Gerry Weber Open (Halle) 9-15 June 2014

[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.

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.

The "lucky" part were Roger's own comments, and I only said there was a hint of truth in them. I don't think luck is why he won.

 

[Kieran]

Going back to halle, while Darth watches that vid I gave him , I think Roger is a shoo-in for the titles now, and his preparation has been impeccable for Wimbledon so far. Good idea to enter the doubles, as well. I don't know why Rafa didn't...

 

[Front242]

Going back to halle, while Darth watches that vid I gave him , I think Roger is a shoo-in for the titles now, and his preparation has been impeccable for Wimbledon so far. Good idea to enter the doubles, as well. I don't know why Rafa didn't...

Far from a given as Falla has been a very tough opponent for him in both matches they played recently. The fact that Falla played a longer match today makes it more in Federer's favour but not much in it imo otherwise.

 

[Front242]

Interesting to note that the week before Wimbledon 2010, Federer soundly beat Falla 6-1 6-2 at Halle but just look what entailed the following week at Wimbledon where he scraped through 5-7 4-6 6-4 7-6(1) 6-0.

 

[Front242]

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?

I was talking here regarding blown leads. 3-3 15-40 on Nadal's serve in set 1 of Monte Carlo final '08 and he fails to get the break. Then he stormed ahead to 4-0 in set 2 and lost it 7-5 like a total donkey. Continuing with clay he was up 5-2 in the first set of RG 2011 final and the Nadal fans in the crowd were very subdued then as he was getting absolutely spanked but again he lost that set like a total donkey. Had he not lost Monte Carlo '08 there's probably zero chance he'd have played as badly as he did in the RG '08 final but his tactics were sh1te there too which didn't help. Either way, those two debacles on clay in 2008 were the beginning of the end for him against Nadal and certainly in Monte Carlo '08 it was all his fault.

 

[pavlik89]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_A8-5CPnV8[/video]

 

[Kieran]

It's hilarious how little credit Rafa gets while the Fedfans squirm and try to rewrite history, blown set points and leads and all...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Looks like Roger is going to play the finals in doubles as well. It would be a nice warm up before the finals.

 

[Fiero425]

Looks like Roger is going to play the finals in doubles as well. It would be a nice warm up before the finals.

...or actually over-playing in his advanced years! :lolz: :snigger :laydownlaughing :angel:

 

[Kieran]

I think he's having the perfect warm up, Murat, he's giving himself every chance to do well this year. Would you think that this is his absolutely final chance to win a major? There can't be many more, given how early he's going out of majors now...

 

[El Dude]

Of for crying out loud. You guys sound like a bunch of old women.

How about this:
1. Roger was the greater player through 2007, then they were roughly equal from 2008-09, then Rafa took over as the greater player in 2010 to the present. At least that's what the record seems to show. Regardless, when all is said and done they're likely to be viewed as the two greatest tennis players in the history of the game (thus far).
2. Maybe Rafa is in Roger's head AND his play style is particularly difficult for Roger to deal with; like Niels Bohr said, while the opposite of a fact is a falsehood, the opposite of one profound truth may be another profound truth. This ongoing debate about whether Roger loses to Rafa so much because of play style or psychology is a false dichotomy - they are likely both true to some extent.
2. And yes, Rafa is significantly better on clay - but he's better than everyone, ever on clay, so that's hardly an insult to Roger, who likely would have won 4 or 5 French Opens if he hadn't played contemporaneously with the greatest clay courter ever.

Can we stop now?

p.s. A side note. One interesting thing about their respective greatness is that the weaknesses in their resumes are very different. Rafa has a lopsided greatness on clay vs. hard and grass. He is out of this world on clay, but merely just great on grass and hard courts. Roger's lone tarnish on his resume is...Rafa. That is all. Take away Rafa and Roger has 24-25 Slams by now and is the unequalled greatest player ever with no weakness, no tarnish. Take away Roger and Rafa maybe has 15-16 Slams - still the greatest, but his legacy doesn't change that much.

 

[El Dude]

I think he's having the perfect warm up, Murat, he's giving himself every chance to do well this year. Would you think that this is his absolutely final chance to win a major? There can't be many more, given how early he's going out of majors now...

I don't think it is his "absolutely final" chance, but it is his best chance remaining - sort of like that saying, "Today you're the youngest you'll ever be."

At this point, though, Roger is only going to win a major if two things happen: 1) He plays out of his mind, and 2) He gets a little lucky and Rafa and/or Novak are upset by someone else. I think he still has a chance of beating Novak in a Slam, but it is still slim - maybe 30% on grass, 20% on clay, and 10% on hards.

So while 2014 Wimbledon is probably the best chance he'll ever have again, he could do it at the US Open, and I wouldn't count him out next year either. He could do a 2002 US Open Sampras impersonation. It could also be that next year Rafa misses Wimbledon or goes out early, Novak is upset by an improved Raonic or Dimitrov, and then he faces an Andy Murray, Raonic, or Dimitrov in the final.

I must say, it is nice that these Slams are getting harder and harder to predict.

 

[Fiero425]

Of for crying out loud. You guys sound like a bunch of old women.

How about this:
1. Roger was the greater player through 2007, then they were roughly equal from 2008-09, then Rafa took over as the greater player in 2010 to the present. At least that's what the record seems to show. Regardless, when all is said and done they're likely to be viewed as the two greatest tennis players in the history of the game (thus far).
2. Maybe Rafa is in Roger's head AND his play style is particularly difficult for Roger to deal with; like Niels Bohr said, while the opposite of a fact is a falsehood, the opposite of one profound truth may be another profound truth. This ongoing debate about whether Roger loses to Rafa so much because of play style or psychology is a false dichotomy - they are likely both true to some extent.
2. And yes, Rafa is significantly better on clay - but he's better than everyone, ever on clay, so that's hardly an insult to Roger, who likely would have won 4 or 5 French Opens if he hadn't played contemporaneously with the greatest clay courter ever.

Can we stop now?

p.s. A side note. One interesting thing about their respective greatness is that the weaknesses in their resumes are very different. Rafa has a lopsided greatness on clay vs. hard and grass. He is out of this world on clay, but merely just great on grass and hard courts. Roger's lone tarnish on his resume is...Rafa. That is all. Take away Rafa and Roger has 24-25 Slams by now and is the unequalled greatest player ever with no weakness, no tarnish. Take away Roger and Rafa maybe has 15-16 Slams - still the greatest, but his legacy doesn't change that much.

Hmmmm, I guess history would be turned upside down but for some of these rivalries; Borg over Connors; McEnroe over Lendl, Sampras over Agassi, Navratilova over Evert, and Court over King! The "what ifs" are fun, but can't be taken seriously as true historians can't and won't see it more than the "hard, cold record!" When it comes to Federer, he'll be swept from the GOAT talk if and when Rafa overtakes him in Majors; nothing will change that unfortunately! In my eyes, I see where you're coming from, but that's the way it is and has always been! Most think Laver's the best; esp. winning 2 Grand Slams, but some take in consideration his elimination from the amateur ranks for almost 6 years! In my mind, I agree with that, but he also had a rival that "owned" him; Lew Hoad! At one time I saw the record was 0-8 against him and only Hoad's disinterest and going into the military saved the legacy of Laver!

 

[El Dude]

Hmmmm, I guess history would be turned upside down but for some of these rivalries; Borg over Connors; McEnroe over Lendl, Sampras over Agassi, Navratilova over Evert, and Court over King! The "what ifs" are fun, but can't be taken seriously as true historians can't and won't see it more than the "hard, cold record!" When it comes to Federer, he'll be swept from the GOAT talk if and when Rafa overtakes him in Majors; nothing will change that unfortunately! In my eyes, I see where you're coming from, but that's the way it is and has always been! Most think Laver's the best; esp. winning 2 Grand Slams, but some take in consideration his elimination from the amateur ranks for almost 6 years! In my mind, I agree with that, but he also had a rival that "owned" him; Lew Hoad! At one time I saw the record was 0-8 against him and only Hoad's disinterest and going into the military saved the legacy of Laver!

I hear you. My point was not to take the "What if" scenario seriously, but to point out that Rafa has been like kryptonite to Roger's legacy, and Rafa doesn't really have his own kryptonite except perhaps his own health.

Rafa needs to surpass Roger in Slam count to be the clearly greater player, because even they're tied with 17 or 18, Roger will still have more weeks at #1, more WTF titles, and a greater period of sustained dominance. Where Roger's career is more similar to someone like Graf or Navratilova with a clear period of dominance, Rafa is more like Serena Williams, with ups and downs and only relatively short (1-2 year) periods of being at the top.

As for Laver, it is hard to compare across eras. Laver might be the greatest of all time, but another that get's short shrift is Ken Rosewall who has the highest total Slam count if you include Pro and Grand Slams with 23 (Laver is 19). Laver and Rosewall had a similar age difference as Nadal and Federer, with Rosewall dominating early and then Laver for the majority of their career, with Laver finishing 80-64 over Rosewall. Interestingly enough, Rosewall won their last two matches in 1976 when he was 41-42 years old and Laver 37-38.

 

[Fiero425]

Hmmmm, I guess history would be turned upside down but for some of these rivalries; Borg over Connors; McEnroe over Lendl, Sampras over Agassi, Navratilova over Evert, and Court over King! The "what ifs" are fun, but can't be taken seriously as true historians can't and won't see it more than the "hard, cold record!" When it comes to Federer, he'll be swept from the GOAT talk if and when Rafa overtakes him in Majors; nothing will change that unfortunately! In my eyes, I see where you're coming from, but that's the way it is and has always been! Most think Laver's the best; esp. winning 2 Grand Slams, but some take in consideration his elimination from the amateur ranks for almost 6 years! In my mind, I agree with that, but he also had a rival that "owned" him; Lew Hoad! At one time I saw the record was 0-8 against him and only Hoad's disinterest and going into the military saved the legacy of Laver!

I hear you. My point was not to take the "What if" scenario seriously, but to point out that Rafa has been like kryptonite to Roger's legacy, and Rafa doesn't really have his own kryptonite except perhaps his own health.

Rafa needs to surpass Roger in Slam count to be the clearly greater player, because even they're tied with 17 or 18, Roger will still have more weeks at #1, more WTF titles, and a greater period of sustained dominance. Where Roger's career is more similar to someone like Graf or Navratilova with a clear period of dominance, Rafa is more like Serena Williams, with ups and downs and only relatively short (1-2 year) periods of being at the top.

As for Laver, it is hard to compare across eras. Laver might be the greatest of all time, but another that get's short shrift is Ken Rosewall who has the highest total Slam count if you include Pro and Grand Slams with 23 (Laver is 19). Laver and Rosewall had a similar age difference as Nadal and Federer, with Rosewall dominating early and then Laver for the majority of their career, with Laver finishing 80-64 over Rosewall. Interestingly enough, Rosewall won their last two matches in 1976 when he was 41-42 years old and Laver 37-38.

So funny that I've only heard of those pro-majors in the last couple years! I had no idea they were going on since they were never made a big deal on tv or magazines where I followed the "goings on" of tennis! I just thought the pros had their own tour and there was short shrift given to them before Open tennis! Technically I didn't start watching until '73 and Bud Collins and other commentators vaguely mentioned what went on in the pro side of things! I would actually hear "no one really knows how many times Laver and Rosewall played" during that period!

 

[pavlik89]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfCy4AgOpuw[/video]

 

[Backhand_DTL]

I think he's having the perfect warm up, Murat, he's giving himself every chance to do well this year. Would you think that this is his absolutely final chance to win a major? There can't be many more, given how early he's going out of majors now...

I don't think it is his "absolutely final" chance, but it is his best chance remaining - sort of like that saying, "Today you're the youngest you'll ever be."

At this point, though, Roger is only going to win a major if two things happen: 1) He plays out of his mind, and 2) He gets a little lucky and Rafa and/or Novak are upset by someone else. I think he still has a chance of beating Novak in a Slam, but it is still slim - maybe 30% on grass, 20% on clay, and 10% on hards.

So while 2014 Wimbledon is probably the best chance he'll ever have again, he could do it at the US Open, and I wouldn't count him out next year either. He could do a 2002 US Open Sampras impersonation. It could also be that next year Rafa misses Wimbledon or goes out early, Novak is upset by an improved Raonic or Dimitrov, and then he faces an Andy Murray, Raonic, or Dimitrov in the final.

I must say, it is nice that these Slams are getting harder and harder to predict.

I think if Roger meets Novak at Wimbledon this year his chance to win would be at least near 50%. If they meet Roger must have reached the semi final or final, so it would indicate his form being quite good. Additionally he matches up really well with Novak on faster, low bouncing surfaces and his movement on grass is still at an at least similar level to Novak's. Novak has an advantage in being younger, so if one wasn't playing significantly better than the other before, chances would be close to even in my opinion.

Concerning Raonic it would surprise me if he lives up to his seeding, as he has done nothing on grass for some time now. His backhand, return and movement are even more of a problem than on the other surfaces and his vulnerability to low balls is exposed. As holding serve don't seems to be much easier for him than on hard court or clay basically anybody can trouble him on grass. Of the younger players Dimitrov and Nishikori would probably be more dangerous potential opponents, but to meet a Big 4-player they would also need to at least reach the quarter final, which is far from guaranteed either.

 

[Fiero425]

I think he's having the perfect warm up, Murat, he's giving himself every chance to do well this year. Would you think that this is his absolutely final chance to win a major? There can't be many more, given how early he's going out of majors now...

I don't think it is his "absolutely final" chance, but it is his best chance remaining - sort of like that saying, "Today you're the youngest you'll ever be."

At this point, though, Roger is only going to win a major if two things happen: 1) He plays out of his mind, and 2) He gets a little lucky and Rafa and/or Novak are upset by someone else. I think he still has a chance of beating Novak in a Slam, but it is still slim - maybe 30% on grass, 20% on clay, and 10% on hards.

So while 2014 Wimbledon is probably the best chance he'll ever have again, he could do it at the US Open, and I wouldn't count him out next year either. He could do a 2002 US Open Sampras impersonation. It could also be that next year Rafa misses Wimbledon or goes out early, Novak is upset by an improved Raonic or Dimitrov, and then he faces an Andy Murray, Raonic, or Dimitrov in the final.

I must say, it is nice that these Slams are getting harder and harder to predict.

I think if Roger meets Novak at Wimbledon this year his chance to win would be at least near 50%. If they meet Roger must have reached the semi final or final, so it would indicate his form being quite good. Additionally he matches up really well with Novak on faster, low bouncing surfaces and his movement on grass is still at an at least similar level to Novak's. Novak has an advantage in being younger, so if one wasn't playing significantly better than the other before, chances would be close to even in my opinion.

Concerning Raonic it would surprise me if he lives up to his seeding, as he has done nothing on grass for some time now. His backhand, return and movement are even more of a problem than on the other surfaces and his vulnerability to low balls is exposed. As holding serve don't seems to be much easier for him than on hard court or clay basically anybody can trouble him on grass. Of the younger players Dimitrov and Nishikori would probably be more dangerous opponents, but to meet a Big 4-player they would also need to at least reach the quarter final, which is far from guaranteed either.

I so hope this Wimbledon will have a true changing of the guard! If the same people make it through, they'll only prove what I've been saying about the ATP tour "also rans" as being gutless! :nono :angel:

 

[tented]

I so hope this Wimbledon will have a true changing of the guard! If the same people make it through, they'll only prove what I've been saying about the ATP tour "also rans" as being gutless! :nono :angel:

Gutless doesn't mean not as talented. Isner, for example, isn't gutless when facing Federer; he isn't as talented. Huge difference. Berdych isn't gutless when facing Nadal; he isn't as talented.

This theory that the top guys keep winning solely because others are gutless is based on nothing more than a dislike for certain players.

 

[tented]

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

This is hilarious. I especially love the reactions of Luthi and Mirka.