

Very interested to watch the next installment of Roger v Rafa as Rafa will have to come up with a plan b (if he even has one) to beat Roger next time as that old boring forehand to backhand crap is no longer gonna cut the mustard as Roger's backhand is so much better now. Better than his erratic forehand even. On the other hand, Roger can play much better than he did as he won't hopefully make so many nervous silly errors next time round now that he's on a 2 match winning spree against his nemesis.

Or Rafa could just not play for 5 hours two days before. It's simple really...

 

[mrzz]

It is funny that before the final no one was that worried about the two days before match. A lot of people were predicting a 3x0 victory, and saying that it would be even embarrassing. Then the match comes, on the fifth set Nadal was exactly how he was in the first, if not sharper, but, surprise surprise, his opponent played better than Dimitrov (something people were saying it would be impossible) and distributed winners all over the place.

But, I agree, it is a wonderful excuse.

 

[Kieran]

It is funny that before the final no one was that worried about the two days before match. A lot of people were predicting a 3x0 victory, and saying that it would be even embarrassing. Then the match comes, on the fifth set Nadal was exactly how he was in the first, if not sharper, but, surprise surprise, his opponent played better than Dimitrov (something people were saying it would be impossible) and distributed winners all over the place.

But, I agree, it is a wonderful excuse.

Oh gimme a break, bro. Any Nadal fans I know only predicted victory if he could fully recover. Plainly, he didn't. He was flat throughout, his reflexes were poorer than at any other match, he was less aggressive and less speedy, less movement. Obviously he was still affected by his long match. The miracle was to get so close...

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Yeah, I think it was mainly Fed fans like me that thought Nadal would probably win it ...

And no doubt that the five-setter did have an effect on Rafa; I guess nobody is immune to age. But then, how much of an effect did the matches he played have on Fed? It's pointless to debate. Let's just enjoy the fact that Roger won, and that Nadal showed he is still a force to be reckoned with.

 

[El Dude]

Kieran, with all due respect, I don't think Rafa lost simply (or even mainly) because he was tired from playing Dimitrov. That sounds like a rather typical Nadalite excuse, another variant on the old saw we've all been hearing for years, which boils down to "The only reason Rafa ever loses is injury or exhaustion."

Rafa played very well. Did he move like it was 2010? No. But he played at a similar level to how he had played the entire tournament, which is better than he has in years - possibly since early 2014.

Roger won because he figured out how to beat Rafa. I agree that it was amazing it was so close, because one could argue that Roger should have won in 3 or 4 sets. The reason he didn't is because Rafa played very well at the most crucial times, saving break-point after break-point, and coming through with some fantastic winners.

 

[Kieran]

I think if Rafa wasn't flat during huge parts of the match, it would have been a totally different match. And it isn't an excuse, because I blamed Rafa for that, especially his lapse in the second set against Grigor. Being less aggressive, especially in return, but also on serve, he allowed Federer to dictate.

Rafa isn't quite the same as he was, and though I agree that he's playing much better than at any stage since 2014, that ain't sayin' much, as Bob Dylan once sang. He was much more formidable than he was in those two seasons, but his wobbles cost him here. Would he have won if he'd had the extra days rest? Nobody can know, but I don't see why not...

 

[El Dude]

But Kieran, we can say the same thing about Roger - or whoever the other guy is across the net. If Roger hadn't X, then he would have blown Rafa out of the water and won in three sets. "If, if, if."

As you pointed about re: MTOs, it goes both ways and we can't just say "If my guy wasn't X" but not ask the same question about the other guy. As long as you look at only one side of the picture, you're being biased and making excuses.

 

[shawnbm]

Kieran loves Rafa and he sides that way--you, El Dude, love Fed and side that way. It is the way of things.

 

[Kieran]

But Kieran, we can say the same thing about Roger - or whoever the other guy is across the net. If Roger hadn't X, then he would have blown Rafa out of the water and won in three sets. "If, if, if."

As you pointed about re: MTOs, it goes both ways and we can't just say "If my guy wasn't X" but not ask the same question about the other guy. As long as you look at only one side of the picture, you're being biased and making excuses.

Nonsense, bro. I'm looking at the evidence and giving an opinion. You are too. We simply disagree, that's all...

 

[El Dude]

Kieran loves Rafa and he sides that way--you, El Dude, love Fed and side that way. It is the way of things.

We are always biased, that's part of my point. Except for Kieran, evidently But seriously, if we want to have meaningful conversations that go beyond "my guy is better than your guy," then we need to at least account for our own bias, and we have to be willing to give the same leeway to the other guy as we do our own. That's why I said what I said to Kieran, who wants to write off the loss to Rafa being tired, or something not having to do with Roger simply out-playing him.

But Kieran, we can say the same thing about Roger - or whoever the other guy is across the net. If Roger hadn't X, then he would have blown Rafa out of the water and won in three sets. "If, if, if."

As you pointed about re: MTOs, it goes both ways and we can't just say "If my guy wasn't X" but not ask the same question about the other guy. As long as you look at only one side of the picture, you're being biased and making excuses.

Nonsense, bro. I'm looking at the evidence and giving an opinion. You are too. We simply disagree, that's all...

Nonsense, what? We have to be unbiased only when it serves our own argument and biases? :cover

Can you at least agree that there are "what ifs" for Roger as well? If you're going to say, "If Rafa did this, he would have won," then you have to be willing to say "If Roger did this, he would have won more significantly." Unless, of course, you think Roger played as well as he possibly could have in each every game, but the evidence--the 2nd and 4th sets--say otherwise.

 

[Kieran]

What's "nonsense" is to attribute my opinion to being me making excuses. This is just a way of discrediting any view that doesn't add up to your own. Is it possible that Rafa was fatigued after the Grigor match to the extent that he wasn't recovered enough to play to his full potential in the final? Is this possible?

I think it's not only possible, but it actually falls into a category that Basil Fawlty once called "The Bleedin' Obvious."

Do I believe that had he the same recovery time as Federer, the result would be different? I reckon even you believe that, since it obviously would be different. My own view on how and why might conflict with yours. I believe he'd have continued his ownership of a player who hasn't troubled him at a slam in almost a decade.

You think differently - so we disagree.

But be clear - this fatigue was self-inflicted, in my opinion. Rafa was so shaky and wobbly in the second set against Grigor, he was forced into playing much longer than he had to. This is the great thing about five set tennis, but it was so unRafa-like as to merit comment and analysis, because I believe that this shakiness in his game is the one thing he still has to eradicate before we can say he's fully back.

Can you at least agree that there are "what ifs" for Roger as well? If you're going to say, "If Rafa did this, he would have won," then you have to be willing to say "If Roger did this, he would have won more significantly." Unless, of course, you think Roger played as well as he possibly could have in each every game, but the evidence--the 2nd and 4th sets--say otherwise.

Of course there could be "what ifs" for Roger. Mine would be different to yours and the rules of the forum would rightly forbid a lot of them but I agree, there could be what ifs all round.

Here's a good "what if" though, that I'm certain we both agree on: what if both Oz semis were played on the same day? Trust me bro, if the roles were reversed and Roger played his semi on Friday instead, his form would drop noticeably in the final, and you Fedfans would rightly point to the lack of recovery time compared to his fresher opponent...

 

[El Dude]

The problem, Kieran, is that you require some reason (excuse) for why Roger won, none of which - at least in the last couple posts - have to do with Roger's play. You say it is because Rafa wasn't as rested, or you imply something more nefarious on Roger's part, but you can't seem to fathom that maybe, just maybe Roger finally figured out how to beat Rafa. Maybe Roger simply played a better match, and did what he hasn't been able to do with Rafa, or in a Slam final in years: play his best level when it matters most.

You accuse me of discrediting variant perspectives, yet seem to be an instant of your own complaint--not only ignoring other views on why Roger won, but also discrediting his win by blaming it on Rafa being tired, not having good tactics, Roger doing something naughty, Toni not giving him his blanky for nap-time, etc. It is never: "Wow, Roger played exquisitely and just out-gunned Rafa at the end."

But of course...everything you say is part of the picture. But they can all be countered with "ifs" on Roger's part. That was my point above. For instance, maybe Rafa would have played better if he were more rested; we can also say, maybe Roger would have played even better if he had, you know, played some tennis in the last six months other than a couple matches at Hopman. Maybe Rafa should have tried different tactics, and maybe Roger would have found a way to beat those tactics as well.

As for the more nefarious stuff, anything you are suspicious about with regards to Roger could just as easily be questioned about Rafa, so I wouldn't go there. Not as much for reasons of forum rules, but as the old saying goes, "He who has not sinned can cast the first stone."

 

[Kieran]

Leave aside the last paragraph, and go to the other stuff: of course, I agree, largely . "What ifs" can include an endless speculation of hypotheticals. My gut instinct is that a sharper, fresher and more assertive Rafa wouldn't have been outgunned by Roger, as he hasn't been in a long time at this level. Roger was allowed to take control, because Rafa wasn't able to maintain his levels. And - this part might shock you - I accept that others view this differently. What I don't accept is that anybody can have watched that match and concluded that Rafa was unaffected by fatigue, or that the result would be the same, anyway...

 

[mrzz]

Since we are in "if" land, I can come out with an alternative too. We all know things at this level are non linear. So, it could well be that if Nadal was fresher, Federer would have played even better, and not have those drops in form in sets 2 and 4. He could well have let himself down as he thought Nadal was fried, anyway. The match was looking indeed quite easy at the end of set 1 and set 2 was lost mainly on UFE´s. So, IF Nadal was that tired, and IF in some alternate reality he could have played fresher, it COULD happen that the end result would end up being 3x0 instead of 3x2.

Of course that it is possible that Nadal´s fitness was affected, but to jump from this possibility to the certainty that he would have won otherwise is a significant leap of faith. But that´s fine, and I am ok with good fans and good posters having faith.

By the way, statistics show that the guy who has one more day to recover do not have noticeably better results than the other. Maybe this is why this kind of schedule is there, and the players themselves do not make a fuss about it.

 

[Kieran]

Of course that it is possible that Nadal´s fitness was affected, but to jump from this possibility to the certainty that he would have won otherwise is a significant leap of faith. But that´s fine, and I am ok with good fans and good posters having faith.

No, I didn't jump to any certainty - I expressed a personal opinion, which is different.

By the way, statistics show that the guy who has one more day to recover do not have noticeably better results than the other. Maybe this is why this kind of schedule is there, and the players themselves do not make a fuss about it.

The players don't make a fuss about a lot of things, including the ridiculousness of some matches beginning at midnight. We'd have to ask the players why, but we still can draw our own conclusions, meantime.

And yet again I'll say this, because I think it'll need to be repeated: the extra day isn't simply the issue (though I think commonsense dictates that both semis should be on the same day, like the other slams), the issue - in my opinion - lies with Rafa being unable to take a stranglehold on the semi when he was ahead, and in fact serving so poorly in that second set as to drop serve 3 times and be dragged into a drawn-out brawl that knackered him. Tennis-wise, it was glorious to watch in the end, and my respect for Grigor went up in that moment, but we'll see how he builds on his play in Oz for the rest of the year...

 

[DarthFed]

Rafa looked less tired as the match went on. I'd say he was flat for the first set and a half and it was by Roger's generosity in set 2 that he found himself into the match. He saw Roger get tight, as has so often been the case and he pounced. Same story with the 4th set and start of the 5th, Roger stunk up the place and let Rafa back in. Unlike other occasions Roger righted the ship and blasted Rafa off the court to finish the match. Rafa's play in the 5th set was actually his best of the match and he looked far from tired.

At the end of the day this was a fast court (unlike every other time they've played at Oz) and Roger has a lot more firepower than Rafa and he did what he should do. Wimbledon 2008 was not the norm when it comes to these two on a fast court, there was a situation where Roger clearly underperformed and still barely lost it so if you want to bring up fatigue here we can talk mono in 2008 leading to his uninspired play throughout that season.

 

[mrzz]

^Fair enough. Those are reasonable points. But sometimes viewers take some issues much more seriously then the players (and vice versa). It is a fact, however, that we probably don´t have a clue about what those guys really think.

 

[Kieran]

^Fair enough. Those are reasonable points. But sometimes viewers take some issues much more seriously then the players (and vice versa). It is a fact, however, that we probably don´t have a clue about what those guys really think.

We fans are the experts. If the players would only listen to us... :snicker

 

[Puppet Master]

I thought, oh hey, the final was like almost five days ago, what could they be discussing? I jump in to see and surprisingly Carol and Front aren't in a dogfight, but here come Kieran and El Dude to save the day. :laydownlaughing Classic TF.
Rafa played well on conditions that were, let's be honest, unfavourable for him. Quick court ok, he won on fast courts plenty of times when he wasn't taken out by some ballbasher in the previous rounds, but the low/medium bounce killed him. Also, he didn't press very hard even in the lead, Fed just made a lot of errors, he was quite passive and Roger still wasn't able to put him down exactly, it took him five sets to do it. It was the best slam final in recent years.
Rafa will have his chance at RG and perhaps he can do something at the USO because decoturf suits him better, and if he doesn't blow it, we are probably back to where we were before the AO, business as usual.
Sure, Rafa was to some extent affected by the SF, but Roger is 5 years older, and if Nadal didn't wobble against Grigor, and had a 2:0 lead, I doubt Dimitrov would even try to get back into the match. But it's pointless to discuss it now.