AO Semi: Stan Wawrinka (4) vs Roger Federer (17)

[DarthFed]

Look, as much as anything else, it's just that you don't cotton to some people. Hell, I don't like Marin Cilic, and there's not much not to like. For that matter, I don't like Marco Bagdahtis, and everyone likes him. I just didn't want you to think it starts and ends with the 2014 AO final. As to the ex, maybe she IS an ol' bitch. But when people marry and split in the same year, it's hard not to think they're flaky. But when they split again, he said "amicably" and she said, publicly, "no it wasn't and he's a dog," and then it comes out he was dogging that Aussie tennis player...whatever. I'll admit it...I'm being judgmental. Beyond a few specific wins over Djokovic, and with my not being one to swoon over a one-handed backhand, I can't really think of anything to like.

I hear ya. Aside from "not much not to like about Cilic". I think there's one major thing not to like about that POS. And how can you not like Baghs? He's always a fun player to watch and when he goes against any of our favorite players he is not truly a threat to win.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Re: Stan and luck, I would describe his slam wins as many things, but lucky is not one of them. He's beaten Novak Djokovic in all of them, and in case of his 2014 AO, he also beat Nadal who was then the best player in the world. The closest thing to luck he's had was Nadal's injury but he had already shown in that match that he was making his own luck.

The manner in which Stan has won his slams leaves no room for questions. He went out there and hit his opponents off the court.

One thing I agree with Moxie on is, for some reason, I find Stan to be really hard to like. His game is gorgeous when he's on, but he rubs me the wrong way.

 

[britbox]

Post Match Press Conferences

 

[Federberg]

^I was as down on him as the next person when he left his kid, but I have to say I love his tennis. I reserve special dislike for few players and Raonic is at the top of my list. Can't forgive him for the cheating incident and I find him really dull to watch. I loathed Henin for cheating as well, and for a fan of the one handed backhand it has to run deep with me for that!

 

[Tennis Fan]

Re: Stan and luck, I would describe his slam wins as many things, but lucky is not one of them. He's beaten Novak Djokovic in all of them, and in case of his 2014 AO, he also beat Nadal who was then the best player in the world. The closest thing to luck he's had was Nadal's injury but he had already shown in that match that he was making his own luck.

The manner in which Stan has won his slams leaves no room for questions. He went out there and hit his opponents off the court.

One thing I agree with Moxie on is, for some reason, I find Stan to be really hard to like. His game is gorgeous when he's on, but he rubs me the wrong way.

Good stuff. You make your points well, whether I agree with you or not. I don't think Stan's wins can be classified as luck either, not after the way he followed them up by beating Novak. Stan is just a hot and cold player even within a match, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the tools.

It's funny how despite his talents there is something about him that people can't quite get behind him. For me, it's because I always thought he had great tools but was too flaky to use them in the moment. He used to self-destruct at times for no reason, therefore he came off as a choker. But when he got to the final against Rafa, I thought he was extremely nasty and rude, considering that at that time he had done nothing in the game. Stan, to me, has a quiet arrogance against his opponents and the game, regardless of the words that he says, and then there's that abrupt departure from his marriage and immediately bringing his teenaged girlfriend to the matches. That's so "in your face" disrespectful.

I'm also not a fan of the one-handed backhand except for a few players, so that shot has never appealed to me, especially when it's used excessively. I've always thought it looked awkward and the player looks off balance to me, so there's that.

 

[Moxie]

I hear ya. Aside from "not much not to like about Cilic". I think there's one major thing not to like about that POS. And how can you not like Baghs? He's always a fun player to watch and when he goes against any of our favorite players he is not truly a threat to win.

And I hear ya on the Cilic reason, but I didn't much like him before, either. Unreliable. And I threw Baggy in there precisely because it's so illogical. Even I don't get it. He seems really likable. I just rarely find myself rooting for him.

 

[Tennis Fan]

^I was as down on him as the next person when he left his kid, but I have to say I love his tennis. I reserve special dislike for few players and Raonic is at the top of my list. Can't forgive him for the cheating incident and I find him really dull to watch. I loathed Henin for cheating as well, and for a fan of the one handed backhand it has to run deep with me for that!

Not a fan of Raonic either. I respect his ambition but find him dull as dishwasher. I hate watching him. Ugh! Robotic. I vaguely remember the cheating incident, but don't remember what happened. I was disgusted at the time but soon forgot about it. What happened?

 

[Moxie]

Ok you said "sneak", which implied to me that he was lucky. I can certainly understand that excuse back in the day, but Stan has proved time and again that he can take out even the best. If you want to keep drinking the koolaid that he won the match just because of Rafa's back have at it. Frankly he's proved enough now to show that it was never as simple as that.

Not sure what that has to do with the mono thing. For my part I have always argued that he had mono. It's interesting to me that some (I can't remember if you're one of those) claimed that he never had mono at all! I'm not sure if that means he would have won the tournament if that hadn't happened. Novak has since proven that the AO is his major. He could easily have won it who knows. My argument regarding Roger's mono is that it completely disrupted his 2008 and we now know it was the beginning of the end of his dominance.

Let's not go down this path, this will take us inevitably to you know where.. and we both know that our views will never change on the elephant in the room The whole excuse thing is a bit tired anyway

I know it's boring to go back over and I won't, but just to clarify, I don't think Stan won that match only because of Rafa's back, but some say he would have beaten a healthy Rafa anyway, and I say that's unknowable. And had Stan not won that match, we also can't know what an Animal he might be in Major finals, because he's still pretty flaky a good bit of the time. Also, I'm not a "mono-denier," I just think it gets used too much (by a few Kool-aid drinking fed fans -- not you) to underplay some of Rafa's wins over Roger that year. Now I'm done.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

wow..feddo in the final..what a turn-up.

 

[Moxie]

wow..feddo in the final..what a turn-up.

Or a rutabaga. Equally mysterious, and hard to distinguish.

 

[teddytennisfan]

I never said woulda, but I will say coulda. Novak or Roger coulda too, because they had before, but they weren't in the final.
This is very old territory, but it was one set and 2 games against Rafa, in Stan's first final of a Major when Nadal's back went. And Stan lost the 3rd on nerves alone, when Rafa could barely move. If I have to listen to moaning about Roger's mono in the 2008 Wimbledon, then I think I'm allowed to say that Stan maybe got a tiny handout from the tennis gods when Rafa's back went, which everyone watched in real time. Was Stan unlucky because Rafa pulled his back? No. Did it not affect the match? It did. So what's left? It was certainly an advantage Stan wouldn't have had. And I didn't use the word "lucky," you did.

your exchange made me think:

why not come up with

each of the majors they won (or any player for that matter) -

but just for argument's sake -- ROGER AND RAFA - since they have a long rivalry - together in matches -- and separately in their records ...

in their grand slams

then pick the TITLE winning match -- the finals...

then produce the column for roger and another for rafa.
than see WHICH player had which opponent..and see by desribing or assessing it -- which opponents could be described as ''handicapped".

nadal fans would say ''nadal had a knee handicap therefore wawrinka won".

or ''roger had a back problem so -nadal won".

only in this case -- compore ROGER'S finalists - with RAFA'S finalists

and ''handicap" any of those finalists that can be argued to have ''helped rafa take the title" \''helped roger take the title".

and then tally it all --

out of roger's 17 -- how many were arguably ''handicapped?"
out of Nadal's 14 - how many were arguably 'handicapped?"

people can even go about any players in history tha tway.
lol.

this way -- the quarreling will be more heated.

 

[Moxie]

your exchange made me think:

why not come up with

each of the majors they won (or any player for that matter) -

but just for argument's sake -- ROGER AND RAFA - since they have a long rivalry - together in matches -- and separately in their records ...

in their grand slams

then pick the TITLE winning match -- the finals...

then produce the column for roger and another for rafa.
than see WHICH player had which opponent..and see by desribing or assessing it -- which opponents could be described as ''handicapped".

nadal fans would say ''nadal had a knee handicap therefore wawrinka won".

or ''roger had a back problem so -nadal won".

only in this case -- compore ROGER'S finalists - with RAFA'S finalists

and ''handicap" any of those finalists that can be argued to have ''helped rafa take the title" \''helped roger take the title".

and then tally it all --

out of roger's 17 -- how many were arguably ''handicapped?"
out of Nadal's 14 - how many were arguably 'handicapped?"

people can even go about any players in history tha tway.
lol.

this way -- the quarreling will be more heated.

That is excellent! We might never stop arguing. OK, in fairness, we'll probably never stop arguing, anyway. ::sw1::

 

[Vince Evert]

Well, I was sleeping but will watch it tonight after work. Shall I just skip the final set? It seems like it was not the highest quality match in the first four sets or at least parts of them, based on what I have read here. I am thrilled Fed has returned to another final in a major, but I don't know if he will win if Rafa is there. He will be forced to hit 95 backhands and I am hearing that he may have sustained a tweak to his groin. One has to be in great shape to battle the Spanish Bull. I know Grigor could win, but I am thinking Nadal in five grueling sets. The manner in which he smacked down Milos was very impressive. I think knowing he is close to returning to a major final and could win and become the first in the Open Era to win all four majors at least twice may make him edgy and miss a few too many. I still think the Mallorcan goes through to face Rog.

You can skip to the final set and watch it on YouTube (Eurosport UK version)

 

[Ricardo]

"Speaking of Stan...he is 31 or something. I think he's done.""........He was lucky to do what he's done."

your words Moxie, despite your denial.

 

[Moxie]

"Speaking of Stan...he is 31 or something. I think he's done.""........He was lucky to do what he's done."

your words Moxie, despite your denial.

Wow, to pick through all the live-chat...you've got some hard-on for me. Hoping to see you at the live-chat during the Nadal match.

 

[Ricardo]

And I hear ya on the Cilic reason, but I didn't much like him before, either. Unreliable. And I through Baggy in there precisely because it's so illogical. Even I don't get it. He seems really likable. I just rarely find myself rooting for him.

only reason is because you are an illogical person, and you always have emotions and sentiments take over from brain. Stan said the split 'amicable' and the ex-wife said he's a dog, yet without really knowing relevant details you've decided that Stan is flaky......taking side with women without thinking. Fact is, Stan is for all we can see, much better off without his ex-wife.

Misandry is an issue with many women these days (especially in US), yet they are always fashionably quick to scream 'misogyny' whether there is or not. Be good to see if Trump can correct such biased culture.....

 

[Ricardo]

Wow, to pick through all the live-chat...you've got some hard-on for me. Hoping to see you at the live-chat during the Nadal match.

so you know your honesty is for all to see? you can surely enjoy the Nadal match and orgasm at the same time yourself which i don't need to participate, Grigor simply hasn't got the balls to battle against Rafa and unless Djoker lends him a pair, he'll go home without winning a set.

I think Rafa may give him one sympathy set.

 

[teddytennisfan]

That is excellent! We might never stop arguing. OK, in fairness, we'll probably never stop arguing, anyway. ::sw1::

lol == this is just assuming everyone has preferences -- biases. -- so what else is there to do really?

lol.

 

[teddytennisfan]

it's coming up in 30 minutes !! COME ON STRAYA -- send the gladiators out!!

lol.