Fed Fans – Roger Federer Talk

[Moxie]

Come on, going into the match Roger was not just a favorite, but a heavy favorite being a five time defender.

That's not the point. As a tennis fan, you would have known that del Potro was more than just a "greenhorn" at that point in that year, and that there was danger is his game. That's why I say it was an upset but not a complete shock. Anyway, this is why I say these odds makers don't know tennis, too.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

But you can't win forever; Federer, Borg, even Nadal at the FO! Sooner or later a player has a bad day and they drop a final! :whistle:

I agree that nobody can keep on winning. Everyone has to lose eventually. But, the combination of Roger being a five time defending champion there and JMDP being a rookie, definitely made Roger a huge favorite and it is highly reasonable to expect that if Roger had gone up 2-0, Roger would have won that match.

As already said by someone properly, It was Roger's fault in giving up that second set. But, once he did that, Roger lost control as JMDP was zoning in and hitting winners from both wings at more than 100 mph. There was really nothing that Roger could do and full credit to JMDP for going out and winning it by taking complete control of the match.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That's not the point. As a tennis fan, you would have known that del Potro was more than just a "greenhorn" at that point in that year, and that there was danger is his game. That's why I say it was an upset but not a complete shock. Anyway, this is why I say these odds makers don't know tennis, too.

While JMDP was an up and comer, you are now viewing it retrospect knowing how good JMDP has become later on despite perennial health issues. However, at that time no one was seriously thinking that JMDP would win it, in view of the multiple factors given below.

1. Roger was a five time defending champion at USO in 2009.
2. He was coming into USO on the heels of winning both RG and WImby,
thus clearing the twin goals of achieving career slam and crossing Pete
3. JMDP has never even been in a final.
4. Roger - JMDP H2H was 6-0 prior to that match.

I definitely don't think JMDP had in him to win the match, had Roger won the second set. Roger took the foot off the gas pedal in the second set in general and made some poor shot selection to give up that set. Having said that, this is not about belitting JMDP. In fact, JMDP deserves more than standard credit in that match. The reason being that JMDP forced the issues in the last two sets leaving Roger with no chances whatsoever.

 

[Moxie]

While JMDP was an up and comer, you are now viewing it retrospect knowing how good JMDP has become later on despite perennial health issues. However, at that time no one was seriously thinking that JMDP would win it, in view of the multiple factors given below.

1. Roger was a five time defending champion at USO in 2009.
2. He was coming into USO on the heels of winning both RG and WImby,
thus clearing the twin goals of achieving career slam and crossing Pete
3. JMDP has never even been in a final.
4. Roger - JMDP H2H was 6-0 prior to that match.

I definitely don't think JMDP had in him to win the match, had Roger won the second set. Roger took the foot off the gas pedal in the second set in general and made some poor shot selection to give up that set. Having said that, this is not about belitting JMDP. In fact, JMDP deserves more than standard credit in that match. The reason being that JMDP forced the issues in the last two sets leaving Roger with no chances whatsoever.

I don't see what we're saying that's much different, except that you're really hung up on Roger being "5-time defending champion" and I guess you just want everyone to say that he really should have won it? Or would have won, if he'd won the 2nd set?

It's funny to me how adamant you are. And lots of Roger fans really get their backs up about this particular loss. However, when I a Nadal fan tries to say that losing to Soderling at RG in the same year had something to do with Rafa's knees, you Fed fans go ballistic. Rafa, 4-time defending champion at RG, and he lost to a far lesser light than del Potro, let's face it.

Again, I'm really not sure what it is you'd like me to concede about that match.

 

[lob]

Coming back from 0-2 sets deficit in a grand slam final is an extremely difficult thing to accomplish. There is a reason even Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have not done it. And not for lack of trying. Five time defending champion Federer tried to against a 0 time champion Nadal in Wimbledon 2008. No dice. Djokovic mounted a comeback against the rookie 0 slam winner and four time slam final loser Andy Murray in the 2012 USO final. No dice.

AFAIK it has happened only in RG. Lendl, Agassi and Gaudio. Even in GS Semifinals the only one I can think of without google's help is Djokovic d. Federer in USO 2011. Btw, 0-2 come backs are not that rare in majors. It has been done 150+, may be even 200, times in the open era. However, the bigger the match, the more insurmountable the 0-2 deficit becomes.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't see what we're saying that's much different, except that you're really hung up on Roger being "5-time defending champion" and I guess you just want everyone to say that he really should have won it? Or would have won, if he'd won the 2nd set?

It's funny to me how adamant you are. And lots of Roger fans really get their backs up about this particular loss. However, when I a Nadal fan tries to say that losing to Soderling at RG in the same year had something to do with Rafa's knees, you Fed fans go ballistic. Rafa, 4-time defending champion at RG, and he lost to a far lesser light than del Potro, let's face it.

Again, I'm really not sure what it is you'd like me to concede about that match.

So, you once again proved your inability to argue the topic at hand without bringing in Ralph into picture when the conversation is not at all about him.

What you need to concede is that it is a major upset. However, I definitely would not say that it is as big an upset as Ralph falling to Soderling in the red dirt.

 

[Front242]

I don't see what we're saying that's much different, except that you're really hung up on Roger being "5-time defending champion" and I guess you just want everyone to say that he really should have won it? Or would have won, if he'd won the 2nd set?

It's funny to me how adamant you are. And lots of Roger fans really get their backs up about this particular loss. However, when I a Nadal fan tries to say that losing to Soderling at RG in the same year had something to do with Rafa's knees, you Fed fans go ballistic. Rafa, 4-time defending champion at RG, and he lost to a far lesser light than del Potro, let's face it.

Again, I'm really not sure what it is you'd like me to concede about that match.

Roger didn't have any injury issues whatsoever when he lost to Del Potro and it was just pathetic shot selection with that drop shot that ended up probably costing him the match. Soderling played a far better match imo than Del Potro did that day too btw. No drop shot from Roger and he probably would have run away with that match and people that go ballistic over the RG 2009 do so correctly given there was no real major evidence of any physical ailment by Nadal who was still running like a gazelle for much of the match.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Roger didn't have any injury issues whatsoever when he lost to Del Potro and it was just pathetic shot selection with that drop shot that ended up probably costing him the match. Soderling played a far better match imo than Del Potro did that day too btw. No drop shot from Roger and he probably would have run away with that match and people that go ballistic over the RG 2009 do so correctly given there was no real major evidence of any physical ailment by Nadal who was still running like a gazelle for much of the match.

Yeah and him withdrawing from 2009 Wimbledon where he was defending champion is not an evidence.

 

[Front242]

Yeah and him withdrawing from 2009 Wimbledon where he was defending champion is not an evidence.

100% it's not evidence. We're talking about a hypochondriac who skipped a slam 'cos of a sore tummy 3 (!) weeks before it even began.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Stop mudslinging guys. Please.

Both are great champions. They have shown us all. What's the trash talking about?

 

[Front242]

Stop mudslinging guys. Please.

Both are great champions. They have shown us all. What's the trash talking about?

No trash talking here, just calling it like it is. He says the guy was injured before Wimbledon 2009, I tell him the guy skipped a slam (which he did) 'cos of a sore tummy. Everyone is tired of the Nadal is injured bs when a lot of the time he's not. Basically he skipped the AO 2013 'cos he felt he didn't have ample time to practice for best of 5 which is frankly pretty lame given he'd have been able to play his way into form no problem against the donkey players in the first few rounds and yet the Nadal camp claim he was injured before that slam. No he was not injured. He could have played Wimbledon 2009 too if he chose to do so, he chose not to.

 

[Moxie]

So, you once again proved your inability to argue the topic at hand without bringing in Ralph into picture when the conversation is not at all about him.

What you need to concede is that it is a major upset. However, I definitely would not say that it is as big an upset as Ralph falling to Soderling in the red dirt.

Oh, I was just having a bit of fun to break up the tedium of how many times you had to write "5-times champion."

 

[Moxie]

No trash talking here, just calling it like it is. He says the guy was injured before Wimbledon 2009, I tell him the guy skipped a slam (which he did) 'cos of a sore tummy. Everyone is tired of the Nadal is injured bs when a lot of the time he's not. Basically he skipped the AO 2013 'cos he felt he didn't have ample time to practice for best of 5 which is frankly pretty lame given he'd have been able to play his way into form no problem against the donkey players in the first few rounds and yet the Nadal camp claim he was injured before that slam. No he was not injured. He could have played Wimbledon 2009 too if he chose to do so, he chose not to.

No, that is trash talking. You always say he skipped that AO for "sore tummy," even though you do concede above he was underprepared. You don't know what went into that decision. It's also very arrogant of you to insist that he skipped Wimbledon NOT because of injury. There is no evidence in this world to suggest that Nadal would skip a Major on a whim. I also don't see how you call him a hypochondriac. There are players who miss more playing time than Nadal and you don't say it's all in their heads, do you? Anyone who wins 17 Majors is a person who relishes competition, not one who avoids it. Plus, I don't think I'm wrong to say that you're one of those who blames Nadal's style of play for his injuries. Well, which is it? It's an old trope that Nadal fans insist he never loses except when he's injured. (Though I'm not saying there aren't trollish ones that do. Just not regular fans who discuss rationally.) By the same token, it's not true that Federer fans don't make excuses for his losses. You make plenty of them, including the very arrogant insistence that when he does lose, he blew it, not that the opponent outplayed him.

It's fine for Roger, in your estimation, to make wise choices in terms of his scheduling as to body and preparedness, but not for Nadal, then? Let's face it, you have your playbook of Nadal accusations which is about painting him in a poor light when he simply isn't the bad guy you want him to be. Nor is Roger a saint.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't know of a single Fed fan who blamed his 2009 USO loss for any kind of injury. We all say he was perfectly fine physically in that match and just lost.

Also, it is not true that we say that he blew it whenever he loses the match.

If you have read through our posts, you will notice that most of us basically say, Roger lost the second set. However, after that it was JMDP who won the match (as opposed to Roger losing the match by blowing it away). JMDP was in a zone, he went out and won the match. It is not like Roger blew that match (after the second set). In fact, Roger fought the best he could and unfortunately, he came up short.

 

[Fiero425]

I don't know of a single Fed fan who blamed his 2009 USO loss for any kind of injury. We all say he was perfectly fine physically in that match and just lost.

Also, it is not true that we say that he blew it whenever he loses the match.

If you have read through our posts, you will notice that most of us basically say, Roger lost the second set. However, after that it was JMDP who won the match (as opposed to Roger losing the match by blowing it away). JMDP was in a zone, he went out and won the match. It is not like Roger blew that match (after the second set). In fact, Roger fought the best he could and unfortunately, he came up short.

Del Po just kicked Nadal's arse in that '09 USO match! People need to get over it! I loved it! We needed a change at the top and DP was a prime candidate to make it the "Big 5" instead of "B4!" He was good enough, but as brittle as straw and couldn't stay on the tour for very long before another injury or surgery was required! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

I don't know of a single Fed fan who blamed his 2009 USO loss for any kind of injury. We all say he was perfectly fine physically in that match and just lost.

Also, it is not true that we say that he blew it whenever he loses the match.

If you have read through our posts, you will notice that most of us basically say, Roger lost the second set. However, after that it was JMDP who won the match (as opposed to Roger losing the match by blowing it away). JMDP was in a zone, he went out and won the match. It is not like Roger blew that match (after the second set). In fact, Roger fought the best he could and unfortunately, he came up short.

The comparison to injury was Front's response to mine. My point was not injury, but the notion that you're all mitigating the loss, which is the same as Nadal fans mitigating the loss at RG that same year.

I applaud you for (finally) coming to praise JMDP for his win, but you, and others, have spilt a lot of ink over how Roger blew that second set. Otherwise, what have you been saying across these last few pages? The insistence that he was hugely favored. The conversations about who ever wins down 2 sets to love. This was about assuaging a loss.

I'm not saying you're all Darth, who fully admits that he thinks that Roger only loses because he "sucked." But I will remember last summer, when there was a lot of complaint from the Roger camps that he'd played Canada when he shouldn't have, hurt his back and lost his chance to win the USO and get the YE#1, both things that Nadal did win. As a Nadal fan, it was a bit insulting that Fed fans insisted so much that "otherwise" Roger would have had those accolades. Not directly, but by endless insinuation. Here's my point: I think we should all realize that there are losses of our favorites that we regret, and we have reasons that we feel are valid for qualifying them. If we take that on board, we can stop pointing fingers at each other as "excuse-makers," and have more interesting conversations about the wins/losses. I absolutely think that there are reasons to understand losses, even though, since it's sport, either you win or you lose. But one camp can't complain that the other is all complainers, and then do the same by way of complaining. I hope you take my point.

 

[Moxie]

Del Po just kicked Nadal's arse in that '09 USO match! People need to get over it! I loved it! We needed a change at the top and DP was a prime candidate to make it the "Big 5" instead of "B4!" He was good enough, but as brittle as straw and couldn't stay on the tour for very long before another injury or surgery was required! :whistle:

You keep saying we need a change at the top, but realistically, the 2009 USO was a brief stop in the road. So how do you justify your continued championing of Djokovic? Why aren't you all over the Next Gen? Who's going to be your next fave?

 

[Fiero425]

You keep saying we need a change at the top, but realistically, the 2009 USO was a brief stop in the road. So how do you justify your continued championing of Djokovic? Why aren't you all over the Next Gen? Who's going to be your next fave?

I can only respond to posts that makes sense! I said nothing about Nole & if I did, I favor him over Fedal who abused him for yrs before he came into his own! Why such a bully of late? WTF happened to you? It makes me want to throw you on my ignore list w/ Carol & others! ;-(

 

[Moxie]

I can only respond to posts that makes sense! I said nothing about Nole & if I did, I favor him over Fedal who abused him for yrs before he came into his own! Why such a bully of late? WTF happened to you? It makes me want to throw you on my ignore list w/ Carol & others! ;-(

You have rather a lot of nerve to make horrible and unsubstantiated statements about Nadal (and Uncle Toni, I will mention,) and then act like I'm bullying you to get some clarification. I don't see how you get to say terrible things, refuse to debate them, and then call me mean. If your skin is that thin, perhaps you ought not to say such nasty things in the first place.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I applaud you for (finally) coming to praise JMDP for his win, but you, and others, have spilt a lot of ink over how Roger blew that second set. Otherwise, what have you been saying across these last few pages? The insistence that he was hugely favored. The conversations about who ever wins down 2 sets to love. This was about assuaging a loss.

.

What finally? Right from the beginning I was saying that JMDP went out and won the match once Fed let him back in the match. I was maintaining that it was unlikely that JMDP would have won the match had Fed won the second set. I don't understand why you think these are contradictory.

Even after winning a set, many lesser players have crumbled and did not turn the momentum in their favor and ultimately win the match against Fed. So, JMDP deserves full credit for taking control of the match after that.