Federer, Nadal, and the question of GOATness in general...

[brokenshoelace]

I don’t disagree that Rafa in the final is a bigger deal. My point is that there is no comparison whatsoever. Moxie is forever trying to find equivalence where there is none. If she wants to criticise those who try to diminish Rafs’s win then I’m on her side, but after that she lost me

Yeah I have to agree there.

 

[MartyB]

Yes he did but you don’t know next time, Nadal is a good student

I feel very comfortable with Fed's backhand against Nadal the next time they meet. I'm aware that Nadal is a good student but Fed is a very good teacher. LoL

 

[Front242]

Indeed...it was the greatest match of all time, though I know you mostly don't like it to be called that. But at least you admit the import. And you piss and moan a lot about matches that Roger lost to Rafa, in particular, and others, but you admit no ground for the ones that Rafa lost by a small bit, which we might also have reason to regret for the if-but-for. According to Fed fans, Roger lost his chances at the USO last year and for YE#1 because his back went, but no admitting that if Rafa's back hadn't gone, in the final of the AO v. Wawrinka, he'd have had that one. I'm only arguing about inconsistencies. For you lot, Roger is the golden child, and whatever he lost was a tragic misstep. Whatever Rafa lost was due to his lack of talent, in your minds. I'll just let that sink in while you consider how to continue justifying.

Impossible to compare Nadal's AO 2014 loss in the final to Wawrinka with Federer's loss to Del Potro at last year's USO because Nadal's injury occurred only in the final whereas Federer entered the tournament with a bad back before it started and promptly went on to play like crap and go 5 sets with Tiafoe and Youzhny. Simply no comparison there.

 

[DarthFed]

Indeed...it was the greatest match of all time, though I know you mostly don't like it to be called that. But at least you admit the import. And you piss and moan a lot about matches that Roger lost to Rafa, in particular, and others, but you admit no ground for the ones that Rafa lost by a small bit, which we might also have reason to regret for the if-but-for. According to Fed fans, Roger lost his chances at the USO last year and for YE#1 because his back went, but no admitting that if Rafa's back hadn't gone, in the final of the AO v. Wawrinka, he'd have had that one. I'm only arguing about inconsistencies. For you lot, Roger is the golden child, and whatever he lost was a tragic misstep. Whatever Rafa lost was due to his lack of talent, in your minds. I'll just let that sink in while you consider how to continue justifying.

There's nothing to admit regarding Nadal at that AO. He was down a set and a break to a red hot player who had just taken out the greatest player in AO history. Saying he definitely would've won is ridiculous. I wouldn't even say that a healthy Roger definitely takes out DP at USO last year but the odds are way better than that of a Nadal comeback in the 2014 final. A decent version of Roger takes out the DP of last year 90% of the time.

Rafa has made a lot more of his opportunities than Roger if we are talking conversion %. Fed has made 43 GS semis and Nadal has only made something like 26. Rafa has won the vast majority of close matches between himself and Fed. Roger has done better in the close matches and 5 setters the past few years but career wise he is way behind Nadal, Djoker and others in that regard. All this points to Fed being by far the most dominant/best player in history but greatness is still not a closed book if Mr. Blue-Collar has anything to say about it.

 

[the AntiPusher]

There's nothing to admit regarding Nadal at that AO. He was down a set and a break to a red hot player who had just taken out the greatest player in AO history. Saying he definitely would've won is ridiculous. I wouldn't even say that a healthy Roger definitely takes out DP at USO last year but the odds are way better than that of a Nadal comeback in the 2014 final. A decent version of Roger takes out the DP of last year 90% of the time.

Rafa has made a lot more of his opportunities than Roger if we are talking conversion %. Fed has made 43 GS semis and Nadal has only made something like 26. Rafa has won the vast majority of close matches between himself and Fed. Roger has done better in the close matches and 5 setters the past few years but career wise he is way behind Nadal, Djoker and others in that regard. All this points to Fed being by far the most dominant/best player in history but greatness is still not a closed book if Mr. Blue-Collar has anything to say about it.

Doesn’t matter how you slice it Darth..Roger may regret one day that he didn’t feel confident enough to try to defeat Rafa at RG during his latest phase of his brilliant career.

 

[Carol]

I feel very comfortable with Fed's backhand against Nadal the next time they meet. I'm aware that Nadal is a good student but Fed is a very good teacher. LoL

Or maybe Nadal is also a good teacher and that’s why Federer had to improve his backhand? LOL

 

[DarthFed]

Doesn’t matter how you slice it Darth..Roger may regret one day that he didn’t feel confident enough to try to defeat Rafa at RG during his latest phase of his brilliant career.

Not if he hits 10-11 Wimbledon's which is the point where I stop complaining about him underachieving at that event. The 3 losses in finals is still ludicrous but if he hits 10 or 11 that's phenomenal.

 

[Federberg]

Doesn’t matter how you slice it Darth..Roger may regret one day that he didn’t feel confident enough to try to defeat Rafa at RG during his latest phase of his brilliant career.

I almost want to ask why he would regret it, but asking that question would completely ignore the fact that Roger isn't avoiding RG because of Rafa. If it makes you feel better to think that mate then keep going with that. The guy is old, he wants to maximise his chances of winning the slam that matters the most to him - Wimbledon - this isn't rocket science but I get why you would want to tie anything he does into a Rafa narrative. It's sad and insecure, but entirely understandable

 

[brokenshoelace]

Doesn’t matter how you slice it Darth..Roger may regret one day that he didn’t feel confident enough to try to defeat Rafa at RG during his latest phase of his brilliant career.

Ummm no he won't. Pretty sure Federer isn't confident because he has no reason to be. He's not going to beat Nadal at RG at this stage in his career. Pretty sure he has 10 reasons not to play in Paris.

 

[brokenshoelace]

. The guy is old, he wants to maximise his chances of winning the slam that matters the most to him - Wimbledon -

Not the slam that "matters the most," but the slam he feels he has the best chance to win. I'm sure Roger has more emotional attachment to Wimbledon than any other slam, but I don't think that emotional attachment alone is a reason for him to skip an entire clay season, including a major. He's just wisely playing the percentages: RG is the major he has the least chances to win (and his chances are really not good, and it's not only because of Nadal), while Wimbledon is the major he has the best chance to win. As you said he's old, and he has to take care of his body. He tried this strategy last season and it worked beautifully so there really is no reason to change this year. In fact, he'd be stupid to.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The other thing to take into account re: Federer skipping the clay season is simply preparation. It's not just that he's old and doesn't like his chances at RG, but also, the shift from clay to grass is a bit extreme, and the grass court season is way too short. So skipping play to get early grass preparation is invaluable for those who can afford it.

 

[Federberg]

Not the slam that "matters the most," but the slam he feels he has the best chance to win. I'm sure Roger has more emotional attachment to Wimbledon than any other slam, but I don't think that emotional attachment alone is a reason for him to skip an entire clay season, including a major. He's just wisely playing the percentages: RG is the major he has the least chances to win (and his chances are really not good, and it's not only because of Nadal), while Wimbledon is the major he has the best chance to win. As you said he's old, and he has to take care of his body. He tried this strategy last season and it worked beautifully so there really is no reason to change this year. In fact, he'd be stupid to.

Probably a bit of both. Your secondary point that he almost certainly doesn’t go far enough to even face Rafa is true. But it’s more than that. I don’t believe he wants to jeopardise his chances at winning Wimbledon by wasting time on clay. To me that’s the key point

 

[the AntiPusher]

I almost want to ask why he would regret it, but asking that question would completely ignore the fact that Roger isn't avoiding RG because of Rafa. If it makes you feel better to think that mate then keep going with that. The guy is old, he wants to maximise his chances of winning the slam that matters the most to him - Wimbledon - this isn't rocket science but I get why you would want to tie anything he does into a Rafa narrative. It's sad and insecure, but entirely understandable

Rafa could use the same narrative about Wimbledon..He is older, the temperatures there are damp and chilly at times, playing on a surface that he may not feel secure about his footing..why should Rafa risk injuries especially afterwards a grueling campaign at RG on the tired clay courts.. Yeah, as you say it ain’t rocket science , its just bullSh#t.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Rafa could use the same narrative about Wimbledon..He is older, the temperatures there are damp and chilly at times, playing on a surface that he may not feel secure about his footing..why should Rafa risk injuries especially afterwards a grueling campaign at RG on the tired clay courts.. Yeah, as you say it ain’t rocket science , its just bullSh#t.

lol this logic is ridiculous. Roger is skipping an entire part of the season to rest, not one tournament. That's significant for his body and his preparation. Moreover, why would Nadal skip Wimbledon? To save his body for the US Open which doesn't start until two months later? The gap between the grueling clay court season and Wimbledon is significantly shorter.

 

[Carol]

I understand that around 30's they can skip some tournaments and I think they should but not the whole season of one surface, I think is silly unless they are injured.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah I have to agree there.

Nice. I thought you guys were my friends and listened to arguments. You agreed with me that Nadal's back at the AO '14 meant more, being a final, but then @Federberg disagreed, and you caved. Why? My friend federberg is a fair-minded guy, but he doesn't reflect the only Fed fan opinion, by a long shot. Darth complains that the 2008 was an "inexcusable loss." Fairly rude on Rafa's participation. I'm just saying that, if Darth and other Fed fans can claim so much how he's that unbeatable, except by himself, that we Rafa fans have a right to some of that as well. It's an arrogant proposal, at times. I know @Federberg has tried hard not to play the "what if" card as to last year. However, some other Federer fans have not been so even-handed. It's not that anyone stated out-right that Roger would have won the USO or gotten the YE#1, (the fine point that Federberg lives and dies on,) it's that they have said it, over and over again. You can live on the technicality that you didn't "actually" say something, but if you say it enough times, it becomes a "true-ism." This is the trope of last year and tell me I'm wrong: Roger shouldn't have reached for YE#1 by playing Montreal. Hurt his back. Screwed his chances for USO and YE#1. Nadal had a cupcake draw at USO. Only got YE#1 because he wins everything on clay. Tell me which part of this is not the same excuse-making that some blame Nadal fans for.

 

[Moxie]

There's nothing to admit regarding Nadal at that AO. He was down a set and a break to a red hot player who had just taken out the greatest player in AO history. Saying he definitely would've won is ridiculous. I wouldn't even say that a healthy Roger definitely takes out DP at USO last year but the odds are way better than that of a Nadal comeback in the 2014 final. A decent version of Roger takes out the DP of last year 90% of the time.

Rafa has made a lot more of his opportunities than Roger if we are talking conversion %. Fed has made 43 GS semis and Nadal has only made something like 26. Rafa has won the vast majority of close matches between himself and Fed. Roger has done better in the close matches and 5 setters the past few years but career wise he is way behind Nadal, Djoker and others in that regard. All this points to Fed being by far the most dominant/best player in history but greatness is still not a closed book if Mr. Blue-Collar has anything to say about it.

Firstly, I've never said that Rafa would definitely have won that match. Ever. But if you're going to compare his chances v. Roger and del Potro at the '17 USO, Rafa comes out the better by a long stretch. Before that final in AO '14, Stan had lost some 11, I think, times to Rafa, and hadn't won a set. JMDP, by comparison, had beaten Roger at the USO in a final. This is not comparable. The odds of a healthy Nadal beating Stan, v. Roger beating delPo, even healthy...well, you look at it. You're a betting man.

 

[DarthFed]

Firstly, I've never said that Rafa would definitely have won that match. Ever. But if you're going to compare his chances v. Roger and del Potro at the '17 USO, Rafa comes out the better by a long stretch. Before that final in AO '14, Stan had lost some 11, I think, times to Rafa, and hadn't won a set. JMDP, by comparison, had beaten Roger at the USO in a final. This is not comparable. The odds of a healthy Nadal beating Stan, v. Roger beating delPo, even healthy...well, you look at it. You're a betting man.

Read your earlier post again. Apparently we are supposed to admit that if Rafa's back hasn't gone he would've had that one.

And there isnt any comparison here, Rafa's back gave out when he was down a set and a break whereas Roger clearly entered the USO with issues. And how many times did Stan beat Nole before that AO? The answer is "0" and we know Djokovic on slow hards is way beyond Nadal. Meanwhile the DP that beat Roger last year is not anywhere near as good as the 2009 version or even the Stan of 2014-present.

 

[Moxie]

Read your earlier post again. Apparently we are supposed to admit that if Rafa's back hasn't gone he would've had that one.

And there isnt any comparison here, Rafa's back gave out when he was down a set and a break whereas Roger clearly entered the USO with issues. And how many times did Stan beat Nole before that AO? The answer is "0" and we know Djokovic on slow hards is way beyond Nadal. Meanwhile the DP that beat Roger last year is not anywhere near as good as the 2009 version or even the Stan of 2014-present.

I have never said that Rafa would otherwise have won that match. At most, I'm just challenging you on what we can presume on a bad back, and under what circumstances. I agree that there is no comparison, but with a different conclusion. Nadal was playing a final. He was 3 sets away from the title. Roger's back had him many sets and circumstances away from his goal. It's really not even equivalent. Plus, I will remind you of what our old friend Kieran said about that AO final: Nadal was down a set and a break. Roger was down a set and a break to Baghdatis at the AO a few years before. No reason to keep watching then, eh?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nice. I thought you guys were my friends and listened to arguments. You agreed with me that Nadal's back at the AO '14 meant more, being a final, but then @Federberg disagreed, and you caved.

Simple: I agree that Nadal hurting his back in a major final is a bigger, more tangible deal, and more unfortunate, but also agree with Federberg that bringing it up re: Federer at the US Open is false equivalency and a bit forced.