Gerry Weber Open, Halle, Germany, ATP 500

[the AntiPusher]

Again, I don't "go after" Rafa. This is you just circling the wagons with Carol, like you often do. I don't "bait" certain posters, although I will sometimes agree with certain Fedfans, and I will occasionally troll Carol because she brings tennis fangirlism to new levels.

But yeah, I don't always agree with Front's crusade against Rafa. You and I can agree on that. I sometimes disagree with him - I'm sure he can corroborate that. But I don't see it as my job to check him, because I don't buy into the notion that we're two teams fighting each other. I tend to like to relate to everyone as individuals.

Speaking of Kieran, I wish he'd join us here. He's a sneaky sucker, because on the surface he plays it cool and tries to act like he's above Fedal Wars, but he might dig at Roger more than anyone else.

Anyhow, I apologize if I was painting with a broad-brush, like I was saying Carol was. I know Rafa fans are just as diverse as Fedfans, just as Fedfans can be just as biased as Rafa fans. It really depends upon the individual and context.

I said it before you aight with me El Benedict(Dude)..Front is too..I just have to check his hatin azz sometimes when Rafa is deemed winning to frequently for his taste..send Kieran an email ..he is still out there watching, monitoring and may join if Darth swears his alligence only to King Rafa...that would be "Sonny at the Causeway "

 

[Carol]

Again, I don't "go after" Rafa. This is you just circling the wagons with Carol, like you often do. I don't "bait" certain posters, although I will sometimes agree with certain Fedfans, and I will occasionally troll Carol because she brings tennis fangirlism to new levels.

But yeah, I don't always agree with Front's crusade against Rafa. You and I can agree on that. I sometimes disagree with him - I'm sure he can corroborate that. But I don't see it as my job to check him, because I don't buy into the notion that we're two teams fighting each other. I tend to like to relate to everyone as individuals.

Speaking of Kieran, I wish he'd join us here. He's a sneaky sucker, because on the surface he plays it cool and tries to act like he's above Fedal Wars, but he might dig at Roger more than anyone else.

Anyhow, I apologize if I was painting with a broad-brush, like I was saying Carol was. I know Rafa fans are just as diverse as Fedfans, just as Fedfans can be just as biased as Rafa fans. It really depends upon the individual and context.

And don't you think that Front, GSAM and DearthFed brings tennis fanboyism to new levels? why you don't troll them? oh yeah...I understand....you are circling the wagon with them too so don't blame AP what he is doing, each one with his own, don't you think?

 

[El Dude]

It is always someone else, isn't it, Carol?

But sure, they have their own levels of fanboyism - we all do. You're just on your own level

 

[El Dude]

I just noticed my browser window open to this page, which evidently didn't post. I wrote this a couple hours ago when we were in the heat of the discussion.

Nope I'm not a victim, I just see how much Roger's fans hate Nadal and I think it's very unfair. You should enjoy more that rivarility because won't last for ever

You paint with such a broad-brush, as if all Roger's fans hate Rafa when on this forum, only a couple I can think of actually seem to "hate" Rafa.

I don't hate Rafa and have enormous respect for him as a player. I have even made arguments for him being the GOAT (back in late 2013 or early 2014), or said I'll miss him when he's gone. If you don't know this, then you selectively read what I say to fit your, ah, victim narrative.

You are right, Rafa was out-played in the 5 set at AO by Roger, nobody has said the opposite, same like Roger was out-played in Wimbledon 2008 by Rafa

Yes, agreed. But you're wrong in that AP was pretty much saying otherwise - that Rafa "blew it" and essentially gave the match to Roger. This is, again, the implication from a lot of Rafa fans: the match is always on his racket and he can't lose if he's playing well.

Look, Rafa is so great that the match is usually on his racket. Except when he's playing either another great player (Novak, Roger), or a very good player playing the match of his life (e.g. Soderling). The same is true of Roger and Novak. I will say, though, that on clay the match is always in Rafa's racket, because Rafa at his best on clay is better than anyone else. I think the same is true, to a somewhat lesser extent, of Roger on grass.

 

[Moxie]

I just noticed my browser window open to this page, which evidently didn't post. I wrote this a couple hours ago when we were in the heat of the discussion.

You paint with such a broad-brush, as if all Roger's fans hate Rafa when on this forum, only a couple I can think of actually seem to "hate" Rafa.
I don't hate Rafa and have enormous respect for him as a player. I have even made arguments for him being the GOAT (back in late 2013 or early 2014), or said I'll miss him when he's gone. If you don't know this, then you selectively read what I say to fit your, ah, victim narrative.

Yes, agreed. But you're wrong in that AP was pretty much saying otherwise - that Rafa "blew it" and essentially gave the match to Roger. This is, again, the implication from a lot of Rafa fans: the match is always on his racket and he can't lose if he's playing well.

Look, Rafa is so great that the match is usually on his racket. Except when he's playing either another great player (Novak, Roger), or a very good player playing the match of his life (e.g. Soderling). The same is true of Roger and Novak. I will say, though, that on clay the match is always in Rafa's racket, because Rafa at his best on clay is better than anyone else. I think the same is true, to a somewhat lesser extent, of Roger on grass.

I know you're trying to be helpful and reasonable, Dude, but we do all expose our biases when we get in these arguments, and I will expose mine here, as well. It's very hard not to read unspoken agenda into these Fedal Wars posts, and hard not to group fans, even where some are more guilty than others. I know you're trying.

There is a phrase that I think gets folks riled up, and that is "match on his racquet." It implies superiority, and is used too freely, IMO. Funnily, I think that it is much more common for Roger's fans to claim the match on his racquet, and the rabid ones insist that all losses are down to Roger being crap. Rarely a nod to the winner, especially if it is Nadal. Now, that's the rabid ones, but you did just say above: "Rafa is so great that the match is usually on his racket. Except when he's playing either another great player (Novak, Roger)...," which is a bit laughable, given his record over Roger. Do you see how that phrase is loaded and incites argument? Now, as I said, I would expose my own bias, by saying I hear it more from the Fedfan camp. But we peg what bothers us, so I'm not pretending no one says it from the other side.

What diminishes the conversation particularly is rummaging around in the old resentments of matches lost, piling on excuses (from both sides,) and refusing to acknowledge the absolute greatness of both Federer and Nadal. Many posters do acknowledge this, and debate appropriately. But the far wings of each camp are entrenched, and won't let a rude slight go by without an equally absurd retort. Even on this thread it was reduced to something like 'you didn't go to 7th grade,' and 'you didn't even go to kindergarten.' I'm not even making that up. Reasonable people, such as @Federberg have decided that life is simply too short, and essentially quit the conversation altogether. That's a shame. There's no solution to trolling, and by that I mean hammering one's point, endlessly, regardless of points made in the discussion, only to further an agenda. Those who will have only one winner in the Fedal Wars will never see it differently, sadly.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I agree, Moxie - and I do realize that Fedfans are particularly prone to the "match on his racket." There are different flavors, though. And as with Rafa, it is partially true - but not always, especially against other great players.

But I was also referring to a specific comment made by AntiPusher, in which he gave his own version of that with regards to this year's AO final, first by saying Rafa "blew it" (as if Roger didn't have anything to do with it), secondly by comparing Rafa's play vs. Dimitrov to his play vs. Roger. The point being, the opponents aren't static. It isn't just how good Rafa plays, but who he is playing against and how they are playing.

As for the comment you quoted, I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't saying when Rafa plays Novak and Roger the match is on their rackets. I was saying that when Rafa plays another great player, it isn't simply a matter of him playing good enough to win, because at their very best, Roger and Novak can match Rafa's very best. The only way to beat any of those three when they're playing their "A games" is to either be another great player playing his A game, or a very good player playing the match of his life, and even then a lesser player probably needs the greater player to slip to his B game for whatever reason - being tired, injured,etc (e.g. Stan beating Novak at the 2015 RG, Cilic beating Roger at the 2014 US Open, Soderling beating Rafa at the 2009 FO, etc).

Dimitrov played the match of his life and it wasn't good enough, because Rafa dug deep and is just a far greater player. To say that Rafa blew it against Roger because he couldn't do what he did to Dimitrov, is essentially saying that Dimitrov and Roger are the same player, or as good, which is absurd. Rafa did dig deep, but Roger dug deeper. That was the 5th set. When one great player digs deeper than the other, he wins. I think this is shocking to some Rafa fans--it just doesn't register--because of the lop-sided match-up, so some of them want to make excuses or put the blame on Rafa, or him being tired or hurt or blowing it, rather than giving Roger the credit he deserves for out-playing Rafa in that 5th set.

Any given match between two players is usually on the racket of the greater player, with mitigating factors like surface, age, match-up, streaks, etc. But when you have two great players, after the mitigating factors are accounted for, it comes down to who plays better at the time (and to what degree they are able to overcome any mitigating factors that are deficiencies, e.g. like Roger's match-up problem vs. Rafa).

 

[Carol]

I said it before you aight with me El Benedict(Dude)..Front is too..I just have to check his hatin azz sometimes when Rafa is deemed winning to frequently for his taste..send Kieran an email ..he is still out there watching, monitoring and may join if Darth swears his alligence only to King Rafa...that would be "Sonny at the Causeway "

I know you're trying to be helpful and reasonable, Dude, but we do all expose our biases when we get in these arguments, and I will expose mine here, as well. It's very hard not to read unspoken agenda into these Fedal Wars posts, and hard not to group fans, even where some are more guilty than others. I know you're trying.

There is a phrase that I think gets folks riled up, and that is "match on his racquet." It implies superiority, and is used too freely, IMO. Funnily, I think that it is much more common for Roger's fans to claim the match on his racquet, and the rabid ones insist that all losses are down to Roger being crap. Rarely a nod to the winner, especially if it is Nadal. Now, that's the rabid ones, but you did just say above: "Rafa is so great that the match is usually on his racket. Except when he's playing either another great player (Novak, Roger)...," which is a bit laughable, given his record over Roger. Do you see how that phrase is loaded and incites argument? Now, as I said, I would expose my own bias, by saying I hear it more from the Fedfan camp. But we peg what bothers us, so I'm not pretending no one says it from the other side.

What diminishes the conversation particularly is rummaging around in the old resentments of matches lost, piling on excuses (from both sides,) and refusing to acknowledge the absolute greatness of both Federer and Nadal. Many posters do acknowledge this, and debate appropriately. But the far wings of each camp are entrenched, and won't let a rude slight go by without an equally absurd retort. Even on this thread it was reduced to something like 'you didn't go to 7th grade,' and 'you didn't even go to kindergarten.' I'm not even making that up. Reasonable people, such as @Federberg have decided that life is simply too short, and essentially quit the conversation altogether. That's a shame. There's no solution to trolling, and by that I mean hammering one's point, endlessly, regardless of points made in the discussion, only to further an agenda. Those who will have only one winner in the Fedal Wars will never see it differently, sadly.

Yes, some silly comments indeed about "7 grade and kindergarten" but with that kind of poster you have two options, to answer with something as silly as him or to send him to hell because it would be imposible to have a reasonable conversation with him. I agree, life is short and sometimes the silly things is better to take like a joke

 

[the AntiPusher]

I know you're trying to be helpful and reasonable, Dude, but we do all expose our biases when we get in these arguments, and I will expose mine here, as well. It's very hard not to read unspoken agenda into these Fedal Wars posts, and hard not to group fans, even where some are more guilty than others. I know you're trying.

There is a phrase that I think gets folks riled up, and that is "match on his racquet." It implies superiority, and is used too freely, IMO. Funnily, I think that it is much more common for Roger's fans to claim the match on his racquet, and the rabid ones insist that all losses are down to Roger being crap. Rarely a nod to the winner, especially if it is Nadal. Now, that's the rabid ones, but you did just say above: "Rafa is so great that the match is usually on his racket. Except when he's playing either another great player (Novak, Roger)...," which is a bit laughable, given his record over Roger. Do you see how that phrase is loaded and incites argument? Now, as I said, I would expose my own bias, by saying I hear it more from the Fedfan camp. But we peg what bothers us, so I'm not pretending no one says it from the other side.

What diminishes the conversation particularly is rummaging around in the old resentments of matches lost, piling on excuses (from both sides,) and refusing to acknowledge the absolute greatness of both Federer and Nadal. Many posters do acknowledge this, and debate appropriately. But the far wings of each camp are entrenched, and won't let a rude slight go by without an equally absurd retort. Even on this thread it was reduced to something like 'you didn't go to 7th grade,' and 'you didn't even go to kindergarten.' I'm not even making that up. Reasonable people, such as @Federberg have decided that life is simply too short, and essentially quit the conversation altogether. That's a shame. There's no solution to trolling, and by that I mean hammering one's point, endlessly, regardless of points made in the discussion, only to further an agenda. Those who will have only one winner in the Fedal Wars will never see it differently, sadly.

Good post Moxie..really it all about respecting the other poster..BB most famous quote was debate the post not the poster..which is so true

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I agree, Moxie - and I do realize that Fedfans are particularly prone to the "match on his racket." There are different flavors, though. And as with Rafa, it is partially true - but not always, especially against other great players.

But I was also referring to a specific comment made by AntiPusher, in which he gave his own version of that with regards to this year's AO final, first by saying Rafa "blew it" (as if Roger didn't have anything to do with it), secondly by comparing Rafa's play vs. Dimitrov to his play vs. Roger. The point being, the opponents aren't static. It isn't just how good Rafa plays, but who he is playing against and how they are playing.

As for the comment you quoted, I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't saying when Rafa plays Novak and Roger the match is on their rackets. I was saying that when Rafa plays another great player, it isn't simply a matter of him playing good enough to win, because at their very best, Roger and Novak can match Rafa's very best. The only way to beat any of those three when they're playing their "A games" is to either be another great player playing his A game, or a very good player playing the match of his life, and even then a lesser player probably needs the greater player to slip to his B game for whatever reason - being tired, injured,etc (e.g. Stan beating Novak at the 2015 RG, Cilic beating Roger at the 2014 US Open, Soderling beating Rafa at the 2009 FO, etc).

Dimitrov played the match of his life and it wasn't good enough, because Rafa dug deep and is just a far greater player. To say that Rafa blew it against Roger because he couldn't do what he did to Dimitrov, is essentially saying that Dimitrov and Roger are the same player, or as good, which is absurd. Rafa did dig deep, but Roger dug deeper. That was the 5th set. When one great player digs deeper than the other, he wins. I think this is shocking to some Rafa fans--it just doesn't register--because of the lop-sided match-up, so some of them want to make excuses or put the blame on Rafa, or him being tired or hurt or blowing it, rather than giving Roger the credit he deserves for out-playing Rafa in that 5th set.

Any given match between two players is usually on the racket of the greater player, with mitigating factors like surface, age, match-up, streaks, etc. But when you have two great players, after the mitigating factors are accounted for, it comes down to who plays better at the time (and to what degree they are able to overcome any mitigating factors that are deficiencies, e.g. like Roger's match-up problem vs. Rafa).

I agree with essentially all of that. And I don't agree with AP, if he insists that Rafa blew the match v. Roger at the AO this year. He only owned that match on paper. He had to work hard to get 5 sets. I very much agree that Roger dug deeper. My personal niggle about that match was the structure of the AO SFs, as I think it would have been better had they each had equal rest, but I wouldn't presume to insist that it would have changed the outcome.

I think you get my point about the poisonousness of the phrase "on his racquet," and I'll take your point as to how you meant it, re: Nadal and other top guys. Though you still did go for the "partially true." You just can't help yourself, I guess. But we all have our biases.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, some silly comments indeed about "7 grade and kindergarten" but with that kind of poster you have two options, to answer with something as silly as him or to send him to hell because it would be imposible to have a reasonable conversation with him. I agree, life is short and sometimes the silly things is better to take like a joke

A third option is to ignore and move on. I've been trying to use that one a lot, personally.

 

[El Dude]

I think you get my point about the poisonousness of the phrase "on his racquet," and I'll take your point as to how you meant it, re: Nadal and other top guys. Though you still did go for the "partially true." You just can't help yourself, I guess. But we all have our biases.

Well no, not at all as I think you misunderstand what I mean by "partially true."

I am saying that with any great player--be it Rafa, Roger, or Novak--they are so great that the match is usually on their racket, thus the phrase being partially true. I am not separating out Roger in any way (if that is what you are assuming). I would even say when Rafa is playing in clay, the match is 99% on his racket; when Roger's on grass, it is maybe 97%.

But yeah, I don't really like the phrase either, which is why I was deconstructing it a bit...but the partially true bit is there.

Anyhow, I think you assume Fedal warring when it isn't always the case!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

Well no, not at all as I think you misunderstand what I mean by "partially true."

I am saying that with any great player--be it Rafa, Roger, or Novak--they are so great that the match is usually on their racket, thus the phrase being partially true. I am not separating out Roger in any way (if that is what you are assuming). I would even say when Rafa is playing in clay, the match is 99% on his racket; when Roger's on grass, it is maybe 97%.

But yeah, I don't really like the phrase either, which is why I was deconstructing it a bit...but the partially true bit is there.

Anyhow, I think you assume Fedal warring when it isn't always the case!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doll, I wasn't really trying to tar you with the brush, as you're trying to be part of the solution! I think it is worth de-constructing the phrase. I guess it means that the assumption is that the match will be played on the terms of one player, over the other. So, OK, clay Rafa/grass Roger. But it tends to assume the aggressive player, when we're on neutral terms. And that is something I object to. Because Nadal can lay in wait for his opponents, but the assumption is that, when they lose, they blew it with their UFEs and missed opportunities. Whereas, this has been Nadal's MO, much of the time...play better, make fewer errors, force the other player into error. Spin the web (with spin) and catch the other player in it. Some people don't like that style of play, and then just complain that the opponent choked. Like it or not, it's one way to get 15 Majors and all the rest. But I think it leads some into the temptation of thinking that a lot of these matches were not on Rafa's racquet. I think results prove that they were. Which is not to say that I won't agree he's lost by being too passive on occasion. Both types of players can live by and die by their swords, however you play.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Just finished watching extended highlights of Halle finals. I thought it is quite unusual to have this many drop shot winners in a grass court match. I actually expect more drop shot stuff in clay court matches. Is it me or other folks also think this match featured unusually high number of drop shots for a grass court match.

 

[Front242]

Just finished watching extended highlights of Halle finals. I thought it is quite unusual to have this many drop shot winners in a grass court match. I actually expect more drop shot stuff in clay court matches. Is it me or other folks also think this match featured unusually high number of drop shots for a grass court match.

Quite a few crackers from Rodge, alright. He really dropped it like it's hawt Zverev was playing miles behind the baseline so it was good thinking by El Maestro.