Gerry Weber Open (Halle) 9-15 June 2014

[DarthFed]

Just like Rafa relies on the grass to wear down and play drastically slower. Only reason Rafa has won Wimbledon...but I bet Rafa and his uncle won't thank the directors for changing it to suit his game. On the flip side I doubt Roger is stuck on 7 Wimbledons if the grass suited his game.

Roger's not "stuck on 7 Wimbledons": 7 is the record, and he's done very well to get it. The grass obviously suits his game very well.

As for the grass wearing down to help Rafa, they used to say exactly the same thing about Borg...

7 is the record, and whose to say he couldn't/shouldn't have won more?

He couldn't have won more because he didn't win more. He shouldn't have won more because the one year he got close to winning but lost, he was vastly outplayed and was lucky to make it to 5. Hell, you could argue he could have had LESS if Nadal hadn't blown it the previous year. This cuts both ways.

Also, please, just because slower grass suited Roger's main rival and he was able to take away from him ONE Wimbledon trophy, doesn't mean it didn't suit Roger a lot because in his prime, he was by far the best baseliner int he world and his game worked PERFECTLY on slower grass. The blend of movement, point construction, forehand, attacking the net and efficient serving worked perfectly on slower grass. Roger would probably not have played that way on faster grass (as evidenced by 2003 in which he won Wimbledon by pure serve and volley), and there is no way in hell you can claim with any degree of certainty that faster grass would have won him more than 7 titles. Even if he didn't play pure serve and volley.

You're better than this nonsense.

Can't say he would have won more and sure can't say he wouldn't have. We are talking a faster and slower surface especially in the 2nd week and that undoubtedly plays more to Roger's strength. His serve is even more deadly and his backhand becomes a weapon. The game itself changed in the early 00's, even if the grass was faster Roger would not still be playing S&V tennis on any surface.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well he sure lost Wimbledon 2008 set 2 due to mental issues. Up 4-1. He's clearly got a mental block against Nadal and he's blown huge leads tons of times and not because of amazing play from Nadal either.

They played 3 times at Wimbledon. Here's how it went:

2006: Nadal serves for the second set to tie it, chokes, loses the set in a tie-break. Loses the match in 4.
2007: Nadal is up by a double break in the 4th with all the momentum after generally outplaying Roger from behind the baseline for much of the set. Nadal injures his knee, calls a medical timeout up 4-0 in the 4th. Blows 4 break point opportunities in two different game in the 5th set. Loses. Federer's reaction: "I got lucky." You can call it good sportsmanship by Roger, but there was an element of truth in his statement.
2008: Nadal is up two sets, 3-3 in the third, and has 0-40 on Federer's serve. Blows 3 break points. Loses the set. In the 4th set, he has two match points in the tie-break, one on his own serve. Doesn't convert. Wins the match anyway.

So please, a little objectivity, fact checking, and remind yourself that Roger has beaten Rafa more than Rafa has beaten him at Wimbledon, when it could have easily been the other way around.

Who said I was talking mental block and blowing leads on grass? He's done it on every surface and not 'cos of great play from Nadal either. I was actually watching this shambles there.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUqMndV8YLc&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

That's because I didn't think someone would STILL bother to play what ifs and lament Roger's losses to Nadal on other surfaces after all the times they've played. So I assumed you were limiting the conversation to grass to have a better case

 

[Front242]

Why has he got a mental block against Rafa, Front?

I've no idea but he clearly does unless you think the way he often gets well ahead in sets and then plays like a total donkey is all because of Nadal 'cos most people watching who are fans of neither would tell you that's laughable.

 

[Ricardo]

Well that's a first, a player didn't realize he won the match, and it happens to be Roger!!

not sure how much his heart was in it, name a player who doesn't know that he's won a match.... do older men really become forgetful :snigger

 

[Ricardo]

Why has he got a mental block against Rafa, Front?

I've no idea but he clearly does unless you think the way he often gets well ahead in sets and then plays like a total donkey is all because of Nadal 'cos most people watching who are fans of neither would tell you that's laughable.

he knows there is the matchup issue, what else can it be?

 

[DarthFed]

Well he sure lost Wimbledon 2008 set 2 due to mental issues. Up 4-1. He's clearly got a mental block against Nadal and he's blown huge leads tons of times and not because of amazing play from Nadal either.

They played 3 times at Wimbledon. Here's how it went:

2006: Nadal serves for the second set to tie it, chokes, loses the set in a tie-break. Loses the match in 4.

2007: Nadal is up by a double break in the 4th with all the momentum after generally outplaying Roger from behind the baseline for much of the match. Nadal injures his knee, calls a medical timeout up 4-0 in the 4th. Blows 4 break point opportunities in two different games in the 5th set. Loses. Federer's reaction: "I got lucky." You can call it good sportsmanship by Roger, but there was an element of truth in his statement.

2008: Nadal is up two sets, 3-3 in the third, and has 0-40 on Federer's serve. Blows 3 break points. Loses the set. In the 4th set, he has two match points in the tie-break, one on his own serve. Doesn't convert. Wins the match anyway.

So please, a little objectivity, fact checking, and remind yourself that Roger has beaten Rafa more than Rafa has beaten him at Wimbledon, when it could have easily been the other way around.

I guess we won't bring up the fact that Rafa was never leading the 2007 match similar to Roger never leading 2008. And we also shouldn't bring up the fact that Roger was 1-12 on break points, blew a 4-1 lead with the greatest ease in the 2nd set, blew break points to start the 3rd, and blew his only break point in the 5th before blinking early. Roger shouldn't be happy with 2-1 over Rafa at Wimbledon, it ain't the least bit respectable, just ask Rosol and Darcis.

 

[DarthFed]

Well that's a first, a player didn't realize he won the match, and it happens to be Roger!!

not sure how much his heart was in it, name a player who doesn't know that he's won a match.... do older men really become forgetful :snigger

Yeah, I was wondering what was going on. It's like, "am I missing something here" and the commentators weren't saying anything either.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why has he got a mental block against Rafa, Front?

I've no idea but he clearly does unless you think the way he often gets well ahead in sets and then plays like a total donkey is all because of Nadal 'cos most people watching who are fans of neither would tell you that's laughable.

Of course he has a mental block against Nadal.

But here's the question: Would you develop a mental block about someone if he doesn't beat you regularly? So why has this person beaten you regularly before you developed this mental block? Or did he have it before they ever played? Because that would be quite weird.

 

[Ricardo]

Well he sure lost Wimbledon 2008 set 2 due to mental issues. Up 4-1. He's clearly got a mental block against Nadal and he's blown huge leads tons of times and not because of amazing play from Nadal either.

They played 3 times at Wimbledon. Here's how it went:

2006: Nadal serves for the second set to tie it, chokes, loses the set in a tie-break. Loses the match in 4.

2007: Nadal is up by a double break in the 4th with all the momentum after generally outplaying Roger from behind the baseline for much of the match. Nadal injures his knee, calls a medical timeout up 4-0 in the 4th. Blows 4 break point opportunities in two different games in the 5th set. Loses. Federer's reaction: "I got lucky." You can call it good sportsmanship by Roger, but there was an element of truth in his statement.

2008: Nadal is up two sets, 3-3 in the third, and has 0-40 on Federer's serve. Blows 3 break points. Loses the set. In the 4th set, he has two match points in the tie-break, one on his own serve. Doesn't convert. Wins the match anyway.

So please, a little objectivity, fact checking, and remind yourself that Roger has beaten Rafa more than Rafa has beaten him at Wimbledon, when it could have easily been the other way around.

I guess we won't bring up the fact that Rafa was never leading the 2007 match similar to Roger never leading 2008. And we also shouldn't bring up the fact that Roger was 1-12 on break points, blew a 4-1 lead with the greatest ease in the 2nd set, blew break points to start the 3rd, and blew his only break point in the 5th before blinking early. Roger shouldn't be happy with 2-1 over Rafa at Wimbledon, it ain't the least bit respectable, just ask Rosol and Darcis.

combining you two would make it objective, they both blew break point chances but Roger probably did more.

 

[Front242]

Why has he got a mental block against Rafa, Front?

I've no idea but he clearly does unless you think the way he often gets well ahead in sets and then plays like a total donkey is all because of Nadal 'cos most people watching who are fans of neither would tell you that's laughable.

Of course he has a mental block against Nadal.

But here's the question: Would you develop a mental block about someone if he doesn't beat you regularly? So why has this person beaten you regularly before you developed this mental block? Or did he have it before they ever played? Because that would be quite weird.

He only has himself to blame. He shouldn't have beaten him so much as he has and Nadal fans know this and must feel quite lucky to have had a rival who p1$$ed away so many matches.

 

[Ricardo]

Why has he got a mental block against Rafa, Front?

I've no idea but he clearly does unless you think the way he often gets well ahead in sets and then plays like a total donkey is all because of Nadal 'cos most people watching who are fans of neither would tell you that's laughable.

Of course he has a mental block against Nadal.

But here's the question: Would you develop a mental block about someone if he doesn't beat you regularly? So why has this person beaten you regularly before you developed this mental block? Or did he have it before they ever played? Because that would be quite weird.

when two players of similar level and one sorta owns the other, it sounds like a matchup issue.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well he sure lost Wimbledon 2008 set 2 due to mental issues. Up 4-1. He's clearly got a mental block against Nadal and he's blown huge leads tons of times and not because of amazing play from Nadal either.

They played 3 times at Wimbledon. Here's how it went:

2006: Nadal serves for the second set to tie it, chokes, loses the set in a tie-break. Loses the match in 4.

2007: Nadal is up by a double break in the 4th with all the momentum after generally outplaying Roger from behind the baseline for much of the match. Nadal injures his knee, calls a medical timeout up 4-0 in the 4th. Blows 4 break point opportunities in two different games in the 5th set. Loses. Federer's reaction: "I got lucky." You can call it good sportsmanship by Roger, but there was an element of truth in his statement.

2008: Nadal is up two sets, 3-3 in the third, and has 0-40 on Federer's serve. Blows 3 break points. Loses the set. In the 4th set, he has two match points in the tie-break, one on his own serve. Doesn't convert. Wins the match anyway.

So please, a little objectivity, fact checking, and remind yourself that Roger has beaten Rafa more than Rafa has beaten him at Wimbledon, when it could have easily been the other way around.

I guess we won't bring up the fact that Rafa was never leading the 2007 match similar to Roger never leading 2008. And we also shouldn't bring up the fact that Roger was 1-12 on break points, blew a 4-1 lead with the greatest ease in the 2nd set, blew break points to start the 3rd, and blew his only break point in the 5th before blinking early. Roger shouldn't be happy with 2-1 over Rafa at Wimbledon, it ain't the least bit respectable, just ask Rosol and Darcis.

Show me where I implied that Nadal was leading in 2007. I clearly laid out exactly what happened. I said Nadal had break points in the fifth when they were tied. In two different games. Which means if he'd actually convert in one of them, he WOULD lead, and would have to hold serve 3 times to win the match (note: Roger hadn't broken him since the second game of the entire match). I hope that's a more accurate portrayal of the match.

Bring up whatever you want about 2008. We both know who was ahead that match since the word go (mentally, physically, level-wise, and score wise). Also, a quick youtube search reveals that Roger's break point of the fifth set in that match was saved via: Nadal angled serve out wide. Federer hits a deep return that forces Nadal to move backwards while sending a inside out forehand that Federer can barely retrieve, before putting away the overhead. Hardly a "blown" point for Federer.

 

[DarthFed]

Rafa earned the mental block but it was up to Roger to overcome it and to say he has done a bad job of it is the understatement of the century. Roger's main problem was he let the clay disasters of 2008 play in his mind and it made him weak for Wimbledon 08 and it has snowballed since then.

 

[Front242]

Rafa earned the mental block but it was up to Roger to overcome it and to say he has done a bad job of it is the understatement of the century. Roger's main problem was he let the clay disasters of 2008 play in his mind and it made him weak for Wimbledon 08 and it has snowballed since then.

Yup. Monte Carlo 2008 and RG 2008 started the downward spiral and it's when the mental block began. The Monte Carlo loss was pitiful.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why has he got a mental block against Rafa, Front?

I've no idea but he clearly does unless you think the way he often gets well ahead in sets and then plays like a total donkey is all because of Nadal 'cos most people watching who are fans of neither would tell you that's laughable.

Of course he has a mental block against Nadal.

But here's the question: Would you develop a mental block about someone if he doesn't beat you regularly? So why has this person beaten you regularly before you developed this mental block? Or did he have it before they ever played? Because that would be quite weird.

He only has himself to blame. He shouldn't have beaten him so much as he has and Nadal fans know this and must feel quite lucky to have had a rival who p1$$ed away so many matches.

Not really. Roger started "pissing away" matches in 2008, well after Nadal had established a head to head lead. In fact, the first "pissing away" was done by Nadal in 2005 (Miami). None of their other matches were particularly close. Roger missed forehands on match points in Rome in 2006. That was the only time he missed an opportunity against Nadal prior to 2006. But again, it was Nadal who choked bigger in key moments in slams up until that point, as evidenced by his failure to serve out the second set at Wimbledon in 2006.

Maybe, just maybe, something about Nadal's game bothered Roger? And the fact that they were playing the bulk of their matches on clay, where Nadal is head and shoulders better, helped Nadal establish that lead?

 

[DarthFed]

Well he sure lost Wimbledon 2008 set 2 due to mental issues. Up 4-1. He's clearly got a mental block against Nadal and he's blown huge leads tons of times and not because of amazing play from Nadal either.

They played 3 times at Wimbledon. Here's how it went:

2006: Nadal serves for the second set to tie it, chokes, loses the set in a tie-break. Loses the match in 4.

2007: Nadal is up by a double break in the 4th with all the momentum after generally outplaying Roger from behind the baseline for much of the match. Nadal injures his knee, calls a medical timeout up 4-0 in the 4th. Blows 4 break point opportunities in two different games in the 5th set. Loses. Federer's reaction: "I got lucky." You can call it good sportsmanship by Roger, but there was an element of truth in his statement.

2008: Nadal is up two sets, 3-3 in the third, and has 0-40 on Federer's serve. Blows 3 break points. Loses the set. In the 4th set, he has two match points in the tie-break, one on his own serve. Doesn't convert. Wins the match anyway.

So please, a little objectivity, fact checking, and remind yourself that Roger has beaten Rafa more than Rafa has beaten him at Wimbledon, when it could have easily been the other way around.

I guess we won't bring up the fact that Rafa was never leading the 2007 match similar to Roger never leading 2008. And we also shouldn't bring up the fact that Roger was 1-12 on break points, blew a 4-1 lead with the greatest ease in the 2nd set, blew break points to start the 3rd, and blew his only break point in the 5th before blinking early. Roger shouldn't be happy with 2-1 over Rafa at Wimbledon, it ain't the least bit respectable, just ask Rosol and Darcis.

Show me where I implied that Nadal was leading in 2007. I clearly laid out exactly what happened. I said Nadal had break points in the fifth when they were tied. In two different games. Which means if he'd actually convert in one of them, he WOULD lead, and would have to hold serve 3 times to win the match (note: Roger hadn't broken him since the second game of the entire match). I hope that's a more accurate portrayal of the match.

Bring up whatever you want about 2008. We both know who was ahead that match since the word go (mentally, physically, level-wise, and score wise). Also, a quick youtube search reveals that Roger's break point of the fifth set in that match was saved via: Nadal angled serve out wide. Federer hits a deep return that forces Nadal to move backwards while sending a inside out forehand that Federer can barely retrieve, before putting away the overhead. Hardly a "blown" point for Federer.

3 of the 4 BP's in set 5 of 2007 were saved by aces/service winners. We both know who was ahead in 2007 from the word go too. That's the point. If Roger had broken there he would have been serving for the match.

 

[pavlik89]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ReGIEJAbGg[/video]

 

[Kieran]

I guess we won't bring up the fact that Rafa was never leading the 2007 match similar to Roger never leading 2008. And we also shouldn't bring up the fact that Roger was 1-12 on break points, blew a 4-1 lead with the greatest ease in the 2nd set, blew break points to start the 3rd, and blew his only break point in the 5th before blinking early. Roger shouldn't be happy with 2-1 over Rafa at Wimbledon, it ain't the least bit respectable, just ask Rosol and Darcis.

This is the break point in the 5th set which Roger "blew."

Can you watch it and show me where he "blew it", Darth?

It's an example of how narratives become heavily confused...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why has he got a mental block against Rafa, Front?

I've no idea but he clearly does unless you think the way he often gets well ahead in sets and then plays like a total donkey is all because of Nadal 'cos most people watching who are fans of neither would tell you that's laughable.

Of course he has a mental block against Nadal.

But here's the question: Would you develop a mental block about someone if he doesn't beat you regularly? So why has this person beaten you regularly before you developed this mental block? Or did he have it before they ever played? Because that would be quite weird.

He only has himself to blame. He shouldn't have beaten him so much as he has and Nadal fans know this and must feel quite lucky to have had a rival who p1$$ed away so many matches.

Yes, Nadal is indeed lucky to have the greatest player of all time as a rival. I mean, wouldn't anybody be? Ask Hewitt, Roddick, and all those people who missed out on a crap ton of slams because of Federer.

Sarcasm aside, Nadal is neither lucky nor unlucky in that regard. He's not unlucky because he pretty much overcame Federer, and didn't miss out on anything too substantial because of him (though I'm sure two extra Wimbledon trophies and a WTF would have been great). Though funnily enough, for any other player, being stopped twice in the final of Wimbledon by one specific player would make them UNLUCKY. Just ask Roddick (I know it was 3 times, but you get my point).

There is nothing "lucky" about having to deal with Roger Federer. I know you and Darth like to portray Fed as this guy who isn't THAT mentally tough, and bring up his 5th set record and h2h against Nadal, and that he got by on talent and hard work, etc... But obviously for someone who did what he did, he obviously had immense mental toughness.

 

[Front242]

Why has he got a mental block against Rafa, Front?

I've no idea but he clearly does unless you think the way he often gets well ahead in sets and then plays like a total donkey is all because of Nadal 'cos most people watching who are fans of neither would tell you that's laughable.

Of course he has a mental block against Nadal.

But here's the question: Would you develop a mental block about someone if he doesn't beat you regularly? So why has this person beaten you regularly before you developed this mental block? Or did he have it before they ever played? Because that would be quite weird.

He only has himself to blame. He shouldn't have beaten him so much as he has and Nadal fans know this and must feel quite lucky to have had a rival who p1$$ed away so many matches.

Not really. Roger started "pissing away" matches in 2008, well after Nadal had established a head to head lead. In fact, the first "pissing away" was done by Nadal in 2005 (Miami). None of their other matches were particularly close. Roger missed forehands on match points in Rome in 2006. That was the only time he missed an opportunity against Nadal prior to 2006. But again, it was Nadal who choked bigger in key moments in slams up until that point, as evidenced by his failure to serve out the second set at Wimbledon in 2006.

Maybe, just maybe, something about Nadal's game bothered Roger? And the fact that they were playing the bulk of their matches on clay, where Nadal is head and shoulders better, helped Nadal establish that lead?

Sure his topspin FH to one handed bh bothered him but there's no justifying blowing a 4-0 2nd set lead in Monte Carlo '08 and he also had 2 BPs at 3-3 first set with Nadal at 15-40. That was a pitiful loss. Nadal isn't always head and shoulders better than Federer on clay btw. Consistently of course he's better than everyone but Federer has made a monkey out of him on clay too. Hence why I say he has no one but himself to blame for basically allowing Monte Carlo '08 and RG '08 destroy his confidence against Nadal.