GRASS SEASON - General Discussion

[Moxie]

Rafa underachieve at Wimbledon? That's hilarious. With his game, mainly the lack of serve and huge backswings, he is lucky as hell to have won any. Surface change was huge for him but Roger being weak as hell in 2008 contributed too.

Anyways hopefully Roger is ready to go, 10 Wimbledon's should be his goal and you need 9 first.

I knew I'd hear from you on this one. :lulz2: Roger "weak as hell" in 2008 W...you will never stop re-writing that match to suit your fantasy of it. He hadn't dropped a set until that final, and he played Hewitt and Safin, so not 'nobodies.' I guess his mono just flared up for the final. B-)

 

[DarthFed]

I knew I'd hear from you on this one. :lulz2: Roger "weak as hell" in 2008 W...you will never stop re-writing that match to suit your fantasy of it. He hadn't dropped a set until that final, and he played Hewitt and Safin, so not 'nobodies.' I guess his mono just flared up for the final. B-)

Yeah because Hewitt was so good in 2008 and remind me again what Safin ever did on grass? Fed had a pretty easy draw to the final that year and then was pretty awful during it. People, as in Rafa fans, overhype his play to the 10th degree. It's telling that he is usually playing at a higher level in his Mid-30's then he did that match.

 

[Federberg]

Yeah because Hewitt was so good in 2008 and remind me again what Safin ever did on grass? Fed had a pretty easy draw to the final that year and then was pretty awful during it. People, as in Rafa fans, overhype his play to the 10th degree. It's telling that he is usually playing at a higher level in his Mid-30's then he did that match.

I have to say mate. Roger breezed thru to the final in 2008. I even remember Safin giving a great interview after he lost about the mental aspect of playing Roger. Let's face it Roger played scared the first two sets of the final. You know it, I know it. Only when it was almost over did he get into a fuckit mentality. I still remember his DTL backhand in the 3rd set tie break. What a cracker. To my dying day I'll always maintain that match should have been stopped latest at 3 all in the 5th. It was too dark. I would have been given 3 points if I drove from my house to the courts without my lights on.

 

[10isfan]

Fed was being too polite. He said in an interview that he couldn’t see well due to darkness, but thought if he asked to stop the match, it would be bad sportsmanship.

 

[monfed]

Fed was being too polite. He said in an interview that he couldn’t see well due to darkness, but thought if he asked to stop the match, it would be bad sportsmanship.

And sadly that has been the downfall of his career which Nadal took advantage of.

 

[DarthFed]

I have to say mate. Roger breezed thru to the final in 2008. I even remember Safin giving a great interview after he lost about the mental aspect of playing Roger. Let's face it Roger played scared the first two sets of the final. You know it, I know it. Only when it was almost over did he get into a fuckit mentality. I still remember his DTL backhand in the 3rd set tie break. What a cracker. To my dying day I'll always maintain that match should have been stopped latest at 3 all in the 5th. It was too dark. I would have been given 3 points if I drove from my house to the courts without my lights on.

Oh I know brotha. But they both played in the darkness, dumb or not it shouldn't have been 5 sets if Fed had come out and taken care of business. He was way too passive for most of the 2007 and 2008 matches. And in 2008 just not clutch enough but these late-career wins can hopefully make up for that one somewhat.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I have to say mate. Roger breezed thru to the final in 2008. I even remember Safin giving a great interview after he lost about the mental aspect of playing Roger. Let's face it Roger played scared the first two sets of the final. You know it, I know it. Only when it was almost over did he get into a fuckit mentality. I still remember his DTL backhand in the 3rd set tie break. What a cracker. To my dying day I'll always maintain that match should have been stopped latest at 3 all in the 5th. It was too dark. I would have been given 3 points if I drove from my house to the courts without my lights on.

On the flip side, Roger won the final against Roddick when it was played in dark (and Roddick suffered from the darkness issue).

But, I am really upset with Wimbledon independent of who is affected by this. In this day and age, they should be able to decide
objectively when to stop play due to light, by using an instrument that can measure the level of light/darkness. Even if both
players agree to continue, the play should be stopped if there is not enough light. Heck, the audience have the right to demand
that good tennis is played and it is not possible without reasonable amount of light.

 

[monfed]

I think they didn't stop because it would've been a HUGE anti-climax to start a match that epic the next day. It is Fed's fault for not carrying the winning momentum from the 4th into the fifth and clinching it. He repeated the same mistake against eggovic in Wim 14. Both matches were lost because Fed failed to press the accelerator and go ahead early in the fifth.

You know what's common in both the finals? Fed simply did not have the self belief to WIN the match. He was playing for survival rather than victory and you just cannot do that against faker and dull.

 

[Federberg]

Oh I know brotha. But they both played in the darkness, dumb or not it shouldn't have been 5 sets if Fed had come out and taken care of business. He was way too passive for most of the 2007 and 2008 matches. And in 2008 just not clutch enough but these late-career wins can hopefully make up for that one somewhat.

People always say that - both of them experienced the same conditions - but think about it, facing that nasty left spin which is so atypical. Rafa definitely had a big advantage in the darkness sadly

 

[Federberg]

On the flip side, Roger won the final against Roddick when it was played in dark (and Roddick suffered from the darkness issue).

But, I am really upset with Wimbledon independent of who is affected by this. In this day and age, they should be able to decide
objectively when to stop play due to light, by using an instrument that can measure the level of light/darkness. Even if both
players agree to continue, the play should be stopped if there is not enough light. Heck, the audience have the right to demand
that good tennis is played and it is not possible without reasonable amount of light.

Hmmmm... it was the same mate. I was living in the same house. Don't know why but it was still normal daylight in the final set of that Roddick match. I never once even thought about the darkness in that match and trust me I was walking around with a cohiba robusto in one hand and a glass of desert wine in the other hand in my garden. Funny really I never even considered any possible parallels with the 08 match

 

[monfed]

People always say that - both of them experienced the same conditions - but think about it, facing that nasty left spin which is so atypical. Rafa definitely had a big advantage in the darkness sadly

When have the intangibles ever been in Fed's favour rather than dull? Go ahead just try me. I'll save you the effort. Never.

 

[Federberg]

I think they didn't stop because it would've been a HUGE anti-climax to start a match that epic the next day. It is Fed's fault for not carrying the winning momentum from the 4th into the fifth and clinching it. He repeated the same mistake against eggovic in Wim 14. Both matches were lost because Fed failed to press the accelerator and go ahead early in the fifth.

You know what's common in both the finals? Fed simply did not have the self belief to WIN the match. He was playing for survival rather than victory and you just cannot do that against faker and dull.

can't really argue with this. The simple fact is that Roger has always had a tendency of trying to let his opponent lose rather than go out and grab it. The only matches of his where I feel like he's gone for the kill were AO17 and Wim07. Otherwise if the other guy zones he's vulnerable. Say what you want about Rafa but in that type of situation he always becomes even more aggressive, much to his credit

 

[Federberg]

When have the intangibles ever been in Fed's favour rather than dull? Go ahead just try me. I'll save you the effort. Never.

Well that's all flipped around now hasn't it? Rafa's the one left scratching his head wondering what he needs to do. About bloody time I say!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Hmmmm... it was the same mate. I was living in the same house. Don't know why but it was still normal daylight in the final set of that Roddick match. I never once even thought about the darkness in that match and trust me I was walking around with a cohiba robusto in one hand and a glass of desert wine in the other hand in my garden. Funny really I never even considered any possible parallels with the 08 match

Well, you are right. While it was dark in Roddick match, it was in no way comparable to 08 final. Actually in 10 final, the darkness was not the primary issue., but the shadow. The shadow problem was affecting only one side of the court (of course, since the players alternate sides every two games, it would cause problems to both with equal opportunity). Anyway, Roddick succumbed due to shadow.

The problem with equal opportunity argument is that the shadow's size is not fixed and changes as time progresses and I think Roddick got the elongated version first and succumbed.

But, seriously why can't they use a photometer(?) to objectively decide when to stop play?

 

[Federberg]

Well, you are right. While it was dark in Roddick match, it was in no way comparable to 08 final. Actually in 10 final, the darkness was not the primary issue., but the shadow. The shadow problem was affecting only one side of the court (of course, since the players alternate sides every two games, it would cause problems to both with equal opportunity). Anyway, Roddick succumbed due to shadow.

The problem with equal opportunity argument is that the shadow's size is not fixed and changes as time progresses and I think Roddick got the elongated version first and succumbed.

But, seriously why can't they use a photometer(?) to objectively decide when to stop play?

the power of the tv companies mate. It's that simple

 

[DarthFed]

I think they didn't stop because it would've been a HUGE anti-climax to start a match that epic the next day. It is Fed's fault for not carrying the winning momentum from the 4th into the fifth and clinching it. He repeated the same mistake against eggovic in Wim 14. Both matches were lost because Fed failed to press the accelerator and go ahead early in the fifth.

You know what's common in both the finals? Fed simply did not have the self belief to WIN the match. He was playing for survival rather than victory and you just cannot do that against faker and dull.

Yeah both 5th sets were really bad from Roger in 2008 and 2014. He had what I refer to as a mountain of momentum in both and ended up playing pretty pathetic. Especially in the end he went down tamely in both with crazy errors. It was a little more understandable in 2014 when he was nearing 33 years old and I'd also say he was far better in that match overall than in 2008. Djokovic had to play out of his mind to win that day.

 

[monfed]

Yeah both 5th sets were really bad from Roger in 2008 and 2014. He had what I refer to as a mountain of momentum in both and ended up playing pretty pathetic. Especially in the end he went down tamely in both with crazy errors. It was a little more understandable in 2014 when he was nearing 33 years old and I'd also say he was far better in that match overall than in 2008. Djokovic had to play out of his mind to win that day.

People talk a lot about faker's return on MP at USO 11 SF but his return in the first point to Fed's wide serve in the last game of the Wim 14 final was just absurd. The serve hit the corner of the line and was out of my tv screen and yet that return landed at Fed's toes. Absolutely ridiculous, Fed's so unlucky with these peakers.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Yeah both 5th sets were really bad from Roger in 2008 and 2014. He had what I refer to as a mountain of momentum in both and ended up playing pretty pathetic. Especially in the end he went down tamely in both with crazy errors. It was a little more understandable in 2014 when he was nearing 33 years old and I'd also say he was far better in that match overall than in 2008. Djokovic had to play out of his mind to win that day.

2008 had darkness issue, but 2014 was played in perfect conditions, can't blame it on anything. Fed has to take full responsibility.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah because Hewitt was so good in 2008 and remind me again what Safin ever did on grass? Fed had a pretty easy draw to the final that year and then was pretty awful during it. People, as in Rafa fans, overhype his play to the 10th degree. It's telling that he is usually playing at a higher level in his Mid-30's then he did that match.

No, everyone except for Fed fanboys says that it was a classic match and that both played well. Roger served 86 aces going into that match to 4 DFs. You can say he had no competition, but likewise you can't account for why he might have had such a "bad day," as you claim. Since you'll never watch that match again, you could read the Guardian's As It Happened of the match. No mention is made of surprisingly poor level, at all. Just comment of surprising misses, on occasion, as the same for Nadal's. I have said over the years that Roger came out less sharp than Nadal in the first two. But it wasn't muck, by any stretch.

I have to say mate. Roger breezed thru to the final in 2008. I even remember Safin giving a great interview after he lost about the mental aspect of playing Roger. Let's face it Roger played scared the first two sets of the final. You know it, I know it. Only when it was almost over did he get into a fuckit mentality. I still remember his DTL backhand in the 3rd set tie break. What a cracker. To my dying day I'll always maintain that match should have been stopped latest at 3 all in the 5th. It was too dark. I would have been given 3 points if I drove from my house to the courts without my lights on.

The debate is not darkness, but whether or not Roger played like crap in that match, which Darth keeps insisting on, despite all evidence to the contrary. He seems to think if he keeps saying it, others might believe it, too. I have no problem if you want to say that darkness was a contributing factor to the loss. I'd say that more than one thing contributes to the outcome of a match that long. I don't really think it favored one player over the other, but you're within your rights to think it favored Nadal. If not the spin, then perhaps the momentum.

 

[Moxie]

Fed was being too polite. He said in an interview that he couldn’t see well due to darkness, but thought if he asked to stop the match, it would be bad sportsmanship.

I've never heard this quote, but I have heard him say that it was equally dark on both sides of the net.

I think they didn't stop because it would've been a HUGE anti-climax to start a match that epic the next day. It is Fed's fault for not carrying the winning momentum from the 4th into the fifth and clinching it. He repeated the same mistake against eggovic in Wim 14. Both matches were lost because Fed failed to press the accelerator and go ahead early in the fifth.

You know what's common in both the finals? Fed simply did not have the self belief to WIN the match. He was playing for survival rather than victory and you just cannot do that against faker and dull.

You're absolutely right that the tournament was motivated to finish the match that Sunday. They were tied with more than 1/2 left until sunset. When Nadal broke, it was getting to the edge, but they were then obligated to let him serve for it. They usually stop on an even game, and Nadal was serving second. It would have been seen as favoritism to have stopped before Nadal had a chance to serve. IIRC, the last 2 games were also perhaps longer than they were bargaining for. But they reached the point of no return when Nadal broke. And I'm with you: when Roger won the 4th set TB, I thought it would go the way of their final the year before, but it didn't. It wasn't all about darkness.