2017 Australian Open Final: FEDAL XXXV

[Carol]

Rafa has lost without having any injury because his opponent has played better than him but in this last final he definitely had a very bad disadvantage in all the ways

 

[Front242]

Rafa has lost without having any injury because his opponent has played better than him but in this last final he definitely had a very bad disadvantage in all the ways

All the ways? Care to list them all so we can laugh?

 

[Carol]

Rafa has lost without having any injury because his opponent has played better than him but in this last final he definitely had a very bad disadvantage in all the ways

All the ways? Care to list them all so we can laugh?

I don't need to do any list because everything is very known and already done, let's go to pass the page because better things will come

 

[Front242]

Rafa has lost without having any injury because his opponent has played better than him but in this last final he definitely had a very bad disadvantage in all the ways

All the ways? Care to list them all so we can laugh?

I don't need to do any list because everything is very known and already done, let's go to pass the page because better things will come

Only known to you, you mean. The rest of us know he was beaten fair and square and nothing you think or say will change that.

 

[Kieran]

Seriously lads, get yourself a new set of cliches. Especially bringing up the Stan match again. :cover

As if none of us watched it. As if Rafa had a close rivalry with him going into the match. As if players can't lose over five, having been up a set and a break. :cover

Tell that to Baghdatis.

As if Rafa could actually play after his back went. :cover

But really, pay attention, lads. This level of barrel scraping is weird...

Just because H2H favors Rafa, we should just give the trophy to Rafa. That is why the matches are played right?

Of course. Your comment, by the way shows a little contradiction. Against Stan, Rafa couldn't play from early in the second, and yet you assume Stan had the match win anyway, at that early stage...

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, it is simple. Aside from differing perspectives on the match, let's look at the underlying psychological context. Roger just had what was probably the greatest victory of his career. And yet still there are some Rafa fans who are finding ways to diminish it. Can you understand why those of us still celebrating would be annoyed?

Of course, buddy. We get the same every time Rafa wins. The insinuations that players who return after a long lay off and win slams straight away are doping. Obviously. :cover

But fortunately we haven't heard that one yet...

 

[Front242]

Kieran, it is simple. Aside from differing perspectives on the match, let's look at the underlying psychological context. Roger just had what was probably the greatest victory of his career. And yet still there are some Rafa fans who are finding ways to diminish it. Can you understand why those of us still celebrating would be annoyed?

Of course, buddy. We get the same every time Rafa wins. The insinuations that players who return after a long lay off and win slams straight away are doping. Obviously. :cover

But fortunately we haven't heard that one yet...

Except you have quite a lot of differences. Firstly, Federer does not win by stamina, never has and never will and this is predominantly the type of doping that's prevalent in tennis. Duracell bunnies who never get tired. Nadal came back after PRP treatment in 2009 and 2012 which has performance enhancing effects and hence why he had career best years in 2010 and 2013. Maybe you've forgotten both he and Djokovic played a 6 hour final at the AO 2012. 6 hours?! And yet Nadal fans are stating he was tired tired in this 2017 final lol :cover Please. For the record, whatever he and Djokovic were taking back then, I don't believe either are now and hence what you're seeing is their normal levels and not an actual decline. Maybe this was due to a health scare or maybe the authorities actually stopped them. Either way, it's clearly noticeable their levels dropped off massively.

No amount of doping will improve your tennis IQ or shot making and shot making and decent serving is what wins Federer matches. The ability doesn't just drop off overnight just 'cos you're 35. He's clearly slower running to his forehand side and has been for years now but, kudos to him, he obviously worked very hard on improving his main weakness: his backhand. He won this tournament for the following main reasons: excellent serving for the most part, greatly improved backhand, the new racquet head with bigger sweet spot meaning less shanks and outstanding shot making. Please tell me how doping would improve any of those?

Federer scraped through his 5 set matches, barely winning against Stan and was in a losing position in the 5th set of the final. Now, if he had blasted through Nishikori, Wawrinka and Nadal in straight sets you may have something to go but he didn't. Far from it. He should be commended, not criticized and don't even get me started on the BS from Carol.

 

[Kieran]

Seriously Front, you should quit now. You accused Roger of doping in the dope thread, and you always suspected players who come straight back after a long break and win straight away. But now, you're changing your tune. That's fair enough. Just don't be surprised when you're called on it...

 

[Carol]

All the ways? Care to list them all so we can laugh?

I don't need to do any list because everything is very known and already done, let's go to pass the page because better things will come

Only known to you, you mean. The rest of us know he was beaten fair and square and nothing you think or say will change that.

I suppose you mean the rest of you around here but not around another places, trust me I've heard all kind of opinions but not too many about "fair and square"

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Stan blew Rafa away for a set and a bit in that final. Of course, we will never know whether he would have been able to keep it up if Rafa hadn't been injured. On the other hand, we do know now (though we probably didn't know it then) that Stan is quite able to keep up this level against the top players when he's on fire. So while it's fair to wonder what would have happened if Rafa hadn't gotten injured, I don't think it's right to take away from Stan's victory in 2014.

Now, when it comes to this year's final, things are a bit more subtle I think.

1. Rafa had a long SF and one day fewer to recover than Roger did. It seems clear that this affected him in the final in some way - but how much is hard to say.
2. Roger had an adductor injury in his SF. It seems clear that this affected him in the final in some way - but how much is hard to say.
3. Rafa also played a lot longer and ran more during his run to the final. As has been noted, this is an effect of his (physical and quite amazing) playing style, and it could be argued simply that at this age he is going to start paying the price for it.
4. The surface probably suited Fed more than it did Nadal.

All of these things leave open a lot of question marks. We don't really have a lot of data to draw conclusions from, so we should try to refrain from grand conclusions such as "Federer has Rafa's number now and will own him again on fast courts" (as some Fed fans have suggested), or "Fed played at his best and Rafa was severely affected by the SF, otherwise he would have never has lost" as some people here seem to be saying.

(Of course, it is fun and reasonable to speculate, but maybe we should agree that there isn't so much to go on, and we might just be wrong in our conclusions ...)

Let's remember that Nadal had to make changes to his game early in his career to be able to compete with and eventually beat Roger at Wimbledon. Is it unreasonable to expect that Fed may have finally cracked the problem of the match-up with Nadal, at least to the degree where it is less easy for Rafa to exploit his backhand? Conversely, if this is really the case, we should know that Rafa will himself adapt his gameplan to this new reality.

Above anything, let's together enjoy the fact that our favourites seem to be playing well again and competing for GS titles, which was perhaps less clear before the AO. And let's hope that they continue to play well enough that we may have some more opportunities to test our theories, with more GS matches between the two! Given how long it had been before this one, that's not a given either.

 

[Carol]

I'm glad that this Roger's win has been the biggest of his career, it means a lot to me but after to read for years from his frenetic fans so much trash about Nadal and his brilliant and clean career, since now I'd like to see what else they could say....

 

[Front242]

I don't need to do any list because everything is very known and already done, let's go to pass the page because better things will come

Only known to you, you mean. The rest of us know he was beaten fair and square and nothing you think or say will change that.

I suppose you mean the rest of you around here but not around another places, trust me I've heard all kind of opinions but not too many about "fair and square"

Yes, it was so unfair that Nadal lost. That's about all you're harping on about. Everything was indeed fair and square no matter what the opinions of the imbeciles you hang around with or talk to on forums.

 

[Front242]

Seriously Front, you should quit now. You accused Roger of doping in the dope thread, and you always suspected players who come straight back after a long break and win straight away. But now, you're changing your tune. That's fair enough. Just don't be surprised when you're called on it...

Actually no, I said "Quite possible they're all taking something to be quite honest though I hope not." Maybe they're all taking massive dosages of Korean red ginseng. That of course doesn't mean they're doping. For the record though, clearly the guys who don't get tired stick out like a sore thumb more than guys who win by hitting their opponents off the court with skill and precision. There's quite a difference. Skill versus endurance. It's a no brainer.

 

[Carol]

Only known to you, you mean. The rest of us know he was beaten fair and square and nothing you think or say will change that.

I suppose you mean the rest of you around here but not around another places, trust me I've heard all kind of opinions but not too many about "fair and square"

Yes, it was so unfair that Nadal lost. That's about all you're harping on about. Everything was indeed fair and square no matter what the opinions of the imbeciles you hang around with or talk to on forums.

Lol, I was not referiring about the forums where obviously we can read anything from anyone but TALKING with good tennis followers with a lot of knowledge leaving aside the fanatism, don't call them imbeciles before you look in the mirror

 

[Front242]

I suppose you mean the rest of you around here but not around another places, trust me I've heard all kind of opinions but not too many about "fair and square"

Yes, it was so unfair that Nadal lost. That's about all you're harping on about. Everything was indeed fair and square no matter what the opinions of the imbeciles you hang around with or talk to on forums.

Lol, I was not referiring about the forums where obviously we can read anything from anyone but TALKING with good tennis followers with a lot of knowledge leaving aside the fanatism, don't call them imbeciles before you look in the mirror

Yes, I said opinions of the imbeciles you hang around with so clearly I wasn't referring to just people on forums and sorry to break it to you but, whether or not I've met them, they are indeed imbeciles if they think Federer didn't win fair and square unless both you and your buddies think it's unfair that he's so good at shot making.

 

[Carol]

AGAIN! nobody has said that Roger didn't make a good shots and he didn't play aggressive, everybody agree with that

 

[Front242]

AGAIN! nobody has said that Roger didn't make a good shots and he didn't play aggressive, everybody agree with that

LOL, here's what you said earlier about why Nadal didn't win. Sour grapes much? http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=5309&pid=247986#pid247986

 

[El Dude]

Rafa has lost without having any injury because his opponent has played better than him but in this last final he definitely had a very bad disadvantage in all the ways

This is just silly. "In all the ways?"

Carol, you do realize that pretty much the only people that agree with you on this are other diehard Rafa fans, and only a minority at that. There are lots of factors, but the consensus is that Roger largely won on his own racquet.

I'm glad that this Roger's win has been the biggest of his career, it means a lot to me but after to read for years from his frenetic fans so much trash about Nadal and his brilliant and clean career, since now I'd like to see what else they could say....

Carol, I have never even implied that Rafa used steroids (regarding your "clean" comment). As far as I remember, there is only one member that has frequently insinuated that (Front) and he and I have disagree on that. Now I honestly have no idea if Rafa has used (or anyone, including Roger) but I believe in innocence until guilt is proven, so I'm going to give them all the benefit of the doubt.

The point being, quit flinging poo around. Not all "Roger fanatics" hate Rafa or are suspicious of him. I certainly don't hate him, but have immense respect for him, even if I don't love his style of play.

 

[Kieran]

Interesting post, Dude, particularly the last bit. I long understand that you appreciate Rafa, but I always find it hard to understand when people don't like his heart on the sleeve displays of wild swashbuckling tennis. Rafa to me has the most heroic style, because he's playing with his "bad hand" - and so must be the most supremely gifted of players, but he's also brave and tough, he brings human drama to a match that we don't really get from anyone else. Rafa in full cry is an amazing sight. I think a lot of players love to watch him too, just because of how compelling he is. I'd be interested in what you don't appreciate him...

 

[Kieran]

Seriously Front, you should quit now. You accused Roger of doping in the dope thread, and you always suspected players who come straight back after a long break and win straight away. But now, you're changing your tune. That's fair enough. Just don't be surprised when you're called on it...

Actually no, I said "Quite possible they're all taking something to be quite honest though I hope not." Maybe they're all taking massive dosages of Korean red ginseng. That of course doesn't mean they're doping. For the record though, clearly the guys who don't get tired stick out like a sore thumb more than guys who win by hitting their opponents off the court with skill and precision. There's quite a difference. Skill versus endurance. It's a no brainer.

Actually no, you said:

So the biggest and best site discussing doping in tennis announced it's closure before the AO finals this year. Can't say I blame the admin really as the finals are pretty farcical. It's like we're going back in time and none of them get any older. RIP tennis. The sport is FUBAR.

David Walsh would be proud of your flip-flopping, bro, and the courage you have in defending your opinion. FUBAR, indeed.. :cover