Early Wimbledon Talk

[DarthFed]

I'm not punishing him, he's done great to reach all those finals but there's no doubt he hasn't played up to his normal standards on many occasions once he's gotten there. Even a couple wins were shaky performances.

Whether it's better to get there and lose or lose early? Yes and no, it is a great debate in sports. Part of MJ's mystique is he was untouchable on the biggest stage. Montana was greater than Brady before this last SB IMO because he was way better in his SB appearances. It's just a difference of opinion. As of now I wouldn't put Roger ahead of Sampras on grass, but another title here obviously would do it.

 

[Moxie]

And 2008 Rafa was nothing special, it was a terrible first couple sets and Roger blinked in set 5 with crazy amounts of errors and all around was unclutch aside from two good tiebreaks

You really should be embarrassed to even type such things. Roger wasn't terrible at any point in that match, though I agree he started flatter than Nadal. Basically everyone in the world besides blinkered Federer fans saw loads of terrific tennis from both in that match. It could have gone either way, but, as El Dude said, Rafa was on the upswing in his career at that point and had the momentum. He also had a psychological edge on Roger, and he had the motivation of thinking he might not get another chance at the title there.

 

[Carol]

Carol, you always find a way to up the level of silliness where Rafa's concerned. You might have noted that I said I'm scared of him this Wimbledon and see him as one of three favorites, if a bit behind Roger and Andy. So please note that I'm giving him much better chances than most. But to say that the draw doesn't matter in the early rounds for him any more than Roger is just silly.

Consider their records at Wimbledon over the last five years:

Roger: 25-4...one W, two Fs, one SF, one 2R (losses to Djokovic x2, Cilic, Stakhovsky)
Rafa: 5-4...one 4R, two 2R, one 1R (losses to Kyrgios, Darcis, Brown, Rosol)

Roger lost twice to peak Novak, once each to Cilic and Stakhovsky in years when he was struggling with injury issues. Meanwhile, Rafa lost four times to players outside the top 100 and was, as far as I remember, healthy each time.

If Roger throws off the rust and returns to his form from earlier this year, he is the favorite to win Wimbledon. I mean, who would be able to beat him? Unless Novak finds his peak form, I don't see anyone capable of beating this version of Roger on grass - or at least no one with more than a slight chance. Rafa could do it, but would need Roger to struggle; he wouldn't be able to beat the version of Roger he lost to three times earlier this year. Similarly with Andy. He only beats Roger if Roger is struggling for some reason. Again, the only player who has a legit shot at beating the 2017 version of Roger on grass is Novak, but only if Novak returns to 2011-15 form.

That said, a few players that could be really dangerous are Kyrgios, Zverev, and slightly less so Raonic. I don't think any of them are able to win Wimbledon yet, but they'd be very tough 4R/QF floaters that could beat anyone on a good day.

Have I said something wrong? ok, right now I'm not sure about anything and this is nothing against Roger or where Rafa's concerned. To me the draw is a peace of paper and besides that I have not any idea how Roger or Rafa will play or how the others players will do. We got more than one surprise before and we could be again. So the first week will tell us more about it and then we could get better conclusions about who will have more options to go more far
But I have to tell you that you should look in the mirror before to attack me and then you will see who finds a way to up of silliness where Roger's concerned. Also maybe I have to remind you that Rafa badly has lost in Wimbledon (f you like it or not) because his knee, fact!

 

[DarthFed]

You really should be embarrassed to even type such things. Roger wasn't terrible at any point in that match, though I agree he started flatter than Nadal. Basically everyone in the world besides blinkered Federer fans saw loads of terrific tennis from both in that match. It could have gone either way, but, as El Dude said, Rafa was on the upswing in his career at that point and had the momentum. He also had a psychological edge on Roger, and he had the motivation of thinking he might not get another chance at the title there.

You should be embarrassed for trying to control what I think/type. I don't care what upswing Rafa was on, Roger had a lot to regret that day, 1/12 BP's, blowing a 4-1 lead in the 2nd set and hitting 52 UFE's which is probably one of the highest error total in the tournament's history.

 

[El Dude]

LOL. What the hell are you talking about, @Carol? In what way did I up the silliness?

Anyhow, I was referring to your disagreement with Darth that the draw matters less for Roger than it does for Rafa. Let's go back to that. Do you honestly think that Rafa is not less likely to be upset in the early rounds than Roger?

 

[Carol]

LOL. What the hell are you talking about, @Carol? In what way did I up the silliness?

Anyhow, I was referring to your disagreement with Darth that the draw matters less for Roger than it does for Rafa. Let's go back to that. Do you honestly think that Rafa is not less likely to be upset in the early rounds than Roger?

Honestly i have not any idea which one will leave earlier

 

[Moxie]

You should be embarrassed for trying to control what I think/type. I don't care what upswing Rafa was on, Roger had a lot to regret that day, 1/12 BP's, blowing a 4-1 lead in the 2nd set and hitting 52 UFE's which is probably one of the highest error total in the tournament's history.

I'm not trying to control what you think. I'm pointing out that you said "2008 Nadal was nothing special." That comment is beneath even you, in your great dislike of Nadal.

As to particulars: Rafa has always been great at saving BPs; 4-1 is one break; and I won't even get into UFE's v. "forced" errors, but we know that Rafa, in particular, forces Roger out of his comfort zone and to press for more. I don't know if 52 is the highest ever, but it was a long match, so you have to remember it skews the numbers. You'll never believe that Rafa was the better man, by a small margin, on the grass that day. Cozy up to your bitter resentment about that match, but you know that most of the rest of the tennis viewing world thinks they saw a terrific match that day. And the better man won.

 

[El Dude]

Of course. No one does. But you give that answer to every kind of speculation: "We just don't know." That goes without saying. But a lot of tennis talk is speculating, and I think most agree that Rafa is more likely to be upset early than Roger. Once we get to the second week, things become less clear.

 

[Carol]

Of course. No one does. But you give that answer to every kind of speculation: "We just don't know." That goes without saying. But a lot of tennis talk is speculating, and I think most agree that Rafa is more likely to be upset early than Roger. Once we get to the second week, things become less clear.

Then let's go to say that if Rafa would reach the second week then it would be more difficult to know which one will leave earlier.

 

[Moxie]

Have I said something wrong? ok, right now I'm not sure about anything and this is nothing against Roger or where Rafa's concerned. To me the draw is a peace of paper and besides that I have not any idea how Roger or Rafa will play or how the others players will do. We got more than one surprise before and we could be again. So the first week will tell us more about it and then we could get better conclusions about who will have more options to go more far
But I have to tell you that you should look in the mirror before to attack me and then you will see who finds a way to up of silliness where Roger's concerned. Also maybe I have to remind you that Rafa badly has lost in Wimbledon (f you like it or not) because his knee, fact!

Carol, one thing you should just admit and embrace is that you're a fan-girl. That's ok. But when you argue against logic and precedence in favor of Nadal, people are going to give you a hard time. Take it on the chin and admit your prejudice.

It's true that the draw is a theoretical path. And even Roger is getting into uncharted waters, at his age, having skipped the clay season entirely, and having been dumped out of Stuttgart in his first match. But it is clear, even to Nadal fans (besides you) that Rafa is more vulnerable in the early rounds at Wimbledon. If you want to be optimistic on his behalf, that's cool...I like to be, too...but if you're going to stubbornly insist that the early rounds of Wimby are the same for Rafa and Roger, you're going to get push-back, so don't act hurt or surprised.

 

[Moxie]

Fedal wars back in full bloom! Jeepers, no wonder those who don't participate just hate us. For the rest of us: hurray! Game on. :hunting:::sw1::

 

[Carol]

Ok ok ok guys, yes, you are right, Rafa is very vulnerable, he doesn't play well on grass and therefore he will be out the first week. Meanwhile Federer will keep playing well, he will reach the finals it doesn't matter to whom he will play and he will win Wimbledon. Are you happy now?. Not more discuss about it, it would be silly from my part

 

[El Dude]

Then let's go to say that if Rafa would reach the second week then it would be more difficult to know which one will leave earlier.

True, which is why I put him in the same group as Roger and Andy. That said, I still give Roger the edge. This is grass, after all.

 

[britbox]

I think Nadal is dangerous going in... really do. I've got him as a serious contender rather than a pretender... and that's through gritted teeth.

 

[El Dude]

Ok ok ok guys, yes, you are right, Rafa is very vulnerable, he doesn't play well on grass and therefore he will be out the first week. Meanwhile Federer will keep playing well, he will reach the finals it doesn't matter to whom he will play and he will win Wimbledon. Are you happy now?. Not more discuss about it, it would be silly from my part

LOL, there's a middle ground, you realize. And it is worth discussing. But I think the point is, can we discuss it with some degree of objectivity, more than just "my guy will win, so f off"?

Roger is far from a sure thing, but he goes into the tournament as the favorite or co-favorite with Andy. That doesn't mean he'll win it. I think Rafa also has a good chance, but a bit less than those guys and probably more than anyone else.

 

[britbox]

Dude, if Murray met Nadal at Wimbledon, who do you think would win? My money would be on Nadal. That's not the full picture of course, as they have to get there and Murray might have a marginally greater chance of progressing to the second week... but I'd still have Nadal as a serious contender based on the form he's in.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm not trying to control what you think. I'm pointing out that you said "2008 Nadal was nothing special." That comment is beneath even you, in your great dislike of Nadal.

As to particulars: Rafa has always been great at saving BPs; 4-1 is one break; and I won't even get into UFE's v. "forced" errors, but we know that Rafa, in particular, forces Roger out of his comfort zone and to press for more. I don't know if 52 is the highest ever, but it was a long match, so you have to remember it skews the numbers. You'll never believe that Rafa was the better man, by a small margin, on the grass that day. Cozy up to your bitter resentment about that match, but you know that most of the rest of the tennis viewing world thinks they saw a terrific match that day. And the better man won.

When have I said otherwise. Rafa was the better player that day by far, and that speaks very poorly on Roger who is and was by far the better grass court player on average

 

[Moxie]

Dude, if Murray met Nadal at Wimbledon, who do you think would win? My money would be on Nadal. That's not the full picture of course, as they have to get there and Murray might have a marginally greater chance of progressing to the second week... but I'd still have Nadal as a serious contender based on the form he's in.

Looking at this year, based on what they've done, and confidence, Nadal, especially as he's done well against Murray, and they can push on each other on defense, but Nadal gets aggressive more confidently and successfully more often than Andy.

 

[Moxie]

When have I said otherwise. Rafa was the better player that day by far, and that speaks very poorly on Roger who is and was by far the better grass court player on average

Ah, "on average." I'm going to give you Broken's very cogent argument to our old friend Cali, who kept insisting that Djokovic "had no business" losing to Nadal in the 2013 USO final, because he was the better HC player, by stats. But Rafa was the better HC player that year. And Rafa was the better player at that (rather long) portion of 2008. The resume doesn't matter if someone is out-playing you, at that time. It doesn't speak poorly of Roger that he couldn't beat a top drawer Nadal, even on grass. You don't play only on resume, but in the times that you're living in.

 

[Carol]

I've never said that Rafa has more chance to win than Roger who has 7 Wimbledon titles while Rafa has only 2 and also playing pretty bad these last years. But talking about the draw it's something that I don't put too much attention because many things can happen in two weeks as we have seen before. My point is that I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for anyone until the second week of the tournament. First let's go to see what is going on in Halle and Queens and later the first week of Wimbledon and then we could talk better about it. Right now it's more speculations than anything else and too early to bet for someone to,win or to lose