GRASS SEASON - General Discussion

[monfed]

Roddick was the 2009 Champion except for one single bad volley by him. Roger had no business winning that match. Even in the 5th, he had so much difficulty closing it out. Andy lost that 5th set rather than Roger winning it. In 2008 Nadal undoubtedly was the better player but Roger had no excuse coming into the match with zero mental preparation after that whipping in RG. Many were projecting Nadal as the champion and Roger was just in denial.

Rodduck is not known to be a good volleyer and a CC BH volley is not an easy shot like a FH CC volley is specially for a 2HBH. Having said that, duck deserved to win that match and Fred escaped.

Fred deserved atleast one of Wim 14, 15 though, specially 15 where he played out of his mind against Murphy in the SF. Faker got lucky because Murphy landed in Freddy's half. I don't think you need me to tell you what would've happened if fakervic had met a peaking grassray in the SF.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Yes, but like I said Roger underperformed in both. That good old phrase "on paper" he shouldn't lose to Nadal or Roddick on grass, not even close really. I'd also say his play in 2009 was quite a bit worse than the 2008 final.

The 2008 Roger would’ve wiped the court with 2009 Fed.

 

[Moxie]

It just shows that it's easier to dominate clay than grass.

I know you're talking about Roger and Rafa, but is this really true? I wonder who else you would present to support that.

 

[DarthFed]

The 2008 Roger would’ve wiped the court with 2009 Fed.

And the pre-2008 Roger would have wiped the court with the 2008 version as would 2014 and 2017 Fed if not others.

 

[monfed]

I know you're talking about Roger and Rafa, but is this really true? I wonder who else you would present to support that.

A big hitter can take out a player on grass much easier than on clay.

 

[Carol]

When Roger was wearing the pants backward

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Stop throwing stones from glass houses.

At least that happened after a lengthy match when one is exhausted.

How come Rafa is wearing shorts backwards? Moreover, he wanted to ban the referee too for not allowing him to go home and change it.

 

[Moxie]

A big hitter can take out a player on grass much easier than on clay.

I take that point, but it doesn't show that there have been more dominant players on clay than on grass. Show me some examples. I mean Roger and Pete both won 7 Wimbledons, until Roger passed him. No one has won more than 6 RG until Rafa. And that's only Borg.

 

[monfed]

I take that point, but it doesn't show that there have been more dominant players on clay than on grass. Show me some examples. I mean Roger and Pete both won 7 Wimbledons, until Roger passed him. No one has won more than 6 RG until Rafa. And that's only Borg.

Borg may have won more RGs if he hadn't retired earlier but yes Nadal's BH abuse of righties is a clear advantage to him compared to Fed who has to always play his best or near best to win. Nadal can play his C game and still win at RG because that court is tailor made for him. The courts at Wimbledon second week is not tailor made for Fed infact he struggles more in the 2nd week than first week so that is already an advantage to Nadal so it's a kindof unfair comparison.

My main point is that Nadal can get away with his C or D or E game at RG by just defending and getting every ball back and his short balls not getting punished because they even if they fall short they land on the right handers BH side so they're harder to put away. Combine that with unreal luck such as RG 11 (avoiding fakervic), RG 13 (net trip), these are just two instances that stand out, it's almost impossible to beat him.

If Fed had Nadal's RG luck, he would be sitting at 11 Wimbledons easy. You wanna know how? Fed wins Wim 08 without the darkness, Fed wins Wim 14 if he makes that overhead in the fifth set, Fed wins Wim 15 if Murphy falls on faker's side and Fed wins Wim 16 if he doesnt have a bad knee.

I don't care what dulltards say but dull has had unreal luck at RG with cake draws and net touches and what not, somehow all the random variables always fall in his favour.

 

[monfed]

The 2nd week grass does NOT suit Federer. It suits players like Djokovic, Nadal, Murray etc who can get away with pushing and grinding down their opponents. If the grass stayed true to it's nature like the first week grass, Federer wouldve never lost a single match to any of these ultra-grinders. Sure he may have been upset in his 2010 or 2013 form to one of the big hitters but he wouldn't have lost Wim 08, 14, 15 for sure and this is where Nadal is luckier at RG because the court conditions(unless the courts are damp which is not a given) suit him sometimes even more if it's hot and sunny which it usually is in the 2nd week of Paris.

The reason why Pete was in a way even more dominant than Federer at Wimbledon because the courts were tailor made for him. The grass didn't become slow and bouncy in the 2nd week in his era. They were fast and low bouncing throughout the tournament.

 

[Moxie]

@GameSetAndMath : This is your response to my post in the Rankings Thread doubting Roger's Wimbledon odds of 36%. I didn't want to keep polluting that thread..it's nice to keep that one to its purpose, I think. Your post:

"If Roger plays like he did in Halle, then there are at least 20 different players who can take him out.

If Roger plays somewhat decent, then here are the folks who can take him out.

1. Cilic (he is really good on grass with powerful serve and good movement)
2. JMDP (he is a big stage player and has pedigree in Wimbledon)
3. Rejuvenated Novak
4. Kyrgios (every set is a TB with this guy, it is a coin toss, he may win more coin tosses, he does not pee in his pants when seeing big four)
5. An odd upset by any number of folks such as Misha, Querry, Isner, Borna, etc. (this is less probable)."

I take your points and your list on board. Of those, the likeliest one to make the final or SF is Cilic. And I don't think Roger would see him before then, at which point I think Roger will be well-ready. Djokovic is much more vulnerable to upset than either, but, sure, if he's finding his groove and gets Roger semi-early, he might take him out. To @Darth's point, in the post after yours, about Roger finding his motivation: if he's not going to be motivated for Wimbledon, I don't know what. If he can't really find his grass game, that's another thing, but I tend to think he'll be finding that higher gear he's been holding in reserve to conserve energy. I know nothing about betting odds, so if it's 36% chance, I won't argue. But the one person Roger won't have to play is his best self. Even if he's not A+, he can still take on the field, so it's down to how he's feeling it.

 

[monfed]

I think Federer screwed himself playing both Stuttgart and Halle. This could be another Montreal 2017 situation where Federer will lose a slam in the hunt to become #1. It's madness.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Back on the topic of tennis, the last couple of days I've been coming up with ideas for a poem about Wimbledon. Would anyone like me to share it or would you prefer me to keep it to myself or write it in my poetry section?

Please! You're a uniquely skilled person among us here, I love your comments & creations.

 

[Moxie]

Borg may have won more RGs if he hadn't retired earlier but yes Nadal's BH abuse of righties is a clear advantage to him compared to Fed who has to always play his best or near best to win. Nadal can play his C game and still win at RG because that court is tailor made for him. The courts at Wimbledon second week is not tailor made for Fed infact he struggles more in the 2nd week than first week so that is already an advantage to Nadal so it's a kindof unfair comparison.

My main point is that Nadal can get away with his C or D or E game at RG by just defending and getting every ball back and his short balls not getting punished because they even if they fall short they land on the right handers BH side so they're harder to put away. Combine that with unreal luck such as RG 11 (avoiding fakervic), RG 13 (net trip), these are just two instances that stand out, it's almost impossible to beat him.

If Fed had Nadal's RG luck, he would be sitting at 11 Wimbledons easy. You wanna know how? Fed wins Wim 08 without the darkness, Fed wins Wim 14 if he makes that overhead in the fifth set, Fed wins Wim 15 if Murphy falls on faker's side and Fed wins Wim 16 if he doesnt have a bad knee.

I don't care what dulltards say but dull has had unreal luck at RG with cake draws and net touches and what not, somehow all the random variables always fall in his favour.

I was just hoping you had something to back up your sweeping statement that "clay is easier to dominate than grass," but it seems that you were really just making a Fedal Wars lazy statement that means essentially nothing.
You love to talk about "luck" in those players and teams you don't like. (I noticed it also on the World Cup thread.) It's a rather pathetic plea to diminish their accomplishments and actual athletic gifts. Not to be tedious, but your two examples of Nadal's luck in '11 and '13 are very questionable. The net touch in '13 was one point and didn't determine the game. It was on a deuce point, and Novak had another ad point after. And he did legitimately lose that point and that game. It's on him if he didn't convert that break. As to '11, given what we saw for years after, Novak wasn't ready to beat Nadal at RG in '11. You have to remember that, if he hadn't lost to Roger in 4, they'd have played the 5th on Sat. Had Novak won, he'd have to have played his first RG final, v. Nadal, after a full set with Roger the day before. It's unlikely he'd have been in shape to do it.

As to Roger's "bad luck" in all of the Wimbledon's you state: how does Roger win '08 without darkness? He only gets to come back the next day. Rafa tends to start hotter, so I'm pretty sure that only would have prolonged the inevitable. The rest is just excuse-making. If he didn't miss a shot he wouldn't have missed it. But he did. And if the draw were different in any given match, you actually cannot say what would have happened. Roger peaked a round early in '15. Which could easily have meant that he'd have beaten Novak in SF and lost to Murray in F. See how that works? Talk of "bad luck" or "good luck" is fan talk, not tennis talk. And it's really just a lot of whining.

 

[monfed]

I was just hoping you had something to back up your sweeping statement that "clay is easier to dominate than grass," but it seems that you were really just making a Fedal Wars lazy statement that means essentially nothing.
You love to talk about "luck" in those players and teams you don't like. (I noticed it also on the World Cup thread.) It's a rather pathetic plea to diminish their accomplishments and actual athletic gifts. Not to be tedious, but your two examples of Nadal's luck in '11 and '13 are very questionable. The net touch in '13 was one point and didn't determine the game. It was on a deuce point, and Novak had another ad point after. And he did legitimately lose that point and that game. It's on him if he didn't convert that break. As to '11, given what we saw for years after, Novak wasn't ready to beat Nadal at RG in '11. You have to remember that, if he hadn't lost to Roger in 4, they'd have played the 5th on Sat. Had Novak won, he'd have to have played his first RG final, v. Nadal, after a full set with Roger the day before. It's unlikely he'd have been in shape to do it.

As to Roger's "bad luck" in all of the Wimbledon's you state: how does Roger win '08 without darkness? He only gets to come back the next day. Rafa tends to start hotter, so I'm pretty sure that only would have prolonged the inevitable. The rest is just excuse-making. If he didn't miss a shot he wouldn't have missed it. But he did. And if the draw were different in any given match, you actually cannot say what would have happened. Roger peaked a round early in '15. Which could easily have meant that he'd have beaten Novak in SF and lost to Murray in F. See how that works? Talk of "bad luck" or "good luck" is fan talk, not tennis talk. And it's really just a lot of whining.

Blah blah blah, more dulltard revisionist crap.

Give me a break, faker would've thrashed dull at RG 11, he had dominated him the entire clay season and hadn't dropped a set, even in Rome where he was dead tired and dull was fresh he still beat dull in straights. You dulltards can't even accept basic truths that's why I save my energy arguing endlessly with you.

Everything was in faker's favour, faker's DTL BH was firing on all cylinders, his groundstrokes were powerful and deep and he wasn't missing a ball, he was deeply in dull's head, lighter balls so easier to hit through dull's defense. It would've been a 3 or 4 set win for faker.

 

[Moxie]

Blah blah blah, more dulltard revisionist crap.

Give me a break, faker would've thrashed dull at RG 11, he had dominated him the entire clay season and hadn't dropped a set, even in Rome where he was dead tired and dull was fresh he still beat dull in straights. You dulltards can't even accept basic truths that's why I save my energy arguing endlessly with you.

Everything was in faker's favour, faker's DTL BH was firing on all cylinders, his groundstrokes were powerful and deep and he wasn't missing a ball, he was deeply in dull's head, lighter balls so easier to hit through dull's defense. It would've been a 3 or 4 set win for faker.

And yet he lost to Roger. You really can't completely reinvent reality. I asked you to remember that Novak would have been forced to play a full (no TBs) set with Roger Federer, the day before playing Nadal at RG in his first final there. There is a solid argument, especially based on subsequent performance, that Novak wouldn't have gotten the job done, two days in a row. You certainly can't be sure what would have happened in an alternate universe. You understand that, right?

 

[monfed]

And yet he lost to Roger. You really can't completely reinvent reality. I asked you to remember that Novak would have been forced to play a full (no TBs) set with Roger Federer, the day before playing Nadal at RG in his first final there. There is a solid argument, especially based on subsequent performance, that Novak wouldn't have gotten the job done, two days in a row. You certainly can't be sure what would have happened in an alternate universe. You understand that, right?

Federer is a tougher matchup for faker specially in faster conditions than dull. It's well known. Federer almost beat faker at USO 11 and shouldve if it wasn't for a blind return on MP, meanwhile dull got his ass kicked in the USO 11 final. You can keep denying it but you're just lying to yourself so have at it.

Here to remind you how much faker was owning dull in 2011 clay season -

 

[DarthFed]

And yet he lost to Roger. You really can't completely reinvent reality. I asked you to remember that Novak would have been forced to play a full (no TBs) set with Roger Federer, the day before playing Nadal at RG in his first final there. There is a solid argument, especially based on subsequent performance, that Novak wouldn't have gotten the job done, two days in a row. You certainly can't be sure what would have happened in an alternate universe. You understand that, right?

Please, I think it's easy to see the difference in circumstances between the matchup in 2011 vs. 2012-2014. Nole obviously wasn't playing as well those years and Rafa had beaten Nole a bunch of times to reverse the trend. Nole losing to Roger there was a matchup thing, it's not for sure he'd have beaten Nadal in the final but given how badly he had beaten him that year before and after that final...he probably would've gotten the job done. Nole had a marathon with Murray the day before the Rome final and that was a routine win, he would've been fine if the match with Roger went the next day. That win by Roger was both great and costly. I've always said that.

 

[monfed]

Federer's takedown of faker in RG 11 SF as a gift(disgusting if you ask me) for mowgli is the SINGLE BIGGEST MISTAKE of Federer's ENTIRE CAREER! Had he unleashed faker on dull, dull would've been utterly destroyed both physically and more importantly mentally where his entire season would've derailed. dull would've not made either Wimbledon or USO finals that year had he been humiliated by faker at his beloved RG. Godamn lucker lucked out like the little weasel that he is. What a robbery!!!

 

[monfed]

Imagine if somebody had taken out Nadull at Wim 08 before the final.... Yea that's exactly what happened to Nadull at RG 11 when Fed took out peakest of peak fakervic OUT OF NOWHERE. It is sickening beyond belief. I still to this day haven't fully come to terms with Frauderer's DUMBASS decision of taking out faker.