Gerry Weber Open, Halle, Germany, ATP 500

[DarthFed]

Being down 1-3..Roger was in dire straits, he played high risk first strike tennis. Rafa rested on his laurels and tried to extend the points and play conservatively. Poor serving meaning no body serves or free points on his serve, Rafa played perfectly into Federer's hand.

Rafa served over 80% first serves that set and many of them were bombs to save break points. Fed stepped up in the 5th and dominated the last 5 games, ripping backhand winners from everywhere. I'd say this year has shown what should be obvious, if his backhand holds up vs. Nadal it is Fed who should dominate the matchup not vice versa. After all most would admit he has way more talent and variety than Nads. Of course Carol thinks Fed can't hold a candle to the talent of Feli but some/most Rafa fans are a little reasonable.

 

[Front242]

This has got to be the lamest excuse EVER. This has so many legs to it I can't began to crucify you for the simplicity of what you posted.

Go watch the match again and try not to be biased. It's the truth.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Admit I was wrong about what exactly? I'm well aware Andy and Novak aren't playing their best. What I said was they would have won more games in the final than Stan, who won a whopping 6 games. No one here except you and other Nadal would disagree either. Andy and Novak both serve much better than Stan on average so that in itself wins more than 6 games in 3 sets.

So in the 2008 final, Roger won 5 games. Are you saying that Roger wasn't the best option to face Nadal at that date in time to win just a few more games and I know I am reading this correctly , You are so disappointed that Stan didn't win a few more games and you would have preferred Djoker although he got bageled by Thiem who only won about 3 more against Nadal. You are saying your feelings got hurt because Rafa was so stingy?

 

[Front242]

So in the 2008 final, Roger won 5 games. Are you saying that Roger wasn't the best option to face Nadal at that date in time to win just a few more games and I know I am reading this correctly , You are so disappointed that Stan didn't win a few more games and you would have preferred Djoker although he got bageled by Thiem who only won about 3 more against Nadal. You are saying your feelings got hurt because Rafa was so stingy?

No, that's your incorrect interpretation as usual. I couldn't care less how few games anyone he faced won as the bottom line is the pr1ck still won. Is it really so hard to comprehend that all I was pointing out is other players would have likely won more than 6 games and challenged him more? Try and read it properly this time.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Go watch the match again and try not to be biased. It's the truth.

You want me to rewatch the match and judge Roger's inability to controls his emotions during crucial points.. is this correct and my reading is clear?

 

[the AntiPusher]

No, that's your incorrect interpretation as usual. I couldn't care less how few games anyone he faced won as the bottom line is the pr1ck still won. Is it really so hard to comprehend that all I was pointing out is other players would have likely won more than 6 games and challenged him more? Try and read it properly this time.

Front..there isn't a lack of comprehension on my part less be clear once and for all. I have never seen any poster carry on this way because they would have preferred another opponent over Stan. Stan was undefeated in every grand slam final and his ability to always be competitive has never been questioned until 2 Sundays ago against Nadal because you want to have a hissy fit about the number of games he won..not the Match, not the Set but some bitch ass games..Now you want to carry on about some bitch ass games, a few weeks ago you carried on about some bitch ass seconds, not minutes but seconds.then I point out to you about how Cilic totally abused the system and now you want to carry on about someone not reading your post cause you said you didn't watch the match, who in the Hell can read all your post to determine if you watched the match or not. This is the era of social media and the internet, you google all these bitch ass stats and post them. Now tell me did I comprehend or read properly or did you misinterpret or do you need to add more bitch ass yadayada posts.

 

[El Dude]

I don't know why you felt the need to defend him, Front was clearly hedging his bet. However, you are spot on in your analysis of Thiem play at Rome and RG. There's no scenario where Rafa victories will ever be legitimize by some of the rabid Fed fans. I am resigned to the fact that when Rafa blew the 3-1 lead at AO , he breathed new life into Federer and his fan base which is good for them. Now their beloved one is be on the tour til maybe his 40s.

Oh ffs AP. Either you're willfully ignorant or blatantly trolling. I've watched that 5th set maybe five or six times, and Rafa didn't "blow" it nor did he breathe life into Roger. Roger was pushing him game after game and finally ran away with it at 3-1. in other words, Rafa didn't give it to him; Roger just simply took it from him.

As for Rafa "waking up" after Miami, funny how that corresponds with clay season beginning.

Or should we take this to Fedal Wars thread?

 

[the AntiPusher]

Oh ffs AP. Either you're willfully ignorant or blatantly trolling. I've watched that 5th set maybe five or six times, and Rafa didn't "blow" it nor did he breathe life into Roger. Roger was pushing him game after game and finally ran away with it at 3-1. in other words, Rafa didn't give it to him; Roger just simply took it from him.

As for Rafa "waking up" after Miami, funny how that corresponds with clay season beginning.

Or should we take this to Fedal Wars thread?

You are ignorant if you think a 14 times grand slam champion loosing 5 straight games in the final set because his opponent was push him so hard that eventually the match got ran away with. Rafa blew that lead. Yes Roger won that match, totally took control but Rafa didn't close the match out like he did Dimitrov. Go back rewatch the semifinal between Rafa vs Grigor. Watch how Rafa took control of the center of the court, came forward and took control of that net. Now did Rafa play that way vs Fed in the final set, heck no. That's why I said he blew it. Rafa refuse to let Grigor defeat him that Friday evening.

As for waking up during the clay season, Rafa is playing with some different tweaks in his game. I not gonna go back in list them because we have discussed them before. Apparently you feel it's the surface not the player..I am quite sure if you are allowed to further troll you will use the argument, he didn't face Roger on clay. Well we will never know but Roger acknowledged he wouldn't have been able to overcome Rafa the past few months. Did that answer your inquiry

 

[El Dude]

Let's look at game six, point by point - because that's when Roger broke back. Rafa's serving up 3-2. He's save four break points vs. Roger.

1. Rafa serves. Roger plays some incredible defense to work himself back into the rally, wins the point with that backhand. 0-15.
2. Rafa serves. Back and forth, Roger hits strong forehand, Rafa returns it into the net. 0-30.
3. Rafa serves, hits nice forehand into the corner, Roger shanks. 15-30.
4. Rafa serves out wide, Roger barely returns short, Rafa smashes forehand winner. 30-30.
5. Rafa serves, short but powerful rally, Rafa just misses long. Rafa challenges, call remains. 30-40.
6. Rafa serves, strong forehand winner. Deuce. (Roger now 0-5 on break-point chances in 5th set).
7. Rafa serves, Roger hits net. Advantage Rafa.
8. Rafa serves, Roger returns, Rafa hits net, ball goes out. Deuce.
9. Rafa serves, short rally, Roger hits cross-court backhand winner. Advantage Roger.
10. Rafa serves, rally, Rafa hits wide shot just out. Roger breaks.

Now maybe you can't see it from reading it, but if you watch that sixth game you see an example of what happened for much of that set: Roger pressuring Rafa, Rafa fighting him off, then Roger finally breaking through. And the difference maker? I'd say Roger's backhand, which gave him two points in that game.

The point being, again: Rafa didn't blow it, Roger took it, and he took it by overcoming some of the obstacles that had plagued him in the past with Rafa, especially a vulnerable and relatively weak backhand side.

 

[El Dude]

You are ignorant if you think a 14 times grand slam champion loosing 5 straight games in the final set because his opponent was push him so hard that eventually the match got ran away with. Rafa blew that lead. Yes Roger won that match, totally took control but Rafa didn't close the match out like he did Dimitrov. Go back rewatch the semifinal between Rafa vs Grigor. Watch how Rafa took control of the center of the court, came forward and took control of that net. Now did Rafa play that way vs Fed in the final set, heck no. That's why I said he blew it. Rafa refuse to let Grigor defeat him that Friday evening.

You're comparing Grigor and Roger as if they're the same: simply the opponent Rafa needs to beat.

This is your basic fallacy, not uncommon among Rafa fans: you think every match is on Rafa's racket. Against Grigor, he prevailed because he could - he was the superior player that day, and Grigor is not a true champion and couldn't bring is best when it most mattered, while Rafa could. But Roger simply out-played Rafa when it most counted - he upped his game in the 5th set, and Rafa didn't have an answer for it. It was Roger's strength, not Rafa's weakness. You're basically playing into the idea that Rafa only loses when he blows it. In this case, Roger simply beat him.

As for waking up during the clay season, Rafa is playing with some different tweaks in his game. I not gonna go back in list them because we have discussed them before. Apparently you feel it's the surface not the player..I am quite sure if you are allowed to further troll you will use the argument, he didn't face Roger on clay. Well we will never know but Roger acknowledged he wouldn't have been able to overcome Rafa the past few months. Did that answer your inquiry

No, I'm saying it is both the player and the surface. Rafa played really well during hard-court season and then when clay season came, he jumped another level. To be honest, we don't know if he really improved or not because his improvement came when clay season started. I'm not even saying he didn't improve his game when clay season started, I just don't think we know because he always improves on clay. In other words, we don't know if it is correlation or causation. And yeah, I think Rafa would have beat Roger at RG...never said otherwise.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Let's look at game six, point by point - because that's when Roger broke back. Rafa's serving up 3-2. He's save four break points vs. Roger.

1. Rafa serves. Roger plays some incredible defense to work himself back into the rally, wins the point with that backhand. 0-15.
2. Rafa serves. Back and forth, Roger hits strong forehand, Rafa returns it into the net. 0-30.
3. Rafa serves, hits nice forehand into the corner, Roger shanks. 15-30.
4. Rafa serves out wide, Roger barely returns short, Rafa smashes forehand winner. 30-30.
5. Rafa serves, short but powerful rally, Rafa just misses long. Rafa challenges, call remains. 30-40.
6. Rafa serves, strong forehand winner. Deuce. (Roger now 0-5 on break-point chances in 5th set).
7. Rafa serves, Roger hits net. Advantage Rafa.
8. Rafa serves, Roger returns, Rafa hits net, ball goes out. Deuce.
9. Rafa serves, short rally, Roger hits cross-court backhand winner. Advantage Roger.
10. Rafa serves, rally, Rafa hits wide shot just out. Roger breaks.

Now maybe you can't see it from reading it, but if you watch that sixth game you see an example of what happened for much of that set: Roger pressuring Rafa, Rafa fighting him off, then Roger finally breaking through. And the difference maker? I'd say Roger's backhand, which gave him two points in that game.

The point being, again: Rafa didn't blow it, Roger took it, and he took it by overcoming some of the obstacles that had plagued him in the past with Rafa, especially a vulnerable and relatively weak backhand side.

reread my prior post.. go rewatch Grigor vs Rafa and then watch the final again..tell me how many times Rafa came forward and took the net vs Grigor. Compare that to the final, without your selective editing/analysis.. such as incredible defense to work himself back into the rallie ..if he was in a defensive position, why in the heck wasn't Rafa at the net or moving in to the center of the court to control the rallies.

 

[El Dude]

And re-read my reply to your post. As Ricardo said, you see what you want to see. Again, your basic mistake is that you equate Grigor and Roger when they are very different opponents. It is almost as if you believe that Rafa's level is the only moving part and the match is always on his racket, and it doesn't matter how his opponent plays. I'm pretty sure Rafa doesn't share your arrogance.

 

[the AntiPusher]

And re-read my reply to your post. As Ricardo said, you see what you want to see. Again, your basic mistake is that you equate Grigor and Roger when they are very different opponents. It is almost as if you believe that Rafa's level is the only moving part and the match is always on his racket, and it doesn't matter how his opponent plays. I'm pretty sure Rafa doesn't share your arrogance.

Who is Ricardo? Regardless if it Roger or Grigor, you don't close out a match from the backcourt by not controlling the center of the court waiting for a 35 year old to make a mistake. Grigor has a very similar style to Roger but is no where as talented around the net as Roger. Roger bullied his way to the net numerous of times which was the right strategy. Roger played high risk first strike tennis and it really surprised Rafa. Rafa typically makes the game of tennis uncomfortable for Roger but that Sunday night there were very few instances of this . We can carry on but the result will always be the same, Roger won the match

Again, who is Ricardo

 

[El Dude]

So what are we disagreeing with? Roger played better in the 5th set, when it most counted. I also agree with the general view that he was playing better overall in the first four sets, but wasn't able to pull away with it. When he was broken to start the 5th, it was looking like just another typical Fedal match: Rafa knowing how to push Roger's buttons, and Roger unable to respond. But this time was different.

Earlier you were implying that this was Rafa blowing it, that it was on his racket. But again, watch the set. Roger is pressuring those first few games and finally broke him - on his sixth try, I think. Then at 3-3, Roger blew him away on his service game to go up 4-3. At that point, Rafa went down 0-40, but then fought his way back. Which brings us to the magical 26-shot rally. This is a clear example that both were playing at a super high level, but Roger was just able to gain control of the rally and then give that down-the-line forehand and win it. Rafa hit plenty of great shots in that rally, but just couldn't get them by Roger, who was moving like it was 2007. Then Rafa comes up with money service winner (is that blowing it?) to get back to Deuce, but Roger wasn't having any of it. He wins the next two points on super nasty shots, provoking errors: first an inside out forehand, then a cross-court serve return to break again. Those were both clearly on Roger's racket. Rafa almost took the next and last game, but Roger just wouldn't have it.

Again, my point is not to pick on Rafa at all. He played an amazing match and tournament. Roger just played better. There are lots of fine details and turning points in the match, but when it comes down to it, it is really that simple. Rafa fans were so used to beating Roger that it was such a surprise - something must be wrong with Rafa, right? Maybe something was simply right with Roger?

 

[Ricardo]

Who is Ricardo? Regardless if it Roger or Grigor, you don't close out a match from the backcourt by not controlling the center of the court waiting for a 35 year old to make a mistake. Grigor has a very similar style to Roger but is no where as talented around the net as Roger. Roger bullied his way to the net numerous of times which was the right strategy. Roger played high risk first strike tennis and it really surprised Rafa. Rafa typically makes the game of tennis uncomfortable for Roger but that Sunday night there were very few instances of this . We can carry on but the result will always be the same, Roger won the match

Again, who is Ricardo

hehe allow me to introduce myself

remember you wrote this to 'Ricardo'?

"So you up 3-1 Fed runs off 3 straight games and you say stick with what got you there..thats doesn't make any sense. If that's the case Federer was up 2-1 in sets ..lost the 4set 3-6.. Fed took an extremely extended medical massage timeout and was still down 1-3.. why change at that point..why not keep on with the same tactics that got you the previous 2-1 advantage according to your tennis philosophy.."

now lets see what it means, so Federer at end of set 4 was on a 'losing momentum' and he did tactically the right thing (according to my theory) by changing something (MTO, i am not getting into whether he should) before the final set. Granted he still trailed 1-3 at the start, then he made another change, by being extra aggressive.....which eventually paid off.

so in your argument on the logic of this, clearly you've shot your own foot by getting the logic wrong....for a start. i mean i don't enjoy name calling as much as you imagine i do, but when i see 'stupidity', oops i mean extreme 'thickness', i don't know how to 'beautify' those words......might ask my beautician neighbour, see what she can come up with :lulz2:

another point is, Rafa did the right thing by being safe and changing nothing which got him 3-1 up in the fifth. This is tactic 101, who in his right mind would change to high risk tactic when he is ahead? clearly you base everything by being revisionist, by back tracking when result is known.....and smart people don't need to do that. What really amuses me, is that you think Rafa and Toni don't know any better but somehow you are the intelligent one, that you spotted that they got 'outfoxed'.......i am trying hard to find an aspect of you that's commendable you know, give me a little time

 

[Ricardo]

So what are we disagreeing with? Roger played better in the 5th set, when it most counted. I also agree with the general view that he was playing better overall in the first four sets, but wasn't able to pull away with it. When he was broken to start the 5th, it was looking like just another typical Fedal match: Rafa knowing how to push Roger's buttons, and Roger unable to respond. But this time was different.

Earlier you were implying that this was Rafa blowing it, that it was on his racket. But again, watch the set. Roger is pressuring those first few games and finally broke him - on his sixth try, I think. Then at 3-3, Roger blew him away on his service game to go up 4-3. At that point, Rafa went down 0-40, but then fought his way back. Which brings us to the magical 26-shot rally. This is a clear example that both were playing at a super high level, but Roger was just able to gain control of the rally and then give that down-the-line forehand and win it. Rafa hit plenty of great shots in that rally, but just couldn't get them by Roger, who was moving like it was 2007. Then Rafa comes up with money service winner (is that blowing it?) to get back to Deuce, but Roger wasn't having any of it. He wins the next two points on super nasty shots, provoking errors: first an inside out forehand, then a cross-court serve return to break again. Those were both clearly on Roger's racket. Rafa almost took the next and last game, but Roger just wouldn't have it.

Again, my point is not to pick on Rafa at all. He played an amazing match and tournament. Roger just played better. There are lots of fine details and turning points in the match, but when it comes down to it, it is really that simple. Rafa fans were so used to beating Roger that it was such a surprise - something must be wrong with Rafa, right? Maybe something was simply right with Roger?

default anti-pus setting,

when Rafa wins again Roger, his game was too much, he was just too good

when Fed wins, Rafa did something silly, got 'outfoxed', he gave it away for Roger to pick the banana peels (a petty win). Put simply Roger cannot win unless Rafa let him.

the above concludes overall thought process for anti-pus. Facts and match detail and process don't matter, as long as argument is in Rafa's favour.

 

[Ricardo]

As for waking up during the clay season, Rafa is playing with some different tweaks in his game. I not gonna go back in list them because we have discussed them before. Apparently you feel it's the surface not the player..I am quite sure if you are allowed to further troll you will use the argument, he didn't face Roger on clay. Well we will never know but Roger acknowledged he wouldn't have been able to overcome Rafa the past few months. Did that answer your inquiry

a grateful person would be able to appreciate Rogers modesty there........because he didn't have to say that, but saying that does make Rafa look even better.....that the dominant player of the start of season publicly declared he couldn't beat you, despite the fact in a tennis match between top players, you cannot assume the result without having the match played.

Just be grateful that Roger is very able to recognise the greatness of Nadal, they do complement each other very well and i am sure they both know that long time ago. Your continued effort to bring Federer down is really dumb, there is a reason why your idol has so much respect for him (actually just listen to what Toni said too). If Fed wasn't that great, then Nadal can't be that amazing as he built half his career by defeating Federer.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Feli won yesterday match because he learned from his lost to Grigor in 2014 and his lost to Pouille last week. You determine your own faith..flashback a few years ago at the USO, Fed had matchpoints vs Novak..Novak played high risk tennis and went for his shots. Federer said afterwards, he didn't think it was a smart play by Novak. My thoughts are who cares what Roger thoughts were, apparently Novak didn't and won the match. My point is you don't wait for your opponents to make a mistake. You have to force the action and take control of the situation. Rafa didn't Roger did. All this Rafa fans perception is just rubbish. If Roger blew a 3-1 lead in the 5 set to Nadal would you be having tho argument, heck no.

 

[Ricardo]

Feli won yesterday match because he learned from his lost to Grigor in 2014 and his lost to Pouille last week. You determine your own faith..flashback a few years ago at the USO, Fed had matchpoints vs Novak..Novak played high risk tennis and went for his shots. Federer said afterwards, he didn't think it was a smart play by Novak. My thoughts are who cares what Roger thoughts were, apparently Novak didn't and won the match. My point is you don't wait for your opponents to make a mistake. You have to force the action and take control of the situation. Rafa didn't Roger did. All this Rafa fans perception is just rubbish. If Roger blew a 3-1 lead in the 5 set to Nadal would you be having tho argument, heck no.

First you don't have a point.

Second your thoughts are rubbish, i know people would take Fed's or Novak's or whoever's thoughts over yours.

Feeding you any fact or info is useless, so here you have it....Ricardo has simplified it all for you.

 

[the AntiPusher]

And re-read my reply to your post. As Ricardo said, you see what you want to see. Again, your basic mistake is that you equate Grigor and Roger when they are very different opponents. It is almost as if you believe that Rafa's level is the only moving part and the match is always on his racket, and it doesn't matter how his opponent plays. I'm pretty sure Rafa doesn't share your arrogance.

Rafa level is the only moving part..

Have you seen whereas I said Rafa should have won IW or Miami? No..