2019 Men’s Wimbledon SF: Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal

[Moxie]

Actually no I don't know why. Is it because it's joking about us finding Nadal's sister and fiance attractive and then making a joke about "consoling" them? Obviously none of us know those girls and never will, just a joke. Usually you have thicker skin than this even after your guy loses. Or is it just because it is Nadal's sister and fiance?

No, it's because you should be more cognizant of the notion that women get beaten. Jaysus, I can't believe I had to spell that out.

 

[DarthFed]

No, it's because you should be more cognizant of the notion that women get beaten. Jaysus, I can't believe I had to spell that out.

I will keep that in mind if I ever make a joke about domestic violence or other forms of non-consensual stuff (not planning on it)

 

[Moxie]

I will keep that in mind if I ever make a joke about domestic violence or other forms of non-consensual stuff (not planning on it)

Thanks, going forward, but remember that you already did. And didn't think you needed to apologize for it.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, I hate dull.

Then why are your comments so dull? Try to pick up to the conversation.

 

[DarthFed]

Thanks, going forward, but remember that you already did. And didn't think you needed to apologize for it.

Mox you're going to damage my reputation on this forum

Clearly the context of the joke was choking as a form of sexual pleasure. I think you are overreacting a bit here.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

and @GameSetAndMath

Thanks for checking. I am alive and kicking. Had to leave home as soon as the match was over and so did not post anything after the match was over.

Anyway, here are some of my remarks about the match.

1. I think Rafa performed well. There is no shame in losing this match to Roger and especially in the way he lost. Ralph can keep his head high.

2. I think Fed showed lot of mental strength in not going away after the second set debacle.

3. Finally, I think Fed rushed Ralph a lot in third and fourth sets and that was the key to his victory.

 

[Moxie]

Mox you're going to damage my reputation on this forum

Clearly the context of the joke was choking as a form of sexual pleasure. I think you are overreacting a bit here.

I don't think I'm overreacting. You went too far. Auto-erotic asphyxiayion is a random and rare predilection. You're the one that brought it up. I don't think I'm damaging your reputation around here any more than you're done a sterling job of it, all by yourself. If you can't walk back comments about women being choked, then I don't think I can help you.

 

[Federberg]

My criteria for greatest are similar to those used in soccer. It’s not the number of grand slam titles alone, but other achievements, such the way they play the game, weeks at number 1, versatility etc. For me Roger is the greatest because of how he plays the game and what he has achieved in his career, regardless of slam count.

I would agree with this and add level of dominance. This is why for me I think it will end up being between Federer and Djokovic

 

[Moxie]

I would agree with this and add level of dominance. This is why for me I think it will end up being between Federer and Djokovic

But isn't this always a way of pushing Nadal out of the conversation? When he really isn't? He's still 2nd most Majors, for one. I know you personally hate the notion of the Nadal Federer rivalry. You always say that I "push" Nadal into the conversation. But don't you actually try to push him out? Which is also kind of artificial?

 

[Federberg]

But isn't this always a way of pushing Nadal out of the conversation? When he really isn't? He's still 2nd most Majors, for one. I know you personally hate the notion of the Nadal Federer rivalry. You always say that I "push" Nadal into the conversation. But don't you actually try to push him out? Which is also kind of artificial?

This might surprise you but it’s not. I just happen to believe that dominating the field is a critical component of GOAhood. Not that I believe in GOATs anyway..

 

[monfed]

Then why are your comments so dull? Try to pick up to the conversation.

Maybe but my prediction wasn't dull.

 

[Moxie]

This might surprise you but it’s not. I just happen to believe that dominating the field is a critical component of GOAhood. Not that I believe in GOATs anyway..

Conveniently, and as you define it.

 

[Moxie]

Maybe but my prediction wasn't dull.

Actually, it was. Completely predictable. You are a one-note, singular focus, Fed troll who has no idea of tennis. You live for Roger, but you're really not interesting ever when it comes to talking tennis. Sorry. But that's kinda true.

 

[Federberg]

Conveniently, and as you define it.

Weak sauce Moxie. I’ve been saying this for years. I simply can’t understand how one can be GOAT if they haven’t showed themselves to be dominant in their sport. Pete did, Roger and Novak have. Being number one is easily comparable across eras, even majors aren’t. If you’re going to challenge me on this do it because you disagree with my assertion. Don’t presume to challenge my motives, I’ve said it for a decade

 

[Front242]

Actually, it was. Completely predictable. You are a one-note, singular focus, Fed troll who has no idea of tennis. You live for Roger, but you're really not interesting ever when it comes to talking tennis. Sorry. But that's kinda true.

You sound like Carol now ffs. Just 'cos he hates Nadal he supposedly knows nothing about tennis? Seems to me he knows plenty about tennis and, once again, he just hates Nadal. That doesn't have any bearing on his knowledge of tennis but seems that's too hard for some to understand 'cos they're so distracted by the fact that he hates their hero.

 

[mrzz]

You may not sign up for it, but there's a very good chance that they'll end up there. We are totally on the precipice of them being co-GOATs in some real way, of this era. I know you think Roger's the GOAT, and there really isn't much that will change your mind or other Fed fans, given the options. If Rafa passes him on the Slam count, you'll argue other factors. If Djokovic passes him, there will be that late-in-Roger's career and lack of competition, however ironically. (Trust me on this one.) However, if they end up really close, which is very likely, the argument that they are co-GOATs will be stronger than it is not. And even if it ended right now, you would be a partisan to say that, in this era, they haven't been co-GOATs. Each to his own strengths, but they've all had amazing fits of dominance and untouchable tennis.

Ultimately the GOAT thing is quite subjective -- at least about that most of us agree. But, ok, at the same time most of us also give a lot of importance to actual results. When you insert the narrative in, the co-GOAT notion is compelling up to a point, but most people will end up thinking "oh, this is tennis, there must be a winner in the end" (which, I agree, is arbitrary).

But notice in your argument, which is quite fair, that you simply did not include the possibility of the major count ending up with a larger difference in favor of Federer. What if he wins tomorrow? What if he then goes on to win NY and then it is all over? It is perfectly possible (not saying likely). How, in that case, could you really mount a case against his GOATness? As you (and others) wrote in other posts, the story is not over. That means that we do not know the end of it.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think I'm overreacting. You went too far. Auto-erotic asphyxiayion is a random and rare predilection. You're the one that brought it up. I don't think I'm damaging your reputation around here any more than you're done a sterling job of it, all by yourself. If you can't walk back comments about women being choked, then I don't think I can help you.

Well now you're so ticked off you can't even pick up the sarcastic remark about my reputation. I know most probably think I'm a fry short of a happy meal when it comes to tennis, especially during matches B-)

Anyways I apologize if I offended you or anyone else with that comment. I did think it was clearly a joke just limited to bedroom pleasure since Murat and I were talking about our admiration for the talent of a couple members of Nadal's box.

 

[Moxie]

Ultimately the GOAT thing is quite subjective -- at least about that most of us agree. But, ok, at the same time most of us also give a lot of importance to actual results. When you insert the narrative in, the co-GOAT notion is compelling up to a point, but most people will end up thinking "oh, this is tennis, there must be a winner in the end" (which, I agree, is arbitrary).

But notice in your argument, which is quite fair, that you simply did not include the possibility of the major count ending up with a larger difference in favor of Federer. What if he wins tomorrow? What if he then goes on to win NY and then it is all over? It is perfectly possible (not saying likely). How, in that case, could you really mount a case against his GOATness? As you (and others) wrote in other posts, the story is not over. That means that we do not know the end of it.

You fault me for not arguing the case for Roger? I don't see how I need to...firstly, because there are plenty around here who do, and second, because he's the top dog already...I was just saying what it would take to pass him. If he wins on Sunday, as K has already said, he'll be pretty hard to pass by either of the other 2 on offer. If not, we'll see.

 

[britbox]

Roger is the most versatile, Novak is the more 'complete', IMO. I think Novak's A game is devoid of any weaknesses, you can't attack anything. Several have mentioned Novak's A game is the best ever. Nick Bolletieri has said it, players have said it. Players like Thiem, Nadal, Berdych have mentioned Djokovic's A game is probably best ever. Not because he is the most versatile but the player who technically is the best and capable to doing everything very very well.

Roger can do more but also is less tight... he can go through spells where he is sublime, then go through spells where he misses more and more. This is not age, same thing happened during 04-07 when Nadal started to beat him...Nadal was able to find holes. When Novak is in top gear, you can't find any holes. So it's a matter of opinion what greatness is, most complete with less ways to beat (Novak) or more versatile (more shots at disposal), they are two different things.

I think Novak is an average volleyer at best, so maybe he's not as complete as your making out. Sure, volleying is limited in today's game and there are a lot of nuances. On defence, I agree with you - he's probably the best in the business. Greatness? I base that on success, not on the individual makeup of a sum of dimensions. You can have incomplete players with one or two big weapons making mincemeat of otherwise more rounded technically proficient players. You don't need to be the most complete to be the more successful.

 

[Moxie]

You sound like Carol now ffs. Just 'cos he hates Nadal he supposedly knows nothing about tennis? Seems to me he knows plenty about tennis and, once again, he just hates Nadal. That doesn't have any bearing on his knowledge of tennis but seems that's too hard for some to understand 'cos they're so distracted by the fact that he hates their hero.

Monfed knows about tennis? Maybe, but he never says anything about it. He just drones on about Roger. And how much he hates the rest. I mean seriously...when has he ever said anything that makes you think he even watches the sport?