2018 Wimbledon Championships - Men

[DarthFed]

The difference between Roger and Rafa is this.

Roger loves winning, but does not necessarily hate losing.

Rafa despises losing, but does not necessarily enjoy winning.

That's a roundabout way of saying Roger is mentally weak in tight matches especially when he misses a chance to win and Nadal is as mentally tough as they come and can easily win matches he is outplayed in. I'd say Roger hates losing more than Rafa too. Roger is an egomaniac and that's part of what I like about him but he's weak as hell as a front runner. He's now lost a ridiculous number of matches from 2 sets up and even 1 set up at majors. Imagine if he had his balls in check when it is crunch time? Well over 25 majors by now. He's mentally tough in other ways but this has been the biggest failure in his career and the reason his slam total may end up weak if peasant boy usurps him.

The difference in mental toughness is the biggest check in Rafa's box. You simply won't see Rafa or even Djoker lose a match like Roger did today and he's done it over a dozen times now and in huge moments.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The difference in mental toughness is the biggest check in Rafa's box .

That is true and we all know it. We got to accept that.

When Rafa loses, it is never due to lack of fighting spirit; it is always due to lack of game.

 

[monfed]

The difference between Roger and Rafa is this.

Roger loves winning, but does not necessarily hate losing.

Rafa despises losing, but does not necessarily enjoy winning.

I wish Fed fans stopped calling Nadal by his first name that too by his short name. Why give him that love?

 

[monfed]

I feel like committing suicide. I can't bear this injustice this tyrant ruining tennis. It was supposed to stop in 2015-16. It doesnt end. 11 RG is abornomal. This is too much. Sorry bit drunk but still

 

[DarthFed]

I feel like committing suicide. I can't bear this injustice this tyrant ruining tennis. It was supposed to stop in 2015-16. It doesnt end. 11 RG is abornomal. This is too much. Sorry bit drunk but still

Roger made me want to kill myself today. One of these days that SOB will accomplish it with one of his vintage clownish losses. I knew the match was over the second he lost the third set. He didn't even threaten to win the match after that and lamely went down in another pathetic fifth set.

There is no worse outcome than that asshole usurping Roger and it's sadly looking like a given.

 

[Moxie]

That's a roundabout way of saying Roger is mentally weak in tight matches especially when he misses a chance to win and Nadal is as mentally tough as they come and can easily win matches he is outplayed in. I'd say Roger hates losing more than Rafa too. Roger is an egomaniac and that's part of what I like about him but he's weak as hell as a front runner. He's now lost a ridiculous number of matches from 2 sets up and even 1 set up at majors. Imagine if he had his balls in check when it is crunch time? Well over 25 majors by now. He's mentally tough in other ways but this has been the biggest failure in his career and the reason his slam total may end up weak if peasant boy usurps him.

The difference in mental toughness is the biggest check in Rafa's box. You simply won't see Rafa or even Djoker lose a match like Roger did today and he's done it over a dozen times now and in huge moments.

You are wrong to say that Djokovic wouldn't lose a match like that. He's done it, and not just in the past 2 years, though maybe not in a 5-setter he was winning. There has been mental capitulation in his career. GSM's basic notion is pretty solid, though I would agree that Roger probably hates losing as much as Nadal does. He's right that Nadal hates losing more than he loves winning. He's said as much. The nuance is that I think Roger "expects" to win more than Rafa does, and so sometimes gets rather stubborn or irritated when the opponent isn't cooperating. You and other Federer fans have said as much here, and an article I just read went to some version of that. Nadal has more "refuse to lose" in him. I don't know if that's more mental toughness as much as less a feeling of entitlement or inevitability. Let's face it: Roger has a greater feeling of being entitled to his wins, as do his fans. Rafa's having less thereof is not a factor of his lesser abilities, as some of you lot would have it, as much as that he was raised not to think so.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger made me want to kill myself today. One of these days that SOB will accomplish it with one of his vintage clownish losses. I knew the match was over the second he lost the third set. He didn't even threaten to win the match after that and lamely went down in another pathetic fifth set.

There is no worse outcome than that asshole usurping Roger and it's sadly looking like a given.

I believe the key moment came in the third set. After Fed got broken, Fed had only one chance to break back Anderson, when he was serving for the set. He nicely started that game and went up to 0-40 and then wasted three BPs. If they were won by Anderson with Aces, it would be understandable. But, in all of them Anderson missed first serve and yet somehow managed to save all three BPs. I think if Fed was able to break him there, that would have forced a TB and Fed would have probably won it.

The interesting thing about Fed is that while he sucks in five setters (one pressure situation), he is actually very good at TBs (another pressure situation). So, it is wrong to say that Fed cannot deal with pressure situations per se.

 

[Moxie]

That is true and we all know it. We got to accept that.

When Rafa loses, it is never due to lack of fighting spirit; it is always due to lack of game.

Well, when he was in that period of lack of confidence, he did lose more than a few due to lack of fighting spirit. And he's lost some due to injury. He's got a lot of game, let's not forget. Likewise, though Fedfans hate to admit it, sometimes Roger has just been out-played, too. And more often than you tend to concede.

 

[DarthFed]

You are wrong to say that Djokovic wouldn't lose a match like that. He's done it, and not just in the past 2 years, though maybe not in a 5-setter he was winning. There has been mental capitulation in his career. GSM's basic notion is pretty solid, though I would agree that Roger probably hates losing as much as Nadal does. He's right that Nadal hates losing more than he loves winning. He's said as much. The nuance is that I think Roger "expects" to win more than Rafa does, and so sometimes gets rather stubborn or irritated when the opponent isn't cooperating. You and other Federer fans have said as much here, and an article I just read went to some version of that. Nadal has more "refuse to lose" in him. I don't know if that's more mental toughness as much as less a feeling of entitlement or inevitability. Let's face it: Roger has a greater feeling of being entitled to his wins, as do his fans. Rafa's having less thereof is not a factor of his lesser abilities, as some of you lot would have it, as much as that he was raised not to think so.

Name me a major loss Djokovic has had that's as pathetic as this. Maybe Melzer in 2010 was somewhat similar but that was before Nole became great. I can guarantee you he hasn't had any others even remotely as pathetic as this.

That entitlement gets overused. There's no explaining Roger's weakness at closing matches, he just shrivels up and loses no questions asked. Rafa always expects to win and yes he is way less skilled than Roger. Part of Nadal's ability is oitlasting his opponents mentally and physically and he milks that. The guy is fake humble though, not an egomaniac like Roger but he isn't the innocent humble boy you think. He's cocky like any good athlete.

 

[Moxie]

I didn't say that Novak had had a Major loss as "pathetic" as this one. And I'll leave all of the last 2 years, as they are too obvious, though I'll cite the Wimbledon loss to Querrey 2 years ago as the front indicator of this bad patch, and it was a pathetic capitulation at the end of the 4th, when he had chances to go 5 and everyone but Querrey's mother knew Nole would win in the 5th. But how about 2013 Rome when he was up a set and serving for it in the 2nd and lost to Thomas Berdych on clay, ffs. It's an example.

Call "entitlement" overused, then how about arrogance at not changing tactics. That cost him years v. Nadal. Or how about stubbornness. But his plan A/B/C can often be described as get ahead, then win. When it's not working, you can say he "shrivels up, no questions asked," but isn't that the same as stubbornness and arrogance, or no plan D? I have never said that Nadal isn't a driven athlete, and he's cocky as hell on the court. What I'm saying is that he doesn't expect a win to be handed to him. You make fun and call him Mr. Blue Collar, as if working hard for it is a bad thing. He never assumes an inevitability, and I think Roger has done, sometimes before time. I have no illusions that Rafa is an innocent. I do think he's more humble in the face of his competitors. Giving them their due often helps him beat them, where Roger has stumbled by assuming he'll just win. That's my opinion.

 

[DarthFed]

I didn't say that Novak had had a Major loss as "pathetic" as this one. And I'll leave all of the last 2 years, as they are too obvious, though I'll cite the Wimbledon loss to Querrey 2 years ago as the front indicator of this bad patch, and it was a pathetic capitulation at the end of the 4th, when he had chances to go 5 and everyone but Querrey's mother knew Nole would win in the 5th. But how about 2013 Rome when he was up a set and serving for it in the 2nd and lost to Thomas Berdych on clay, ffs. It's an example.

Call "entitlement" overused, then how about arrogance at not changing tactics. That cost him years v. Nadal. Or how about stubbornness. But his plan A/B/C can often be described as get ahead, then win. When it's not working, you can say he "shrivels up, no questions asked," but isn't that the same as stubbornness and arrogance, or no plan D? I have never said that Nadal isn't a driven athlete, and he's cocky as hell on the court. What I'm saying is that he doesn't expect a win to be handed to him. You make fun and call him Mr. Blue Collar, as if working hard for it is a bad thing. He never assumes an inevitability, and I think Roger has done, sometimes before time. I have no illusions that Rafa is an innocent. I do think he's more humble in the face of his competitors. Giving them their due often helps him beat them, where Roger has stumbled by assuming he'll just win. That's my opinion.

Roger didn't lose today due to stubbornness. That's silly, he lost because he choked as soon as Anderson saved an MP. He's choked many other times as well and it's not about entitlement, he just so clearly feels pressure closing out tight matches or in this case he felt pressure as soon as he didn't finish a routine match off. That whole entitlement crap is straight from Kieran so I am quite familiar with it. I don't think Rafa's fighting attitude is due to his upbringing either, he's the most physical player of all-time. If he doesn't take full advantage of that he is going to lose way more than he should.

 

[Moxie]

Roger didn't lose today due to stubbornness. That's silly, he lost because he choked as soon as Anderson saved an MP. He's choked many other times as well and it's not about entitlement, he just so clearly feels pressure closing out tight matches or in this case he felt pressure as soon as he didn't finish a routine match off. That whole entitlement crap is straight from Kieran so I am quite familiar with it. I don't think Rafa's fighting attitude is due to his upbringing either, he's the most physical player of all-time. If he doesn't take full advantage of that he is going to lose way more than he should.

"Choking," "stubborness," and "entitlement" are subjective words, so neither of us can prove what prevented Roger from getting past Anderson today. Whatever it is that prevents him from winning in some tight situations, he doesn't, sometimes. However, to say he "chokes," and to leave it at that, undermines what the opponent does, and also leaves a blind spot for you about what he's not doing right in a tight situation. If you prefer not to examine it, that's your prerogative.

If you don't think that Nadal's fighting spirit wasn't part of his training, I don't know what to say to you. I do believe that much of it is innate, but it's not just about his physicality. You're making a false comparison there. (Bolded above.) Nadal is a natural born competitor as I believe Roger is and Novak, too. What Toni fostered was the hard work, rather than emphasizing the talent. He encouraged the fight in Rafa, and didn't allow him to be contented simply with his many gifts. Roger can tend to be contented with his gifts, expecting them to be enough. Sometimes he's willing to bring a knife and a gun, but mostly he thinks it's a sword fight, and the sword should be enough. Rafa adapts better. He brings a sword, and a knife, and a gun, and brass knuckles, and a baseball bat.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That's a roundabout way of saying Roger is mentally weak in tight matches especially when he misses a chance to win and Nadal is as mentally tough as they come and can easily win matches he is outplayed in. I'd say Roger hates losing more than Rafa too. Roger is an egomaniac and that's part of what I like about him but he's weak as hell as a front runner. He's now lost a ridiculous number of matches from 2 sets up and even 1 set up at majors. Imagine if he had his balls in check when it is crunch time? Well over 25 majors by now. He's mentally tough in other ways but this has been the biggest failure in his career and the reason his slam total may end up weak if peasant boy usurps him.

The difference in mental toughness is the biggest check in Rafa's box. You simply won't see Rafa or even Djoker lose a match like Roger did today and he's done it over a dozen times now and in huge moments.

The bolded part is an erroneous claim in the heat of the moment of today's loss. Roger is a very good front runner. In fact, most of the time when Roger loses, it is because he was not running in front. In GSs his record after being up by 2 sets is something like 279-3. In other words, roughly speaking he blows one match in every 100 matches after leading by two sets. After winning the opening set also, he has very good record even though I don't have figures with me right now.

Of course, Rafa has lost only once in GSs after leading by two sets (to Fog in USO 14). So his ratio might be higher in this category.

But, to say Fed is weak as hell as a front runner is pushing it way too much.

Fed is weak as hell in five set matches (for a man of his caliber) with just 58.82%. Most of the elite players have better percentage than him in this area. I bumped up that thread for discussion.

 

[DarthFed]

The bolded part is an erroneous claim in the heat of the moment of today's loss. Roger is a very good front runner. In fact, most of the time when Roger loses, it is because he was not running in front. In GSs his record after being up by 2 sets is something like 279-3. In other words, roughly speaking he blows one match in every 100 matches after leading by two sets. After winning the opening set also, he has very good record even though I don't have figures with me right now.

Of course, Rafa has lost only once in GSs after leading by two sets (to Fog in USO 14). So his ratio might be higher in this category.

But, to say Fed is weak as hell as a front runner is pushing it way too much.

Fed is weak as hell in five set matches (for a man of his caliber) with just 58.82%. Most of the elite players have better percentage than him in this area. I bumped up that thread for discussion.

Blowing 1 out of 100 as a great player is not impressive. I'd also think his record from 1 set up is only about 95% which is poor as well. Let's remember that this stat by and large is against badly overmatched players as Fed isn't always playing fellow elites and he isn't often racing to two set leads vs them.

 

[DarthFed]

"Choking," "stubborness," and "entitlement" are subjective words, so neither of us can prove what prevented Roger from getting past Anderson today. Whatever it is that prevents him from winning in some tight situations, he doesn't, sometimes. However, to say he "chokes," and to leave it at that, undermines what the opponent does, and also leaves a blind spot for you about what he's not doing right in a tight situation. If you prefer not to examine it, that's your prerogative.

If you don't think that Nadal's fighting spirit wasn't part of his training, I don't know what to say to you. I do believe that much of it is innate, but it's not just about his physicality. You're making a false comparison there. (Bolded above.) Nadal is a natural born competitor as I believe Roger is and Novak, too. What Toni fostered was the hard work, rather than emphasizing the talent. He encouraged the fight in Rafa, and didn't allow him to be contented simply with his many gifts. Roger can tend to be contented with his gifts, expecting them to be enough. Sometimes he's willing to bring a knife and a gun, but mostly he thinks it's a sword fight, and the sword should be enough. Rafa adapts better. He brings a sword, and a knife, and a gun, and brass knuckles, and a baseball bat.

Saying today is anything but a choke is crazy. I'm willing to say a match like IW this year may not be a choke but what happened today is the definition of it. Roger basically sank like a dude wearing cement shoes in the Atlantic after not winning the match at 5-4 in the third. That affected him negatively and he was immediately broken and it just kept going from there. All great athletes can choke time to time. I know it's the much hated word but it happens.

Talking about why Nadal fights more and is much more mentally tough in certain situations is subjective. I don't think Fed sucks at putting away matches like this due to arrogance or stubbornness. I've watched the guy enough to feel him getting tight from thousands of miles away. Hell, I can tell this from just following the damn scores of his match. I knew he was toast after the third set, that should tell you something.

 

[lob]

My intention is not to make a unfair point. There is too much emotion and hairsplitting here. I'll not get into character assessment or labeling. Or deep desires or giving 'credit'. A sporting take will do.

There is such a thing as 'choking'. It is subpar performance in key moments as compared to the player's usual. Even Nadal 'chokes' per Darth's usage. There is such a thing as 'meltdown' too. Neither involves the other guy sleeping and playing poorly. In this sense Nadal choked in 5th set AO 2012 even AO 2017. More? I haven't seen him have a 'meltdown' and chokes far less often. Roger has had numerous outright meltdowns.

Playing style helps Nadal, a lot, to deal with nervousness, being behind or in close matches better. It's a lot more doable to hang in there and retrieve, and especially so in 21st century tennis, even if you are nervous. Put your head down and try to kill the opponent's edge. Often works unless the opponent is in zone. Especially if you are a super fit, strong and high stamina top player whose game is naturally low-risk, high margin and built on high endurance. Novak's game is not as high margin. He 'chokes' more than Nadal but less than Federer. Of course, Nadal has learnt a lot more and adapted better than Roger in his career. BUT 21'st century conditions, combined with his playing style, so far have been perfectly amenable for his adaptation and learning. A poor analogy, but that's my best, is that tennis was a 100 m or 200m dash. But say they kept changing units so that what was 1m became 2m then 4m then 6m. Say Roger is a trained, elegant 100m and 200m sprinter. Say Nadal is a tough, born and trained 1 km to 2km runner. Neither can change. But if he is not feeling it, a jaw dropping Usain Bolt like, 100m runner is still more vulnerable on a bad day than a 1km runner. Now, say, they quickly started making 1m into 4m then 10m then 8m so on. The born and trained 1km/2km racer will adapt better. Since 1km is now 100m as far as the world is concerned, Usain Bolt is a nobody. Again, not a literal analogy.

I didn't say that Novak had had a Major loss as "pathetic" as this one. And I'll leave all of the last 2 years, as they are too obvious, though I'll cite the Wimbledon loss to Querrey 2 years ago as the front indicator of this bad patch, and it was a pathetic capitulation at the end of the 4th, when he had chances to go 5 and everyone but Querrey's mother knew Nole would win in the 5th. But how about 2013 Rome when he was up a set and serving for it in the 2nd and lost to Thomas Berdych on clay, ffs. It's an example.

Call "entitlement" overused, then how about arrogance at not changing tactics. That cost him years v. Nadal. Or how about stubbornness. But his plan A/B/C can often be described as get ahead, then win. When it's not working, you can say he "shrivels up, no questions asked," but isn't that the same as stubbornness and arrogance, or no plan D? I have never said that Nadal isn't a driven athlete, and he's cocky as hell on the court. What I'm saying is that he doesn't expect a win to be handed to him. You make fun and call him Mr. Blue Collar, as if working hard for it is a bad thing. He never assumes an inevitability, and I think Roger has done, sometimes before time. I have no illusions that Rafa is an innocent. I do think he's more humble in the face of his competitors. Giving them their due often helps him beat them, where Roger has stumbled by assuming he'll just win. That's my opinion.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger didn't lose today due to stubbornness. That's silly, he lost because he choked as soon as Anderson saved an MP. He's choked many other times as well and it's not about entitlement, he just so clearly feels pressure closing out tight matches or in this case he felt pressure as soon as he didn't finish a routine match off. That whole entitlement crap is straight from Kieran so I am quite familiar with it. I don't think Rafa's fighting attitude is due to his upbringing either, he's the most physical player of all-time. If he doesn't take full advantage of that he is going to lose way more than he should.

Roger was standing at exactly same spot while returning throughout the match. One thing he could have done is to vary the position, to at least see if it throws off the opponent Also, he could have thrown in SABR once in a while (which actually worked against Anderson very well in the past). The point is that all of them would have disturbed the serving rhythm of Anderson. By standing in the same spot and trying to do the same things, Fed was only reinforcing the serving rhythm of Anderson.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger was standing at exactly same spot while returning throughout the match. One thing he could have done is to vary the position, to at least see if it throws off the opponent Also, he could have thrown in SABR once in a while (which actually worked against Anderson very well in the past). The point is that all of them would have disturbed the serving rhythm of Anderson. By standing in the same spot and trying to do the same things, Fed was only reinforcing the serving rhythm of Anderson.

He always does that. He returned serve fine for a couple sets and then he sucked as soon as he didn't close out the match. He was getting outplayed from the baseline by a guy with only a serve, he mentally folded after dropping the third set. Changing tactics wouldn't have mattered as his head is what did him in. The world is round and yesterday was a choke.

 

[monfed]

What's the point of watching Wimbledon if Fed's not winning or some brand new exciting talent like Shap or Tsisipas wins it? Tennis is on life support and besides faker saving it, it's pointless to watch. I won't be watching anymore.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

After a tumultuous day, here are the odds for winning Wimbledon by the four semifinalists.

1. Novak Djokovic 6/4 (40%)
2. Rafa Nadal 8/5 (38%)
3. Isner / Anderson 7 (12%)

p.s. The percentages won't add up to 100 as these are the worst odds (best if you have decided to bet on that player) across different betting houses for the same player.