ABN AMRO, Rotterdam, Netherlands, APT 500

[El Dude]

LOL, it is funny how people keep finding new battle fields to wage the Fedal War on, no matter how minute.

Can someone please explain to me the significance of this US Open thing? It is about why Fedal haven't met at the US Open, and fans of both players are trying to blame the other player? I don't get it.

 

[I.Haychew]

LOL, it is funny how people keep finding new battle fields to wage the Fedal War on, no matter how minute.

Can someone please explain to me the significance of this US Open thing? It is about why Fedal haven't met at the US Open, and fans of both players are trying to blame the other player? I don't get it.

1) If you don't know, I'm not tellin' ya.
2a) Yes
2b) Yes
3) I think you do

 

[Andy22]

Well its both Nadal and federer fault that they have never played at USO, 2008/09 Nadal lost, 2010/11 17, it was Federer fault. This might finally be the year where the Awesome Nadal beats Federer at the USO.

 

[DarthFed]

Again, I don't know how long you get to claim "geriatric" for Roger, especially since he's won 3 of the last 5 Majors at 35-36. I know you bemoan that he's underachieved at the USO, but he might have made one of those finals at 30-32. (Doesn't matter, as he wouldn't have won them, anyway.) But to make the point again: Roger didn't stop being good on HCs in 2010. By a long shot.

So because he is winning again after doing next to nothing in 2011 and from 2013-2016, his age suddenly has decreased? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. What he's doing is incredible for sure but it's understandable if a 30-36 year old player doesn't make a major final. That is the norm after all. Historically it is way better for greats to be early 20's than early to mid 30's.

Also, I agree that 2010 would've been a long shot at the USO but 2011 I'm not so sure Rafa wins that. It was still playing fast back then and Roger looked a hell of a lot better that tournament than Nadal did. If he had slight trouble vs Roger at RG then I wouldn't write him in the winners circle at USO.

 

[DarthFed]

Well its both Nadal and federer fault that they have never played at USO, 2008/09 Nadal lost, 2010/11 17, it was Federer fault. This might finally be the year where the Awesome Nadal beats Federer at the USO.

Or the year Roger swats the asshole into retirement. That's the hope

 

[Moxie]

So because he is winning again after doing next to nothing in 2011 and from 2013-2016, his age suddenly has decreased? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. What he's doing is incredible for sure but it's understandable if a 30-36 year old player doesn't make a major final. That is the norm after all. Historically it is way better for greats to be early 20's than early to mid 30's.

Also, I agree that 2010 would've been a long shot at the USO but 2011 I'm not so sure Rafa wins that. It was still playing fast back then and Roger looked a hell of a lot better that tournament than Nadal did. If he had slight trouble vs Roger at RG then I wouldn't write him in the winners circle at USO.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was how long going backwards you get to claim "geriatric". Also, if he lost back then because he was old, then how can he be 7-8 years older now and be winning? He lost those matches not because he was old, but because he wasn't as good. Period.

 

[Federberg]

I totally agree with this. I got sneered at for suggesting that Roger was extra-motivated to take the #1 back because it was over Nadal. Imo, they are both conscious of the fact that their legacies are entwined, which I think Federer fans kind of hate and would prefer to disentangle. But they have long been aware of the marketability of their great rivalry, and they seem to appreciate that they are the only two people who live with it. There was a really nice documentary on Evert/Navratilova in the very good ESPN series 30 for 30. Chris and Martina spoke very poignantly to the fact that they are bound by being, each to the other, the only two people who lived that famous rivalry. Roger and Rafa seem to "get" each other in the same way. They may not be exactly friends, but they are bound by tennis history, and they seem to recognize that. Borg and McEnroe, the same.

You keep going on about this It's all in your mind Moxie. Federer went for the record. If you could successfully argue that Roger wouldn't have bothered if someone other than Rafa was in the top position then it would make sense. But I suspect you know that not to be the case. Good grief, is your Rafa-inferiority so entrenched that you have to link any achievement of Federer's back to Rafa? I repeat, his quest for no 1 had nothing to do with Rafa. It had everything to do with being the oldest no 1, so if you like you could say it had something to do with Agassi. There are many aspects of Roger's ambitions that have something to do with Rafa, for example I wouldn't be shocked if Roger would have packed it in already if Rafa wasn't around. But please get over this nonsense, that simply isn't credible in this case.

As an aside, all talk about Rafa's longevity should be put to bed. The guy is right up there in the list of oldest number 1s. That is seriously impressive indeed

 

[Federberg]

I'm kind of over anyone talking about when Roger was past his prime. He seems to have entered a whole new "prime." It's fair to say that Rafa had made adjustments to his game to do better at HC slams, by 2009/2010. He was only 22/24. I have never said anything other than that last year's USO was a gift, and Nadal was there to take it. You're just mad because Roger wasn't. But as to other USOpens, Nadal did come into his own there before Roger was a geriatric, by any stretch. Roger missed his dates in 2010 and '11, when he was only 29/30. Not old. The USO seems to be where especially their age-difference kept them from meeting, though.

I don't think it was age difference that kept them apart. Frankly Roger wasn't good enough, or he had the misfortune to be on Novak's side of the draw, take your pick. Of all the slams the USO is where Roger has underachieved the most relative to his abilities. When you consider that the AO generally played slower than the USO, the fact despite that Roger is 6w/1Ru in Melbourne vs 5w/2Ru in USO is bizarre.

And before the argument starts, his record at RG while inferior is perfectly understandable considering he was stopped repeatedly by the undisputedly greatest clay court player we have ever seen. Roger is the best hard court player in the Open era, and was crushing it for years, and then all of a sudden... meh

 

[MartyB]

You keep going on about this It's all in your mind Moxie. Federer went for the record. If you could successfully argue that Roger wouldn't have bothered if someone other than Rafa was in the top position then it would make sense. But I suspect you know that not to be the case. Good grief, is your Rafa-inferiority so entrenched that you have to link any achievement of Federer's back to Rafa? I repeat, his quest for no 1 had nothing to do with Rafa. It had everything to do with being the oldest no 1, so if you like you could say it had something to do with Agassi. There are many aspects of Roger's ambitions that have something to do with Rafa, for example I wouldn't be shocked if Roger would have packed it in already if Rafa wasn't around. But please get over this nonsense, that simply isn't credible in this case.

As an aside, all talk about Rafa's longevity should be put to bed. The guy is right up there in the list of oldest number 1s. That is seriously impressive indeed

I do agree mostly that Fed would have gone for this record regardless of who was in the position of #1. But it sure did feel sweeter that he moved Nadal out of the way. didn't it?

 

[Federberg]

I do agree mostly that Fed would have gone for this record regardless of who was in the position of #1. But it sure did feel sweeter that he moved Nadal out of the way. didn't it?

It probably was. I'm sure it's always sweeter for these guys to beat each other in a slam final. But they don't aspire to win in slam finals just because they see each other across the net. Sometimes it's about more than that. Moxie seems to imply that Roger's motivation was in taking out Rafa. It's simply not credible. It's a side dish at best

 

[Busted]

Come on man do you have to, talk about that match, with Querrey,Nadal was injured and sick and the court wore to fast and not fair

:lulz2:

Isn't this rich? If players complained that they didn't win the French Open because red dirt is too slow you'd be saying, "Too bad, so sad."

 

[Busted]

^Hmmmm... I wouldn't say that the Big 4 match ups aren't pretty. Well... except Djokovic vs Murray. That's just a bore-fest

Djokovic\Nadal is a snoozefest, too. I've started watching matches where I gave up at 3-3 in the 1st set.

 

[Andy22]

Or the year Roger swats the asshole into retirement. That's the hope

No not going to happen, Nadal not retire with djokovic, Murray both injured playing scrubs.

 

[Federberg]

Djokovic\Nadal is a snoozefest, too. I've started watching matches where I gave up at 3-3 in the 1st set.

I disagree. I find those matches compelling. The USO final in 2011 is one of the great finals. There’s a fascinating psychological interplay as well. Will Rafa be able to avoid getting pinned down to his backhand? Will he have the nerve to hit dtl forehands? How does he try to solve the match up problem Novak causes?

 

[Andy22]

Nadal vs. Djokovic is one of the great rivalrys in history of tennis, epic matches, like FO13, USO 10, USO13. Wimbledon the only slam has not been epic.

 

[Moxie]

It probably was. I'm sure it's always sweeter for these guys to beat each other in a slam final. But they don't aspire to win in slam finals just because they see each other across the net. Sometimes it's about more than that. Moxie seems to imply that Roger's motivation was in taking out Rafa. It's simply not credible. It's a side dish at best

I don't think you and I are saying anything vastly different. I say it could provide extra motivation, you say it makes it perhaps sweeter. I have said I know that Roger did it for himself.

 

[atttomole]

Nadal vs. Djokovic is one of the great rivalrys in history of tennis, epic matches, like FO13, USO 10, USO13. Wimbledon the only slam has not been epic.

What do you mean by epic in this post?

 

[Moxie]

What do you mean by epic in this post?

I'll leave you and nadalgoat2 to duke it out, but what do you NOT think has been "epic" or at least significant about their rivalry?

 

[El Dude]

I agree with Federberg: Nadal-Djokovic matches are amazing. I mean, they're the pinnacle of contemporary tennis, in any ways.

 

[atttomole]

I'll leave you and nadalgoat2 to duke it out, but what do you NOT think has been "epic" or at least significant about their rivalry?

Not that I want to scrap with nadalgoat2. I also think that the rivalry is epic, but nadalgoat2 appears to be selective in giving examples of 'epic' matches. Maybe he or she forgot that AO 2012 and UO 2011 were epic as well, if not more epic than the examples given.