DarthFed said:
Why do I think you are giving Robredo more credit than is due? Your Spanish fever is why.
There is no career to denigrate, fact of the matter is this is basically someone who has absolutely no game on an HC and very little game period. That's not slander. Would you be happier if I said Roger's H2H with Robredo is just "OK?" 10-1 isn't a disaster I suppose though no reason one wouldn't assume he should win all 11.
Well, when you said "two words," before, how was I supposed to know that the second word was "fever?" :laydownlaughing I know you think I favor Spanish players, but I have no feelings for Robredo. My point is not that Robredo should be given any more credit than he has been, just that you can't slag off every single player that beats Roger as equally lame. I understand the point that, as a Federer fan, you feel that the losses are fairly equivalently bad. (Broken says the same.) However, I think you're both wrong in making equivalent the quality of the opponent that he lost to.
Broken_Shoelace said:
OK, let's be clear about one thing, if we're going to argue that Fed's loss to Robredo was shameful (and I think it is, to be honest), then I don't want to hear the same people argue that Rosol/Darcis would have beaten anyone that day and "Rafa has always been garbage in the first week of Wimbledon" (which isn't totally true by the way, but I digress), or that no version of Nadal could have beaten Rosol.
I'm actually in the camp that believes Federer should never lose in a slam to Tommy Robredo, under any circumstances. If it sounds harsh or disrespectful to Robredo, then sorry, but that's life. However, I apply the same standards to Nadal losing to Rosol/Darcis.
You can apply the same standards to Rosol/Darcis and even Stakhovsky, but it doesn't make them players of the same pedigree as Robredo. None of them is even close. I understand the notion that Federer losing to Tommy in a (QF?) at a Slam on HC is a huge upset, and very bad, from the point of view of Roger or his fans, but the match can be taken from the opponent's perspective, which is that a mature player, former top 10, who has seen Federer's game 11 times, and who is on a momentum and confidence swing, whereas Roger is not, commits to his game plan and beats the Master. This is NOT the same as a lower-100s player swinging for the fences and hoping for the best. They ALL had a very very good day, that is for sure, but I would argue that the one who had been top 10 could claim that perhaps there was more than luck involved. Stakhovsky won in the 2nd round, which you could argue was just a journeyman throwing everything at it. And it was also catching a top player early. Robredo not only got to the quarterfinals, he beat Roger when he wasn't likely to be caught off-guard. I would argue that was harder to do, and therefore also not equivalent.
Front242 said:
Kind of a no brainer too in that he didn't even win a set against Robredo on one of his best surfaces to a guy he never lost to before, whereas he lost a very close match to Stakhovsky and won a set and both the set he won and sets he lost were decided by a few points in TBs and one game in the 3rd. Doesn't get much closer than 6-7(5), 7-6(5), 7-5, 7-6(5). His performance against Robredo on the other hand was abysmal.
Stakhovsky has no more pedigree on grass than Robredo has on HCs, and a far thinner resume, overall. The only difference, in the eyes of the Federer fan, is Roger's performance. But in general terms, Robredo has a much finer resume, and therefore, would have been expected to test Roger much more than Stakhovsky.
My objection, Darth, (and to some extent Front and Broken,) is that Roger isn't the only player in the equation, and I don't think it's fair to paint every opponent who's beaten him with the same "Lame-O" "How could you possibly-O" brush.
