Gerry Weber Open (Halle) 9-15 June 2014

[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.

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.

Roger was ahead from the word go. Then Nadal tied it in the second. Then Roger got ahead in the 3rd. Then Nadal tied it again. And missed 4 break points, including a second service forehand return that sailed long.

Being ahead from the word go would be being 2 sets to love up and having 3 break points to finish it in straights...and then missing match points in the 4th. Kind of a big difference there.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

roger destroys all as he reaches another grass final.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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...

Ah, my description of the point was close, but not entirely accurate. Nadal hit a body serve, not an angled wide serve.

 

[Front242]

roger destroys all as he reaches another grass final.

Wouldn't quite say destroys but yeah, glad to see him in another final. He even had one walkover here so he surely didn't destroy that much

 

[Federberg]

Speaking as someone who was there live in 2007, I was struck by the realisation when I was walking home that Roger was never behind in the match. From where I was sitting it felt like he was barely hanging on all thru the match! Roger was an ice cold assassin that day, but I have to concede that Rafa FELT like the better player. I was utterly stressed out when it was over

 

[brokenshoelace]

Consistently of course he's better than everyone but Federer has made a monkey out of him on clay too.

Because he won a 6-0 set once in 20013532862 meetings? Because he beat him twice in whatever number of meetings I just typed? Nadal IS head and shoulders better than Federer on clay. I'm not sure how that's debatable. And obviously, we're not talking about clay resume here since that's not much of a debate, but even when they play. Yeah, he's not head and shoulders better in the sense that he's not going to literally dominate every single rally and win every match in straights. Of course many of their matches were competitive, and some close (well, only one was REALLY close on clay, which says a lot), but how many times has Federer even taken Nadal the distance on clay?

 

[Kieran]

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.

Here and here are the 4 bp's in the 5th set in 2007.

No aces, but if you watch them, buddy, can you tell me if they were won by Roger serving aces/service winners, or by Rafa'S UFE's? I think that apart from the last one, it was Rafa's poor returns and errors more than anything...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Speaking as someone who was there live in 2007, I was struck by the realisation when I was walking home that Roger was never behind in the match. From where I was sitting it felt like he was barely hanging on all thru the match! Roger was an ice cold assassin that day, but I have to concede that Rafa FELT like the better player. I was utterly stressed out when it was over

Well to be clear, I don't actually think Nadal should have won that match. I was just using the same argument Darth did. Because, while Nadal was better from the baseline for the most part, serving IS an essential part of tennis, let alone grass court tennis, and Fed's serve was damn near untouchable that match. That counts for a lot. In fairness, Nadal did hold serve relatively easily throughout, until the fifth set. But, missed break points opportunities for Nadal or not, Roger still won that set by a 2-break margin, which is emphatic enough.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Good win from Roger and he did not even know it ! Gotta stop when you are ahead Roger.

His old Wimbledon buddy awaits now.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

oh great another thread polluted by fedal wars.

 

[Kieran]

Rafa wasn't ready to win that match. He wasn't good enough yet, but he was learning very fast...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Fedal wars! I feel like a traveled back in time to 2009 and it's tennis.com.

Where are the Novak fans to spice things up? (In before "There are so few of us, everyone left, these are fedal forums")

 

[Federberg]

Speaking as someone who was there live in 2007, I was struck by the realisation when I was walking home that Roger was never behind in the match. From where I was sitting it felt like he was barely hanging on all thru the match! Roger was an ice cold assassin that day, but I have to concede that Rafa FELT like the better player. I was utterly stressed out when it was over

Well to be clear, I don't actually think Nadal should have won that match. I was just using the same argument Darth did. Because, while Nadal was better from the baseline for the most part, serving IS an essential part of tennis, let alone grass court tennis, and Fed's serve was damn near untouchable that match. That counts for a lot. In fairness, Nadal did hold serve relatively easily throughout, until the fifth set. But, missed break points opportunities for Nadal or not, Roger still won that set by a 2-break margin, which is emphatic enough.

Yup the best player won. I was just conveying my impression at the time. I was quite close to the service line as well, and we often chuckled after Roger saved break points because he would regularly face our direction and exhale in relief! He was certainly feeling it too! He wasn't as ice cool as he appears on TV

 

[Kieran]

Fedal wars! I feel like a traveled back in time to 2009 and it's tennis.com.

Where are the Novak fans to spice things up? (In before "There are so few of us, everyone left, these are fedal forums")

They'll be back when he wins again.

The good thing about all this is it has me watching the 2008 final again...

 

[DarthFed]

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...

I've seen the point before, I was just using Broken's description of blown break points. That one is technically more blown than aces/service winners right?

 

[pavlik89]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjXGnx3vTPo[/video]

 

[DarthFed]

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.

Here and here are the 4 bp's in the 5th set in 2007.

No aces, but if you watch them, buddy, can you tell me if they were won by Roger serving aces/service winners, or by Rafa'S UFE's? I think that apart from the last one, it was Rafa's poor returns and errors more than anything...

Alright, so 1 bad return and 1 unforced error. I was mistaken.

 

[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...

I've seen the point before, I was just using Broken's description of blown break points. That one is technically more blown than aces/service winners right?

Where's it "blown"?

Watch the video and tell me which shot Roger "blew it" on...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Speaking as someone who was there live in 2007, I was struck by the realisation when I was walking home that Roger was never behind in the match. From where I was sitting it felt like he was barely hanging on all thru the match! Roger was an ice cold assassin that day, but I have to concede that Rafa FELT like the better player. I was utterly stressed out when it was over

Well to be clear, I don't actually think Nadal should have won that match. I was just using the same argument Darth did. Because, while Nadal was better from the baseline for the most part, serving IS an essential part of tennis, let alone grass court tennis, and Fed's serve was damn near untouchable that match. That counts for a lot. In fairness, Nadal did hold serve relatively easily throughout, until the fifth set. But, missed break points opportunities for Nadal or not, Roger still won that set by a 2-break margin, which is emphatic enough.

Yup the best player won. I was just conveying my impression at the time. I was quite close to the service line as well, and we often chuckled after Roger saved break points because he would regularly face our direction and exhale in relief! He was certainly feeling it too! He wasn't as ice cool as he appears on TV

Yeah, I think perception of that match was a bit swayed by what I call "underdog syndrome." If you watch boxing or MMA, if a highly favored fighter goes to a decision with an underdog who does better than expected, a lot of people actually score the fight for the underdog even if he doesn't deserve it, because they were a bit influenced by the fact that he exceeded expectations.

Now, Nadal was far from a huge underdog, but at the time, very few thought he'd actually have what it takes to beat Fed on grass that year, as his game was still developing on the surface and he had struggled mightily that tournament on his way to the final.

So when Nadal looked so comfortable that match, played aggressive, attacked the net, etc... many realized that this will be quite a battle, and there's a legitimate possibility Roger might lose. That results in Fed fans such as yourself saying they were nervous, Nadal fans like myself saying it was a missed opportunity, etc... Because as we watched, we started realizing Rafa might actually pull it off.

I remember watching that match with 3 Fed fans who are pretty knowledgeable about tennis, and I remember my dad (a Fed fan), looking at me as Rafa had his first break point of the fifth set: "Could it be?"

I think that if we re-watch the match now, it would come off as them being pretty evenly matched throughout (I'm just assuming here, I haven't actually done it), with Nadal having a slight edge from the baseline but Roger's serve being pretty dominant throughout (which means they kinda cancel each other out).

The mood leading up to their 2008 final was quite different, as many thought it would be Nadal's time. 2007 was not quite that, and he was still looked at as the underdog, and as the result proves, rightfully so.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

Roger was ahead from the word go. Then Nadal tied it in the second. Then Roger got ahead in the 3rd. Then Nadal tied it again. And missed 4 break points, including a second service forehand return that sailed long.

Being ahead from the word go would be being 2 sets to love up and having 3 break points to finish it in straights...and then missing match points in the 4th. Kind of a big difference there.

Different match but it's still a reach to say Roger was lucky to win a match he was never behind in. It's just a Rafa fan narrative. Roger lost pretty much every single big point in the 2008 match save the 3rd and 4th set tiebreak, it'd be equally ridiculous to say Rafa was lucky to win that match. Roger certainly deserved to lose it.