Fedalovic Wars

[rafanoy1992]

Personally, I find insisting that someone "choked away" the match to be insulting to the opponent, especially if the one on the other side of the net is an ATG. The 2014 final was tight as a drum. I'm not sure how Federer "choked" that one. It was a tough match, and he lost. I actually do think that Federer choked when he was serving for the 2019 one, with 40-15. But it's a 5-set match and he had other chances. No long match is ever really about 2 points.

Regarding about 2014 Wimbledon Final, if anything, Djokovic almost blew that match from leading 5-2 in the 4th set set.

 

[nehmeth]

Personally, I find insisting that someone "choked away" the match to be insulting to the opponent, especially if the one on the other side of the net is an ATG. The 2014 final was tight as a drum. I'm not sure how Federer "choked" that one. It was a tough match, and he lost. I actually do think that Federer choked when he was serving for the 2019 one, with 40-15. But it's a 5-set match and he had other chances. No long match is ever really about 2 points.

The point is that part of winning includes the ability to control your nerves better than your opponent. It plays a significant role in competitive tennis. I think Rafa and Novak were better at it than Fed. And Novak sh*t the bed on more than a few occasions when facing Rafa. Credit to Rafa.

 

[Jelenafan]

Again this proves the Federer fans claims that the surfaces are now interchangeable as hogwash.

Grass played a role in why Meds wasnt as effective, there are tweaks to your game to play in the highest levels at Wimbledon and Med isn’t quite there yet. He still plays it as a HC, with a passive counterpunching style a little too much.

Neither Federer, Novak, Murray or Rafa played W as another HC, they all made subtle adjustments and amped up their netgame for the grass.

 

[atttomole]

Again this proves the Federer fans claims that the surfaces are now interchangeable as hogwash.

Grass played a role in why Meds wasnt as effective, there are tweaks to your game to play in the highest levels at Wimbledon and Med isn’t quite there yet. He still plays it as a HC, with a passive counterpunching style a little too much.

Neither Federer, Novak, Murray or Rafa played W as another HC, they all made subtle adjustments and amped up their netgame for the grass.

I think you are overstating that. Fed fans say that surfaces have been slowed down, but not exactly interchangeable. These surfaces have always been different. The ball generally dies quicker and bounces lower on grass.

 

[Jelenafan]

I think you are overstating that. Fed fans say that surfaces have been slowed down, biut not exactly interchangeable. These surfaces have always been different. The ball generally dies quicker and bounces lower on grass.

Surfaces slowed down even by 2000, especially Wimbledon. Before Fed, Agassi & Lleyton Hewitt both won W with less than overwhelming serve/power games. It takes tremendous skill regardless. I guess the point of contention is some Fed fans argued that that was the only reason he didn’t win more slams. With newer improved technology in rackets/strings the counter argument is servebots would have dominated even with less than great overall skills.

 

[atttomole]

Surfaces slowed down even by 2000, especially Wimbledon. Before Fed, Agassi & Lleyton Hewitt both won W with less than overwhelming serve/power games. It takes tremendous skill regardless. I guess the point of contention is some Fed fans argued that that was the only reason he didn’t win more slams. With newer improved technology in rackets/strings the counter argument is servebots would have dominated even with less than great overall skills.

You are conflating issues here. It is known that grass had been slowed down by 2000. The likes of the US Open were slowed down later. That affected Roger of course.

The slowing down of Wimbledon and the US Open made it slow enough for players like Nadal to compete. The fairest would have been to keep Wimbledon and the US Open as fast as they were, and the other two as slow as they were. Roger would have liked his chances with a fair distribution of court speeds, especially as he got older.

 

[Moxie]

You are conflating issues here. It is known that grass had been slowed down by 2000. The likes of the US Open were slowed down later. That affected Roger of course.

The slowing down of Wimbledon and the US Open made it slow enough for players like Nadal to compete. The fairest would have been to keep Wimbledon and the US Open as fast as they were, and the other two as slow as they were. Roger would have liked his chances with a fair distribution of court speeds, especially as he got older.

You're missing his point that players like Rafa and Novak changed their game for grass. It doesn't matter so much that it slowed, but that it's still grass. The bounce is still low, the surface still slick, and, yes, pretty fast. Plus, all surfaces change with the weather, especially the natural ones. To pretend that Roger would have done better if the court speeds had been more varied is a fantasy. Wimbledon changed before he featured, and so did the USO. And carpet was gone before he had much played on it, I think. These are excuses. You play the surface available, the same as you play the competition in front of you. You love to say that Nadal wouldn't have had the same career if they hadn't slowed the grass, but how do you know? He's a very adaptable player, and he really wanted to win Wimbledon.

I think @Jelenafan's point is that you still have to change your game for grass, and Medvedev has adapted less. He pretty much refused to change court position today, and he got skunked. Proving that grass is NOT in fact the same as hard courts, or any other surface. Slower than in the 90s, but still grass. Low-bouncing, pretty fast, different footing, and a different approach is needed. I would say that Alcaraz's aggressive game translates better, anyway, and Medvedev failed to adapt today.

 

[Jelenafan]

You are conflating issues here. It is known that grass had been slowed down by 2000. The likes of the US Open were slowed down later. That affected Roger of course.

The slowing down of Wimbledon and the US Open made it slow enough for players like Nadal to compete. The fairest would have been to keep Wimbledon and the US Open as fast as they were, and the other two as slow as they were. Roger would have liked his chances with a fair distribution of court speeds, especially as he got older.

Top Champions adapt to whatever is in front of them. I recall Nadal besting Federer on what was arguably one of the fastest HC on the tour at the time, 2006 Dubai.

The USO adopted to American gray/green clay for a few years in the 70’s, 3 of the Slams used to be played on grass, etc, etc, the game is constantly changing & evolving. No one plays with wood rackets anymore.

IMO We can’t expect the game to “freeze” & stay static just because we think it will favor our chosen specific player, beside which there is no guarantee they would have won those hypothetical X number of more slams anyways.

Its rather churlish to try to diminish Rafa’s HC accomplishments with speculative coulda, woulda, shoulda.

 

[atttomole]

Top Champions adapt to whatever is in front of them. I recall Nadal besting Federer on what was arguably one of the fastest HC on the tour at the time, 2006 Dubai.

The USO adopted to American gray/green clay for a few years in the 70’s, 3 of the Slams used to be played on grass, etc, etc, the game is constantly changing & evolving. No one plays with wood rackets anymore.

IMO We can’t expect the game to “freeze” & stay static just because we think it will favor our chosen specific player, beside which there is no guarantee they would have won those hypothetical X number of more slams anyways.

Its rather churlish to try to diminish Rafa’s HC accomplishments with speculative coulda, woulda, shoulda.

I understand that the hierarchy decides on court speeds and have their own reasons for doing so. Your favorite, Petros Sampras was largely a fast court player, who won most of his titles on faster surfaces. He failed miserably at RG because he couldn’t adapt to clay.

Roger was a very similar player to Sampras, but with way more flair and variety. With a fair distribution of surface speeds as during the Sampras era, Roger would have been able to show that a versatile player could win on surfaces with very different speeds/characteristics. Roger would have won more slams for sure, even at a relatively old age. Rafa beating Roger in Dubai is too small a sample. You are grasping at straws here. Roger beat Rafa handily at the WTF, showing that surface variety does matter.

My point is Rafa and Djokovic did benefit from the surface ‘homogenization’, especially Rafa.

 

[Moxie]

The point is that part of winning includes the ability to control your nerves better than your opponent. It plays a significant role in competitive tennis. I think Rafa and Novak were better at it than Fed. And Novak sh*t the bed on more than a few occasions when facing Rafa. Credit to Rafa.

Curious as to when you think Novak "sh*t the bed" v. Rafa, implying that he had the match and blew it? Wondering which you'd put in that category.

 

[Moxie]

I understand that the hierarchy decides on court speeds and have their own reasons for doing so. Your favorite, Petros Sampras was largely a fast court player, who won most of his titles on faster surfaces. He failed miserably at RG because he couldn’t adapt to clay.

Roger was a very similar player to Sampras, but with way more flair and variety. With a fair distribution of surface speeds as during the Sampras era, Roger would have been able to show that a versatile player could win on surfaces with very different speeds/characteristics. Roger would have won more slams for sure, even at a relatively old age. Rafa beating Roger in Dubai is too small a sample. You are grasping at straws here. Roger beat Rafa handily at the WTF, showing that surface variety does matter.

Actually, Rafa beat Roger at the WTF once, and took him to 3 another time, so the Dubai was no one-off. It's you who are grasping at straws, IMO. You swear by Roger's versatility, but versatility is playing what's in front of you. Which isn't only surface speed. It's weather, it's opponent, it's pressure and the moment. You reach to an earlier era for surface speeds, and insist that it would have favored Roger, and that he'd have done better and won more, even at late age. But you fail to account for the adjustments his main rivals would have made. If you change one thing, you change everything, so you cannot speak with confidence how your "parallel universe" would have worked out. "Woulda, coulda, shoulda," as @Jelenafan rightly says.

My point is Rafa and Djokovic did benefit from the surface ‘homogenization’, especially Rafa.

It's your theory that Fed fans have been trying to put forward since forever, but it's also an excuse. Of the big 3, only Roger doesn't have the double+ Career Slam. You're willing to say that Pete couldn't adapt his game to clay, but you rather refuse to acknowledge that Rafa, in particular, adjusted his game to grass. It's not simply that the grass is slower than in Pete's day. It plays as a different surface in many ways, even today. The change from clay to grass is still short and drastic, and Rafa won the Channel Slam twice. Rafa not only beat Roger on grass at CC Wimbledon in his salad days, he nearly did it two times. Clearly, it lulls you to sleep at night to believe it's about the slowing of the grass. But it's WAY more complicated than that.

I'm sure the Admins will move this to the Fedalovic wars where it belongs. If you want to keep arguing this, you might take it to this thread:

Fedalovic Wars

Personally, I find insisting that someone "choked away" the match to be insulting to the opponent, especially if the one on the other side of the net is an ATG. The 2014 final was tight as a drum. I'm not sure how Federer "choked" that one. It was a tough match, and he lost. I actually do...

www.tennisfrontier.com

So that the admins don't have to do the work.

 

[atttomole]

Actually, Rafa beat Roger at the WTF once, and took him to 3 another time, so the Dubai was no one-off. It's you who are grasping at straws, IMO. You swear by Roger's versatility, but versatility is playing what's in front of you. Which isn't only surface speed. It's weather, it's opponent, it's pressure and the moment. You reach to an earlier era for surface speeds, and insist that it would have favored Roger, and that he'd have done better and won more, even at late age. But you fail to account for the adjustments his main rivals would have made. If you change one thing, you change everything, so you cannot speak with confidence how your "parallel universe" would have worked out. "Woulda, coulda, shoulda," as @Jelenafan rightly says.

It's your theory that Fed fans have been trying to put forward since forever, but it's also an excuse. Of the big 3, only Roger doesn't have the double+ Career Slam. You're willing to say that Pete couldn't adapt his game to clay, but you rather refuse to acknowledge that Rafa, in particular, adjusted his game to grass. It's not simply that the grass is slower than in Pete's day. It plays as a different surface in many ways, even today. The change from clay to grass is still short and drastic, and Rafa won the Channel Slam twice. Rafa not only beat Roger on grass at CC Wimbledon in his salad days, he nearly did it two times. Clearly, it lulls you to sleep at night to believe it's about the slowing of the grass. But it's WAY more complicated than that.

I'm sure the Admins will move this to the Fedalovic wars where it belongs. If you want to keep arguing this, you might take it to this thread:

Fedalovic Wars

Personally, I find insisting that someone "choked away" the match to be insulting to the opponent, especially if the one on the other side of the net is an ATG. The 2014 final was tight as a drum. I'm not sure how Federer "choked" that one. It was a tough match, and he lost. I actually do...

www.tennisfrontier.com

So that the admins don't have to do the work.

Your points are well taken. However, tennis experts like Darren Carhill have been saying for years that Wimbledon plays like a fast hard court in the second week.

Don’t forget it’s your friend Jelenafan, with his anti Federer ways, who brought this up, and I was merely responding to him. Rafa fans can bring up this nonsense and it’s OK. If Fed fans respond, then it becomes a problem.

The thing is Sampras fans are still bitter about Federer beating their hero in 2001, and were quick to embrace Nadal when it became clear that he was giving Federer problems. It is that simple. Now Nadal is their hero. Unfortunately for them, Djokovic came. These Sampras/Nadal fans are desperate to see Djokovic losing. At this point they have to cheer for everyone that plays against Djokovic.

They shouldn’t despair. Nadal can still come back to win 3 slams.

 

[Moxie]

Your points are well taken. However, tennis experts like Darren Carhill have been saying for years that Wimbledon plays like a fast hard court in the second week.

Interestingly, I've never heard that version, and would love if you could find the actual quote. I've heard Fed fans say, when the court dries out in hot weather, that it plays like "clay," sourly figuring it favored Nadal. This year, it has been noted how few worn patches there are, due to so much rain. The court is actually still very slick, too, in part because they've played so much under the roof. Grass is a natural surface, and reacts to the weather, year-in and year-out. And now the roof is another factor. You can't just complain about the composition of the grass and say that things might have been different. Again...many factors.

Don’t forget it’s your friend Jelenafan, with his anti Federer ways, who brought this up, and I was merely responding to him. Rafa fans can bring up this nonsense up and it’s OK. If Fed fans respond then it becomes a problem.

All @Jelenafan said was "Again this proves the Federer fans claims that the surfaces are now interchangeable as hogwash." He was talking about Medvedev's inability to adapt his game to grass, while Alcaraz has, which was a fair point, and within the discussion of the match at hand. It's not an "anti-Federer" comment and I don't find Jelenafan to be anti-Federer. He's saying that the Federer FANS have claimed that the surfaces have become interchangeable, and called it "hogwash," based on this particular match. Which you, as a Federer fan, are reinforcing. He's not wrong about that. There is no problem with Federer fans responding, but you will be debated if you are wrong, and I think you are.

The thing is Sampras fans are still bitter about Federer beating their hero in 2001, and were quick to embrace Nadal when it became clear that he was giving Federer problems. It is that simple. Now Nadal is their hero. Unfortunately for them, Djokovic came. These Sampras/Nadal fans are desperate to see Djokovic losing. At this point they have to cheer for everyone that plays against Djokovic.

They shouldn’t despair. Nadal can still come back to win 3 slams.

OMG, you are reaching back to ancient history. I don't think there is a single Nadal fan around here who isn't actually a Nadal fan. Even @Kieran, who loved Pete, is 100% Nadal, IMO, but I'll let him verify that. Myself, I stopped watching tennis because I didn't like Pete's game. And I didn't like Federer for much the same reason...too much dominating that it made the game boring. Most Nadal fans around here are too young to have cared about Pete. You're massaging an old grudge.

As to Djokovic, sure, it's hard for the Nadal fan to like him, in the same way that most Federer fans can't like Nadal. (Plus, there's a lot of other stuff from Djokovic that makes him unlikable, even when Federer fans hold their noses and try.) Do I root against him? I make no bones about that. But you mistake your own desperation for ours, us Rafa fans. I'm sorry that times are hard for Federer fans. You thought you had a GOAT and wanted it so badly. Your problem was investing in a GOAT, and not in the great tennis. For me, I'm happy with Nadal's career, as a fan. If he won another Major, I'd be thrilled. But, for me, there are 3 All-Time-Greats of this era, the ATGs of all time, and I'm good with that.

 

[El Dude]

I'm scratching my head a bit on that one. If anything, Rafa-Novak duels have been wars of attrition, and neither seemed to ever really "shit the bed" against each other, at least not like Roger vs. Novak at the 2019 Wimbledon (although even then, it was only momentary - unfortunately at the worst possible moment).

Without looking at the stats, my memory of most Rafvak (Nofal?) duels is that they are pretty even until one captures the momentum and just rides with it. Occasionally the momentum goes back and forth, but eventually one of them rides it until the end. On one hand, they are really fun to watch because they play such a high level and it is fun to see that going on at once. On the other, it doesn't have the nail-biting uncertainty and anything-can-happen quality that Fedal or Fedvak matches have had. Maybe this has to do with Roger's style, which is more different from the other two than they are from each other. If they are a stylistic triangle, it is an isosceles with Roger on the "far tip" and Rafa and Novak closer together.

 

[nehmeth]

Curious as to when you think Novak "sh*t the bed" v. Rafa, implying that he had the match and blew it? Wondering which you'd put in that category.

I wasn’t talking about almost won and blew it. More like 2020 RG when he went out to play, and Rafa just put him on his heels and never let him up. Novak normally has more fight back, but that’s what I mean by “ the bed”. And he’s had a few of those over the years.

 

[Kieran]

Your points are well taken. However, tennis experts like Darren Carhill have been saying for years that Wimbledon plays like a fast hard court in the second week.

Don’t forget it’s your friend Jelenafan, with his anti Federer ways, who brought this up, and I was merely responding to him. Rafa fans can bring up this nonsense and it’s OK. If Fed fans respond, then it becomes a problem.

The thing is Sampras fans are still bitter about Federer beating their hero in 2001, and were quick to embrace Nadal when it became clear that he was giving Federer problems. It is that simple. Now Nadal is their hero. Unfortunately for them, Djokovic came. These Sampras/Nadal fans are desperate to see Djokovic losing. At this point they have to cheer for everyone that plays against Djokovic.

They shouldn’t despair. Nadal can still come back to win 3 slams.

Actually when Federer beat Pete in 2001 it was disappointing but we Sampras fans were disappointed a lot on that era. Safin in Australia in 2002, Bastl at Wimbledon that year. But when Pete retired I actually thought Federer was going to be the player I’d like most, since he seemed similar to Pete. I was wrong. He wasn’t similar at all. There was nothing narcissistic about Pete. That side of him turned me off Federer. But I grew to like him when he retired and his chasing and beating Pete’s records is the natural order. You get different opportunities in different eras. This is the difference between great players across the eras. It’s impossible to say who’s greatest.

As for Novak, what’s to like there? He’s got a very shady character, but he’s also a great modern player who’s not Nadal. Of course we’ll cheer against him…

 

[atttomole]

Actually when Federer beat Pete in 2001 it was disappointing but we Sampras fans were disappointed a lot on that era. Safin in Australia in 2002, Bastl at Wimbledon that year. But when Pete retired I actually thought Federer was going to be the player I’d like most, since he seemed similar to Pete. I was wrong. He wasn’t similar at all. There was nothing narcissistic about Pete. That side of him turned me off Federer. But I grew to like him when he retired and his chasing and beating Pete’s records is the natural order. You get different opportunities in different eras. This is the difference between great players across the eras. It’s impossible to say who’s greatest.

As for Novak, what’s to like there? He’s got a very shady character, but he’s also a great modern player who’s not Nadal. Of course we’ll cheer against him…

You can hide it as much as you like, but your dislike of Federer comes from Wimbledon 2001, and Federer subsequently breaking Pete!s records. Nadal was like manna from heaven for you. Nadal saved tennis for sure!!

Nadal fans would like us to think that they don’t care about the records, but their desperation is palpable, with Djokovic threatening to break most records.

I disliked Djokovic, especially when he was an upstart. The things he used to say about Federer and the way his parents behaved. With time, I began to appreciate his game. It’s clear that Djokovic has an imposing all-court game, which is rare. I could care less about his desire to be liked by fans.

 

[atttomole]

Interestingly, I've never heard that version, and would love if you could find the actual quote. I've heard Fed fans say, when the court dries out in hot weather, that it plays like "clay," sourly figuring it favored Nadal. This year, it has been noted how few worn patches there are, due to so much rain. The court is actually still very slick, too, in part because they've played so much under the roof. Grass is a natural surface, and reacts to the weather, year-in and year-out. And now the roof is another factor. You can't just complain about the composition of the grass and say that things might have been different. Again...many factors.

All @Jelenafan said was "Again this proves the Federer fans claims that the surfaces are now interchangeable as hogwash." He was talking about Medvedev's inability to adapt his game to grass, while Alcaraz has, which was a fair point, and within the discussion of the match at hand. It's not an "anti-Federer" comment and I don't find Jelenafan to be anti-Federer. He's saying that the Federer FANS have claimed that the surfaces have become interchangeable, and called it "hogwash," based on this particular match. Which you, as a Federer fan, are reinforcing. He's not wrong about that. There is no problem with Federer fans responding, but you will be debated if you are wrong, and I think you are.

OMG, you are reaching back to ancient history. I don't think there is a single Nadal fan around here who isn't actually a Nadal fan. Even @Kieran, who loved Pete, is 100% Nadal, IMO, but I'll let him verify that. Myself, I stopped watching tennis because I didn't like Pete's game. And I didn't like Federer for much the same reason...too much dominating that it made the game boring. Most Nadal fans around here are too young to have cared about Pete. You're massaging an old grudge.

As to Djokovic, sure, it's hard for the Nadal fan to like him, in the same way that most Federer fans can't like Nadal. (Plus, there's a lot of other stuff from Djokovic that makes him unlikable, even when Federer fans hold their noses and try.) Do I root against him? I make no bones about that. But you mistake your own desperation for ours, us Rafa fans. I'm sorry that times are hard for Federer fans. You thought you had a GOAT and wanted it so badly. Your problem was investing in a GOAT, and not in the great tennis. For me, I'm happy with Nadal's career, as a fan. If he won another Major, I'd be thrilled. But, for me, there are 3 All-Time-Greats of this era, the ATGs of all time, and I'm good with that.

You maybe different, but a lot of Nadal fans here are erstwhile Sampras fans. Check again. You have been on these boards long enough and you couldn’t see how much Jelenafab dislikes Federer. But it is not surprising because you are a Nadal fan.

I disliked Djokovic earlier in his career. Over the years I have come to appreciate his all-court game. I like Djokovic. Technically he is the best after Federer in the last 20 years. It’s about my tastes. I like beautiful tennis!!

 

[Kieran]

You can hide it as much as you like, but your dislike of Federer comes from Wimbledon 2001, and Federer subsequently breaking Pete!s records. Nadal was like manna from heaven for you. Nadal saved tennis for sure!!

Nadal fans would like us to think that they don’t care about the records, but their desperation is palpable, with Djokovic threatening to break most records.

I disliked Djokovic, especially when he was an upstart. The things he used to say about Federer and the way his parents behaved. With time, I began to appreciate his game. It’s clear that Djokovic has an imposing all-court game, which is rare. I could care less about his desire to be liked by fans.

I don’t hide from anyone on forums, you should know that by now. You’re thinking of the Djokolytes.

And you can play amateur psychologist all you like but you’ll find that your couch is empty, because there’s nobody lying there for you to analyse.

Bear this in mind when it comes to “caring about records” that I’m the first - and I think so far only - Rafa fan to argue and complain that his FO record is inflated. Imagine that. The reason has been stated several times here, and the reason is the same reason I gave when I argued that so the Big 3 records are inflated and will only be put in proper context decades from now. It’s largely to do with the field, who have been compliant and complicit for 20 years now, and also to do with the changes made to the game about 20 odd years ago, which created better opportunities for the best players to thrive everywhere.

As for Roger, I told you above that I thought he might actually become my next player after Pete until I found his humblebrag, self regarding personality too much to bear. But your logic is faulty anyway, because I was first into Bjorn Borg as a tennis hero, and when Pete began to break records in the 90’s, I didn’t think less of Pete, or Bjorn.

I actually agree with you about Novak, and his tennis abilities are bringing the sport to a new high, a new audience, the way Rafa and Roger did…

 

[atttomole]

I don’t hide from anyone on forums, you should know that by now. You’re thinking of the Djokolytes.

And you can play amateur psychologist all you like but you’ll find that your couch is empty, because there’s nobody lying there for you to analyse.

Bear this in mind when it comes to “caring about records” that I’m the first - and I think so far only - Rafa fan to argue and complain that his FO record is inflated. Imagine that. The reason has been stated several times here, and the reason is the same reason I gave when I argued that so the Big 3 records are inflated and will only be put in proper context decades from now. It’s largely to do with the field, who have been compliant and complicit for 20 years now, and also to do with the changes made to the game about 20 odd years ago, which created better opportunities for the best players to thrive everywhere.

As for Roger, I told you above that I thought he might actually become my next player after Pete until I found his humblebrag, self regarding personality too much to bear. But your logic is faulty anyway, because I was first into Bjorn Borg as a tennis hero, and when Pete began to break records in the 90’s, I didn’t think less of Pete, or Bjorn.

I actually agree with you about Novak, and his tennis abilities are bringing the sport to a new high, a new audience, the way Rafa and Roger did…

To be more specific, according to you, Federer's records are inflated because the field was threadbare. In addition, according to you, the field is now even weaker, which explains Djokovic's dominance. You want to convince us that Djokovic hasn't had to do much recently to win grand slams, but that doesn't apply to Nadal. When convenient, you will say that it applies to all the big 3. Nadal's titles were won playing against a tough field, right?