Early Wimbledon Talk

[Carol]

According to Carol Nadal had problems with his head and his knees for years so maybe a transplant is in order.

Look what Roger is telling you

 

[DarthFed]

I think you're denying what Broken is saying, i.e., that the slowing of the grass made Roger a more complete player. You also seem to be saying that Roger, while fabulous, hasn't been able to overcome the obstacles of Nadal and Djokovic often enough due to surface changes. Talk about the pot calling out the kettle, as I can't remember the last time Nadal/Djokovic or their fans has complained about surfaces, (except probably me re: YEC,) and yet you're all over it here, and often the most vocal about it. Aside from that, you're being a sore winner. 18 Majors and favored at Wimbledon, and you're still unhappy with the way some matches have panned out. That's just greedy, my friend.

Roger didn't become a complete player because of the grass. They changed it most drastically in 2006 in the middle of his most dominant year.

As you know yes I do blame Fed for all the poor performances in the final but let's just say he would/should be at a much bigger advantage without the change.

Toni complains about surfaces playing too fast all the time. Both Nadal's have complained about hard courts before. You don't remember AP complaining about the AO playing faster this year or Nole fans complains about RG 2011 when conditions were much faster than normal? And remember those changes have been only 1 year each.

Greed is the name of the game sweetheart. There is no such thing as too much of it. There are still people who don't understand how Roger could still be motivated? It's called a rear view mirror and a healthy fear of the future. Whoever finishes with less slams will in the future be known as "that great player who won a ton on clay" or "that great player who was number one for a long time" You will see that statement as being harsh but in an individual sport there is a world of difference between first and second best. So yeah Roger is greedy AF, and he better keep it up until hitting at least 20 slams.

 

[DarthFed]

You can't really say what would have happened in all of this fantasy tennis. If you change a surface since 2002, you change the whole dynamic. I'll give you that Roger is better on faster surfaces. But if you want to play "what-ifs," Rafa and Andy beat each other up across 2 days in the 2008 USO. Had Nadal prevailed, he was likely enough in Roger's head to have won it. As it was, it was Andy's first Major final, and he had little left. Not unimpressively opportunistic by Roger, but hardly a level playing field.

As if Murray had any prayer in 2008 even if he had an extra day. Zero, zilch, nada. They could've played that match the following week and it'd be the same result. And Nadal didn't win vs Murray so I'm not sure your point has any meaning. In fact he lost in pathetic fashion to someone who had no business beating him.

 

[Moxie]

As if Murray had any prayer in 2008 even if he had an extra day. Zero, zilch, nada. They could've played that match the following week and it'd be the same result. And Nadal didn't win vs Murray so I'm not sure your point has any meaning. In fact he lost in pathetic fashion to someone who had no business beating him.

Roger is lucky that Rafa was run ragged by winning the gold medal in Beijing and barely having time to race back to NY for the Open. *ping*

 

[DarthFed]

What a bunch of BS. Race back? He had ten frickin days between Olympics and the first match at USO. That's one long trip from China to the US no?

Fed played two less singles matches than Nadal at the Olympics, I guess that made all the difference in the world. Rafa just sucked on HC at the time, a much simpler explanation.

 

[Moxie]

Roger didn't become a complete player because of the grass. They changed it most drastically in 2006 in the middle of his most dominant year.

As you know yes I do blame Fed for all the poor performances in the final but let's just say he would/should be at a much bigger advantage without the change.

Toni complains about surfaces playing too fast all the time. Both Nadal's have complained about hard courts before. You don't remember AP complaining about the AO playing faster this year or Nole fans complains about RG 2011 when conditions were much faster than normal? And remember those changes have been only 1 year each.

Greed is the name of the game sweetheart. There is no such thing as too much of it. There are still people who don't understand how Roger could still be motivated? It's called a rear view mirror and a healthy fear of the future. Whoever finishes with less slams will in the future be known as "that great player who won a ton on clay" or "that great player who was number one for a long time" You will see that statement as being harsh but in an individual sport there is a world of difference between first and second best. So yeah Roger is greedy AF, and he better keep it up until hitting at least 20 slams.

No, they changed only the balls in 2006, according to you. Is that more dramatic than the composition of the grass? Quit moving the goal posts, please. Or decide which bit you care about.

You are dragging up ancient history to talk about either Nadal and the surfaces discussions. (Find me a quote that's not 5 years old, at least.) You, however, are complaining bitterly about the change in the grass, even today. It's a bit rich that you're so mad at them (even so long ago) for the very thing you're honking on about. You've actually said that the surface changes suit Nadal and Djokovic, so you are rather talking out of both sides of your mouth.

As to the greedy bit, I figured that's how you'd respond. Especially because you're just a bit worried that Nadal could pass ol'Wodge, and then you'd really have to pedal to justify his GOATness.

 

[DarthFed]

No, they changed only the balls in 2006, according to you. Is that more dramatic than the composition of the grass? Quit moving the goal posts, please. Or decide which bit you care about.

You are dragging up ancient history to talk about either Nadal and the surfaces discussions. (Find me a quote that's not 5 years old, at least.) You, however, are complaining bitterly about the change in the grass, even today. It's a bit rich that you're so mad at them (even so long ago) for the very thing you're honking on about. You've actually said that the surface changes suit Nadal and Djokovic, so you are rather talking out of both sides of your mouth.

As to the greedy bit, I figured that's how you'd respond. Especially because you're just a bit worried that Nadal could pass ol'Wodge, and then you'd really have to pedal to justify his GOATness.

Yes I believe them changing the balls affected the play more than the surface composition. Is there a reason your reading comprehension rivals Carol lately?

All great athletes are greedy and I'm not too worried about your boy passing him. But I've always said Fed should've won more, so far this year he has made up for some of the bad years in his 30's (2013-2016). And Eventually Nadal will be exposed for what he is anyways.

 

[Moxie]

What a bunch of BS. Race back? He had ten frickin days between Olympics and the first match at USO. That's one long trip from China to the US no?

Fed played two less singles matches than Nadal at the Olympics, I guess that made all the difference in the world. Rafa just sucked on HC at the time, a much simpler explanation.

Federer won his doubles gold in Beijing on 8/16 that year. Nadal won the singles gold on 8/17. They went across the world and Nadal played his first match at the USO on the opening day, 8/25, and Federer didn't play his first until the 2nd day. It's just a couple of days here and there, but anyone who has flown across the world understands, it's not a small thing. It's a serious 3-day jet lag. Couple that with the emotional victories at Wimbledon and in Beijing, Nadal was playing catch up. When he and Murray were rain-delayed on the Sat., and had to come back to finish on the Sunday, they would both have been compromised take Federer in the final, though I'd still have given Nadal a chance based on being in Roger's head. I'm not saying that being tired is the whole thing. But I am saying that being reasonably rested was something that Roger had over his most dangerous competition in that particular tournament. And it wasn't just Nadal and jet-lag, but also him and Murray going after each other across 2 days, when Roger was sitting fat and happy in his hotel room from early Sat to Monday.

 

[Moxie]

Yes I believe them changing the balls affected the play more than the surface composition. Is there a reason your reading comprehension rivals Carol lately?

All great athletes are greedy and I'm not too worried about your boy passing him. But I've always said Fed should've won more, so far this year he has made up for some of the bad years in his 30's (2013-2016). And Eventually Nadal will be exposed for what he is anyways.

After so many years and posts of you complaining about the grass...now it's the balls? I'm sorry, but I don't think I read that poorly. If you're going to say now that it's more the heavier balls than the slowing down of the grass, I'm going to have to call foul. Is this not moving the goal-posts?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Did you mean to say that Roger is better on slower surfaces than quicker surfaces?

No. I was specifically talking about grass, not surfaces in general. I meant the evolution of Roger's game suited the new grass, not that he's better on slower surfaces in general, which is obviously not true.

 

[DarthFed]

After so many years and posts of you complaining about the grass...now it's the balls? I'm sorry, but I don't think I read that poorly. If you're going to say now that it's more the heavier balls than the slowing down of the grass, I'm going to have to call foul. Is this not moving the goal-posts?

The heavier ball greatly slowed down the play just like in 2011RG where they used a lighter ball and conditions were much faster even tho the surface was the exact same. I guess it'd be more accurate to say "conditions" were slowed more by the change in ball than the change in surface.

 

[DarthFed]

Federer won his doubles gold in Beijing on 8/16 that year. Nadal won the singles gold on 8/17. They went across the world and Nadal played his first match at the USO on the opening day, 8/25, and Federer didn't play his first until the 2nd day. It's just a couple of days here and there, but anyone who has flown across the world understands, it's not a small thing. It's a serious 3-day jet lag. Couple that with the emotional victories at Wimbledon and in Beijing, Nadal was playing catch up. When he and Murray were rain-delayed on the Sat., and had to come back to finish on the Sunday, they would both have been compromised take Federer in the final, though I'd still have given Nadal a chance based on being in Roger's head. I'm not saying that being tired is the whole thing. But I am saying that being reasonably rested was something that Roger had over his most dangerous competition in that particular tournament. And it wasn't just Nadal and jet-lag, but also him and Murray going after each other across 2 days, when Roger was sitting fat and happy in his hotel room from early Sat to Monday.

Also of note is that they played barely more than 1 set on the second day. It was a pretty loose 4 set match not much different than Federer beating Djokovic. You're acting like it was a marathon. Of course Nadal may have beaten Fed in the final but you're going to blame jet lag from 3 weeks prior? Well you are a Nadal fan so there is always an excuse.

Murray wasn't beating Fed that year regardless of rest. Everyone knows that.

 

[Denis]

Physical and mental issues shouldn't be equated. Not that one is a bigger deal than the other. They're just not the same. It's a flawed comparison. Maybe nothing was wrong with Nadal's knees, but it's still a flawed comparison.

The point was more to not make excuses. I have never made any excuses for Djokovic's losses (unfortunately sarcasm is beyond the level of comprehension of posters like Carol). Tennis is won by a combination of skills, fitness, and mental aptitude. If you don't deliver on those fronts, you lose.

 

[Carol]

The point was more to not make excuses. I have never made any excuses for Djokovic's losses (unfortunately sarcasm is beyond the level of comprehension of posters like Carol). Tennis is won by a combination of skills, fitness, and mental aptitude. If you don't deliver on those fronts, you lose.

What have been my excuses? saying that Nadal has a chronic knee tendinitis which has not allowed him to play better on grass and also on another surfaces? comprehension about what some of the Roger's fans and you too like to deny that he has had that issue? or when I was saying for two years due to his injuries he had lost his confidence/mental aptitude but he would be back sooner or later and most of you said that I was wrong, he was aging and therefore he was on decline and he couldn't make it anymore? my question is where is your comprehension which seems to be lost in the space?
By the way why do you think the Novak's level has gone down?

 

[Moxie]

Also of note is that they played barely more than 1 set on the second day. It was a pretty loose 4 set match not much different than Federer beating Djokovic. You're acting like it was a marathon. Of course Nadal may have beaten Fed in the final but you're going to blame jet lag from 3 weeks prior? Well you are a Nadal fan so there is always an excuse.

Murray wasn't beating Fed that year regardless of rest. Everyone knows that.

I don't think I was acting like it was a marathon, and I'd really prefer if you'd stop re-stating my points with atomic hyperbole, sweetie pie. However, coming back to play even a set + in a Major, when the other guy has a day off, I think we all agree is a detrimental to his chances. The prep and the stress is totally different to a day off. Murray played better overall to Rafa, and I agree that he was unlikely to win that final anyway. I'm not making an excuse for why Rafa was pretty burnt out by then, only offering context, and I think that's reasonable. Everyone at the time recognized that going from the Olympics in Beijing to the USO was a pretty rough hump. And Nadal was having a very emotional run that summer. Good on Roger for winning the USO, after some big disappointments just prior. I've never said otherwise. I'm just sorry that Nadal was a bit too gassed to make that final.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Roger didn't become a complete player because of the grass. They changed it most drastically in 2006 in the middle of his most dominant year.

As you know yes I do blame Fed for all the poor performances in the final but let's just say he would/should be at a much bigger advantage without the change.

Toni complains about surfaces playing too fast all the time. Both Nadal's have complained about hard courts before. You don't remember AP complaining about the AO playing faster this year or Nole fans complains about RG 2011 when conditions were much faster than normal? And remember those changes have been only 1 year each.

Greed is the name of the game sweetheart. There is no such thing as too much of it. There are still people who don't understand how Roger could still be motivated? It's called a rear view mirror and a healthy fear of the future. Whoever finishes with less slams will in the future be known as "that great player who won a ton on clay" or "that great player who was number one for a long time" You will see that statement as being harsh but in an individual sport there is a world of difference between first and second best. So yeah Roger is greedy AF, and he better keep it up until hitting at least 20 slams.

I don't think I was complaining..I was baited by you from one of our rehashing SW19 2008 .I recall I was saying they sped up because the players said the courts were playing extremely faster than previously.

 

[Front242]

What have been my excuses? saying that Nadal has a chronic knee tendinitis which has not allowed him to play better on grass and also on another surfaces? comprehension about what some of the Roger's fans and you too like to deny that he has had that issue? or when I was saying for two years due to his injuries he had lost his confidence/mental aptitude but he would be back sooner or later and most of you said that I was wrong, he was aging and therefore he was on decline and he couldn't make it anymore? my question is where is your comprehension which seems to be lost in the space?
By the way why do you think the Novak's level has gone down?

That'll do for a start. You've just tried to excuse around 5 years of poor results, mostly on grass, 'cos no one sane would call winning 5 slams in 5 years and winning just about everything in sight in 2013 poor. With the same gammy knees too supposedly. How tragic. They must have been killing him in 2013 winning everything. Or wait, no, they clearly weren't.

How about you try being a normal person for once and just accept he didn't play well enough to win more ? Again, not well enough is subjective 'cos I'd say he won 5 slams too many. In the same 5 year span that Nadal with his supposedly mangled knees won 5 slams, Federer has won just 1. So count yourself and mr. knobbly knees lucky.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think I was acting like it was a marathon, and I'd really prefer if you'd stop re-stating my points with atomic hyperbole, sweetie pie. However, coming back to play even a set + in a Major, when the other guy has a day off, I think we all agree is a detrimental to his chances. The prep and the stress is totally different to a day off. Murray played better overall to Rafa, and I agree that he was unlikely to win that final anyway. I'm not making an excuse for why Rafa was pretty burnt out by then, only offering context, and I think that's reasonable. Everyone at the time recognized that going from the Olympics in Beijing to the USO was a pretty rough hump. And Nadal was having a very emotional run that summer. Good on Roger for winning the USO, after some big disappointments just prior. I've never said otherwise. I'm just sorry that Nadal was a bit too gassed to make that final.

Where's the hyperbole again? I think you're trying to give me the reacharound here. Fatigue wasn't or shouldn't have been an issue for Nadal who pretty much has never shown signs of fatigue in his career. He just wasn't good on hard courts yet. And if winning one Wimbledon was so emotional that's his problem. Fed had won 5 straight Wimbledon's and that didn't stop him from winning 5 straight USO's.

Aside from that I will get you to say more than "Murray was unlikely to win the final" with equal rest. He had no chance. And let me ask you this, were you giving the same excuse for Nole losing to Stan at the 2015 RG final? Because the same thing played out where he had to play an extra set vs Murray the day before the final.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I take all of your points except that Wawrinka is a proven big match player, and Dimitrov plays for the Manila Folders. If Dimitrov goes deeper than Stan, I'll owe you a beer.

Should I p.m. my address to you so that you can dispatch the beer. I told you as to why Stan's game is not suitable for grass and why he sucks there, but you did not listen. Being a big match player helps you only when you get to big matches.

 

[Moxie]

Should I p.m. my address to you so that you can dispatch the beer. I told you as to why Stan's game is not suitable for grass and why he sucks there, but you did not listen. Being a big match player helps you only when you get to big matches.

LOL! I do owe you a beer. I get why grass doesn't suit Stan, but I equally think he's unpredictable, and Grigor is predictably pallid in the big game. That's why I don't care for either, frankly. Anyway, you win. I'll send you a Paypal beer, or you could come to the USO and I'll buy you a nice cold one in person.