Alternate reality GOAT

[Moxie]

In fairness, I think Nadal fans have been nearly more generous towards Roger as to clay than even his fans often are. Roger was the 2nd best on clay from 2005 to 2010, when Djokovic became the #2 on clay in 2011. As Broken and Mrzz pointed out, that Rome final could have gone either way, as well as a Hamburg one in 2007 that Roger was controlling. I would also add that the 2006 Monte Carlo final, which was decided in a TB in the 4th, and the 2011 RG final was a good showing by Roger, and could easily have gone 5, even if I do believe Rafa would have won, in the end. I don't think it's a huge "backlash" to disagree with Mrzz that winning Rome might have changed Roger's fortunes at the subsequent RG final in 2006, or their general rivalry. It's a theoretical argument and you're welcome to add other matches that you think could have swung either way.

But still, and even if I'm being "politically correct" in terms of generosity on the boards, you do have to concede Nadal's superiority on clay. The "real world" results are what they are. I don't think a few altered results would have changed the dynamic of their h2h on clay, or the h2h overall. And I really don't believe it would have changed the outcome of their meetings at the FO, but I'd be happy to hear your argument.

 

[Ricardo]

In fairness, I think Nadal fans have been nearly more generous towards Roger as to clay than even his fans often are. Roger was the 2nd best on clay from 2005 to 2010, when Djokovic became the #2 on clay in 2011. As Broken and Mrzz pointed out, that Rome final could have gone either way, as well as a Hamburg one in 2007 that Roger was controlling. I would also add that the 2006 Monte Carlo final, which was decided in a TB in the 4th, and the 2011 RG final was a good showing by Roger, and could easily have gone 5, even if I do believe Rafa would have won, in the end. I don't think it's a huge "backlash" to disagree with Mrzz that winning Rome might have changed Roger's fortunes at the subsequent RG final in 2006, or their general rivalry. It's a theoretical argument and you're welcome to add other matches that you think could have swung either way.

But still, and even if I'm being "politically correct" in terms of generosity on the boards, you do have to concede Nadal's superiority on clay. The "real world" results are what they are. I don't think a few altered results would have changed the dynamic of their h2h on clay, or the h2h overall. And I really """don't believe""" it would have changed the outcome of their meetings at the FO, but I'd be happy to hear your argument.

of course you don't, you are a rafa fan. what i beg to differ is, when such possibility (of Roger's win against Rafa at RG) is suggested if he would've won a match prior, its dismissed with such simplistic swipe that 'Rafa is so much better on clay', ignoring the facts that they've gone close in many prior matches. Nobody is saying Rafa isn't much better, but that does't mean Fed had 'no chance'.

 

[Moxie]

If you can forget for a moment the animosity we've had over a few other threads, and remember this is a place to argue alternate realities, the point is to debate them. Some of us are debating Mrzz's proposition that the 2006 Rome final wouldn't have changed the outcome of the 2006 RG final, or any subsequent. You don't agree, but no one said he had "no chance." I suppose everyone uses their own version of "real world" criteria as back-up for their argument, but to my mind, the fact that Roger never got Rafa to 5 at RG, and Rafa's best-of-5 record on clay makes it a high mountain to assume that a few early clay matches going differently would have made the difference. Feel free to make your own argument, as I mentioned before. Twisted thinks Fed should have gotten Nadal when he was a debutante in that 2005 SF. At least that's a POV.

 

[mrzz]

It is hard to counter against the 13-2 argument, so any claim such as mine is bounded to get in front of this numeric wall. On the other hand, statistically, 13-2 is not that different from 12-3, and my whole point was that this lone match could be an important one. But, the idea of this thread is much broader than that, and maybe we are wasting it focusing too much on my variation of it. The surface's variation Broken initially suggested was already "solved" by himself, so what's left?

Maybe we could try to figure out what would be the landscape had del Potro stayed healthy (or at least better) since 2009. In fact, I would like to include Soderling too. Could those guys have changed the landscape for good?

 

[Moxie]

That's a good way of moving us along in this conversation: a world in which Del Potro never had the injury break, and Soderling stayed in from...when was it? Summer 2012 until now? A couple of things to start: the make-up of the Top 10 over the last 5-6 years would have been different. We would likely have a Big 5 (to include Del Potro). And I would say Ferrer and Berdych, stalwarts of the mid-bottom half of the top 10, have benefitted from the absence of both. I don't know that Soderling would have won a Major, as I think he had more the mentality of a spoiler, but who knows what he might have spoiled. I have often said that Nadal took advantage of Del Potro's absence (and the less than great-form of the other Big 3) to win the 2010 USO. I thought it was an excellent show of opportunism, but with Del Potro on-form and defending, who knows? Or even the 2009 AO. It's hard not to think that Nadal benefitted directly from Del Potro going out to injury, because he won the 2 HC Majors after JMDP went out to injury. After that, it all splays out a bit, and it's harder to calculate.

 

[Ricardo]

It is hard to counter against the 13-2 argument, so any claim such as mine is bounded to get in front of this numeric wall. On the other hand, statistically, 13-2 is not that different from 12-3, and my whole point was that this lone match could be an important one. But, the idea of this thread is much broader than that, and maybe we are wasting it focusing too much on my variation of it. The surface's variation Broken initially suggested was already "solved" by himself, so what's left?

Maybe we could try to figure out what would be the landscape had del Potro stayed healthy (or at least better) since 2009. In fact, I would like to include Soderling too. Could those guys have changed the landscape for good?

i wouldn't stress too much on 13-2 as it's a hindsight under the context we are in. it was not nearly as one-sided back in 2006 so one more important win would've drawn their record closer and Fed might have been a little less scared of Rafa? a minor difference in mentality could've meant a difference in a set when the match is reasonably close. Not saying at all that Roger should've won against Rafa at RG after that final, as he clearly didn't but i thought his chance would've improved if he overcame that mental hurdle to close out a big match where both seemed to give it all (as both withdrew from the next tournament to rest).

 

[Ricardo]

If you can forget for a moment the animosity we've had over a few other threads, and remember this is a place to argue alternate realities, the point is to debate them. Some of us are debating Mrzz's proposition that the 2006 Rome final wouldn't have changed the outcome of the 2006 RG final, or any subsequent. You don't agree, but no one said he had "no chance." I suppose everyone uses their own version of "real world" criteria as back-up for their argument, but to my mind, the fact that Roger never got Rafa to 5 at RG, and Rafa's best-of-5 record on clay makes it a high mountain to assume that a few early clay matches going differently would have made the difference. Feel free to make your own argument, as I mentioned before. Twisted thinks Fed should have gotten Nadal when he was a debutante in that 2005 SF. At least that's a POV.

come on Moxie you know i don't disagree with you on a topic just because i disagreed with you on another. Remember we are wired differently
i do believe that Rome final dented his confidence quite a bit as he probably played his best ever match on clay and ended up a loser, and the match was on his racquet.