Fed Fans – Roger Federer Talk

[brokenshoelace]

It is not a matter of surface alone, is a matter of surface/opponent. Anyway almost the same could be said regarding Nadal at the Australian Open, as apart from the Wawrinka one all the finals he lost were against Djokovic/Federer.

My point is there is, surface wise, a conversation between those three against each other and another one regarding each of one them against the field. The results of both approaches are surely different.

Sticking with Federer vs. Nadal, Roger has had more bad losses at Roland Garros than Nadal did at the AO. Nadal's bad losses at the AO came in his 2 years in which he looked washed up (2015 and 2016). In fact, Nadal has a positive h2h vs. Roger at the AO (3-1), and he's had some pretty bad luck with injuries (vs. Ferrer in 2011, Stan in 2014 and Cilic in 2018). Also, and much more importantly, Nadal has never decided to skip the AO because he didn't think he'd have a chance of winning it, something Roger did with the clay season twice in a row. That says a lot right there. Also, Roger's results vs. the field at RG haven't always been stellar, as losses to Tsonga, Gulbis, Stan indicate, and let's not get started on Novak's losses there...

It's also very telling that Nadal has had much more success vs. Novak and Roger on hards than they did against him on clay, yet I don't hear many people bringing that up.

 

[Front242]

...and highlights my point perfectly about Federer and Djokovic underwhelming on clay, particularly Roger.

You realize hard court is Nadal's 2nd best surface and clay is Federer and Djokovic's worst, right? Therefore it makes perfect sense. We've been saying this for years..there is no grass masters so Federer and Djokovic haven't got the luxury of a masters on their 2nd best surface like Nadal. The masters totals would be WAY different otherwise and this is why that stat is overstated so much in Nadal's favour. He has all the clay masters on his best surface and all the hard court ones on his 2nd best surface. They have no masters on their 2nd best surface...

It is what it is but that's the reason.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You realize hard court is Nadal's 2nd best surface and clay is Federer and Djokovic's worst.

You realize you're still missing the point, right? Clay being Federer and Novak's worst surface isn't some coincidence. It's due to their inabilities to adapt their games enough to achieve better results. Grass might be Nadal's worst surface but he still managed 2 Wimbledons.

You guys treat surfaces like some unfair advantage/disadvantage. The court dimensions are the same. The net height is the same. The rules are the same. It's tennis. If Nadal is so far ahead of them on clay, that's on them, and it's a credit to him. Period. So yeah, 3 Masters for Roger on clay is actually pretty bad considering there are 3 Masters 1000 events on clay per year and he's been on tour forever. You can keep claiming it's his worst surface, and it is, but that's an indictment of him.

Why don't you use the same logic when you bring up the WTF and Nadal? You do realize indoors are his worst surface, right? And yet, his failure to adapt according to you, is a limitation in his game (I agree). Well, how does the same concept not apply to Roger? And yes, I fully realize Roger is better on clay than Nadal is indoors, nobody is disputing that.

 

[Front242]

You realize you're still missing the point, right? Clay being Federer and Novak's worst surface isn't some coincidence. It's due to their inabilities to adapt their games enough to achieve better results. Grass might be Nadal's worst surface but he still managed 2 Wimbledons.

You guys treat surfaces like some unfair advantage/disadvantage. The court dimensions are the same. The net height is the same. The rules are the same. It's tennis. If Nadal is so far ahead of them on clay, that's on them, and it's a credit to him. Period. So yeah, 3 Masters for Roger on clay is actually pretty bad considering there are 3 Masters 1000 events on clay per year and he's been on tour forever. You can keep claiming it's his worst surface, and it is, but that's an indictment of him.

Why don't you use the same logic when you bring up the WTF and Nadal? You do realize indoors are his worst surface, right? And yet, his failure to adapt according to you, is a limitation in his game (I agree). Well, how does the same concept not apply to Roger? And yes, I fully realize Roger is better on clay than Nadal is indoors, nobody is disputing that.

There's not a lot more I can add really other than your last line above which answered everything. Nadal is leagues ahead at his best on clay and Federer being the 2nd best clay player of his generation played him a ton on clay and lost. Credit to Nadal and facing him so often on clay is why he didn't win more. Roger definitely made a royal mess of Monte Carlo 2008 and the final he played against Wawrinka there which would've made up for things somewhat.

Btw...check out this shit fest haha. Spot all the glaring errors. Embarrassing..tons of tournaments listed have the wrong winners and this site is normally good.

http://www.stevegtennis.com/head-to-head/men/Roger_Federer/Rafael_Nadal/

 

[calitennis127]

It's also very telling that Nadal has had much more success vs. Novak and Roger on hards than they did against him on clay, yet I don't hear many people bringing that up.

I have brought that up all the time. I think it's a complete disgrace and that Djokovic and Federer should be ashamed of themselves.

Federer should have had a record at least close to .500 on clay against Nadal. The reason he didn't was strategic stupidity.

 

[calitennis127]

You realize hard court is Nadal's 2nd best surface and clay is Federer and Djokovic's worst, right? Therefore it makes perfect sense. We've been saying this for years..there is no grass masters so Federer and Djokovic haven't got the luxury of a masters on their 2nd best surface like Nadal. The masters totals would be WAY different otherwise and this is why that stat is overstated so much in Nadal's favour. He has all the clay masters on his best surface and all the hard court ones on his 2nd best surface. They have no masters on their 2nd best surface...

It is what it is but that's the reason.

I don't think you're putting enough blame on Federer and Djokovic for underperforming at Roland Garros and the clay MS events in general. Plus both have too many losses to Nadal.

The fact that Nadal has 12 RG titles really is a joke, and those two are the main guys to blame for that.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Sticking with Federer vs. Nadal, Roger has had more bad losses at Roland Garros than Nadal did at the AO.

Ralph had terrible losses in Wimbledon and they are not even comparable to Roger's losses in RG.

How many times in a row Ralph lost to players ranked outside 100 in Wimbledon? Kyrgios, Rosol, Brown, Darcis. I guess Muller was reasonably ranked at that time.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Apparently Switzerland has drawn UK in the ATP cup for the opening round. So, Fed will play crippled Murray. That may be a horrible site considering the way Fed beats uncrippled Murray regularly.

 

[Fiero425]

Ralph had terrible losses in Wimbledon and they are not even comparable to Roger's losses in RG.

How many times in a row Ralph lost to players ranked outside 100 in Wimbledon? Kyrgios, Rosol, Brown, Darcis. I guess Muller was reasonably ranked at that time.

The desperation's real when supporters are very selective of the numbers & facts used to assist their delusion! Forgetting this is :cuckoo:. :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

The desperation's real when supporters are very selective of the numbers & facts used to assist their delusion! Forgetting this is :cuckoo:. :whistle:

If you had any reading comprehension, you'd see that Broken was responding directly to mrzz's point about Rafa's results at the AO. Grass was opportunistically thrown in later by GSM, just to take some of the stink off of Roger's performances at RG.

 

[Moxie]

There's not a lot more I can add really other than your last line above which answered everything. Nadal is leagues ahead at his best on clay and Federer being the 2nd best clay player of his generation played him a ton on clay and lost. Credit to Nadal and facing him so often on clay is why he didn't win more. Roger definitely made a royal mess of Monte Carlo 2008 and the final he played against Wawrinka there which would've made up for things somewhat.

Btw...check out this shit fest haha. Spot all the glaring errors. Embarrassing..tons of tournaments listed have the wrong winners and this site is normally good.

http://www.stevegtennis.com/head-to-head/men/Roger_Federer/Rafael_Nadal/

Except that you failed to reply to Broken's question of why don't you apply the same logic to Nadal's failures at the WTF? As I have said before, Roger and Novak only have Rafa blocking them at RG, basically, and still they only have one title each, there. Rafa has both of them blocking him at the WTF. You absolutely avoided the question and diverted to other minor things, including how crap SteveG tennis is on the h2h of Roger v. Rafa. Wow...yes, I think they must have been hacked, or something, because that is crazy. I also think you're avoiding a point you don't want to answer.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Except that you failed to reply to Broken's question of why don't you apply the same logic to Nadal's failures at the WTF? As I have said before, Roger and Novak only have Rafa blocking them at RG, basically, and still they only have one title each, there. Rafa has both of them blocking him at the WTF. You absolutely avoided the question and diverted to other minor things, including how crap SteveG tennis is on the h2h of Roger v. Rafa. Wow...yes, I think they must have been hacked, or something, because that is crazy. I also think you're avoiding a point you don't want to answer.

If two people are blocking it means, neither of them is really particularly dominant and so it is actually a weakness and Rafa should have been able to win a WTF at least one year, considering it is not even on grass.

On the other hand, when one person is blocking, it means that person is completely dominant, as is the case with Ralph.

That is a pretty simple explanation. Isn't it?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ralph had terrible losses in Wimbledon and they are not even comparable to Roger's losses in RG.

How many times in a row Ralph lost to players ranked outside 100 in Wimbledon? Kyrgios, Rosol, Brown, Darcis. I guess Muller was reasonably ranked at that time.

Except, we're talking about Australian Open vs. FO specifically. That was the whole argument, since you know, Rafa won only one AO and Roger/Novak won only one FO each.

So yeah, that's a great point you make about this irrelevant topic. Yes, Nadal has had awful losses at Wimbledon...and still managed to win it twice. That's as many FO's as Novak and Roger have combined. So thanks for further bolstering my point.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If two people are blocking it means, neither of them is really particularly dominant and so it is actually a weakness and Rafa should have been able to win a WTF at least one year, considering it is not even on grass.

On the other hand, when one person is blocking, it means that person is completely dominant, as is the case with Ralph.

That is a pretty simple explanation. Isn't it?

This logic is pretty odd. Obviously, nobody is as dominant anywhere as Nadal is at the FO, there's no disputing that, but two people blocking it means that even if one has a bad tournament, chances are the other won't, and you'll have him standing in the way.

Anyway, Nadal's problems indoor go beyond Roger and Novak, just as their problems (which aren't as intense, admittedly) on clay go beyond Nadal...You can check out who Novak lost to at the FO historically...

Kohlschreiber, Melzer, Cechinato... Maybe you can tell us what their ranking was when they spanked him...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Except, we're talking about Australian Open vs. FO specifically. That was the whole argument, since you know, Rafa won only one AO and Roger/Novak won only one FO each.

So yeah, that's a great point you make about this irrelevant topic. Yes, Nadal has had awful losses at Wimbledon...and still managed to win it twice. That's as many FO's as Novak and Roger have combined. So thanks for further bolstering my point.

Why is it irrelevant? You want to ignore it because that is something that you don't want to talk about. Plain simple.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This logic is pretty odd. Obviously, nobody is as dominant anywhere as Nadal is at the FO, there's no disputing that, but two people blocking it means that even if one has a bad tournament, chances are the other won't, and you'll have him standing in the way.

.

Nalbandian could not win a GS, because in each GS, there were 127 people blocking him. Look, even if 126 of them have a bad tournament, one person beats him.

 

[Moxie]

Why is it irrelevant? You want to ignore it because that is something that you don't want to talk about. Plain simple.

Your reading comprehension is as poor as Fiero's. Just read back a few posts. Mrzz started the comparison with AO and Broken responded. NO ONE was talking about Wimbledon and you made an irrelevant point. Just read.

 

[Fiero425]

Nalbandian could not win a GS, because in each GS, there were 127 people blocking him. Look, even if 126 of them have a bad tournament, one person beats him.

Nalbandian was probably one of the most gifted players, but like Stan "The Man" now, he can overwhelm a top player one day, then go down to a doubles' scrub the next! My memory's failing me approaching senility, the only past match visually I can make out is him in '12 Queens; Cilic barely in the match! David is ahead, up a set, drops his own serve, and loses his mind! He kicks a sign near a linesman, it shattered, causing the guy injury, and Nalby was disqualified then and there! That's probably the only way people will take note of him 100 years from now even with his Wimbledon final and 5 set comeback against Federer in the '05 YEC Final! As much as I like his play (& looks), I couldn't say he'd ever win a major! There were tons of upsets allowing 2 baseliners to make the Wimbledon final back in '01! That was Henman's best chance to win the title for his country and he went out "in straights" to Hewitt! :whistle:

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Nalbandian was probably one of the most gifted players, but like Stan "The Man" now, he can overwhelm a top player one day, then go down to a doubles' scrub the next! My memory's failing me approaching senility, the only past match visually I can make out is him in '12 Queens; Cilic barely in the match! David is ahead, up a set, drops his own serve, and loses his mind! He kicks a sign near a linesman, it shattered, causing the guy injury, and Nalby was disqualified then and there! That's probably the only way people will take note of him 100 years from now even with his Wimbledon final and 5 set comeback against Federer in the '05 YEC Final! As much as I like his play (& looks), I couldn't say he'd ever win a major! There were tons of upsets allowing 2 baseliners to make the Wimbledon final back in '01! That's was Henman's best chance to win the title for his country and he went out "in straights" to Hewitt! :whistle:

Exactly. Mental midgets like Nalbandian were prime Federer’s main competition.

 

[Front242]

Exactly. Mental midgets like Nalbandian were prime Federer’s main competition.

Prime Nadal was his competition too you fucking dope and Nalbandian beat Federer a lot. The h2h is 11-8 to Federer meaning Nalbandian was a very good player but you're too fucking dumb to cop that. How many slam semis and finals did prime Federer face Nalbandian in and how many did he play versus prime Nadal?

Remove your head from Nadal's ass and you might be able to see clearer.