GRASS SEASON - General Discussion

[Moxie]

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?

(Maybe a light meter?) They probably don't buy another technology for a circumstance that doesn't come up so often, compared to a roof for rain and Hawkeye, for example. I'd say they were better off investing in lights, and at RG, as well. (Which I hope they will do, with the renovations coming in Paris. Anyone remember a Monfils/Fognini match at RG in 2010 basically finished by the light of the scoreboard? THAT was a joke.)

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

It isn't actually that simple. I would argue that the tournament is the most motivated to finish a match. Think of the cost to regroup everything for another day. Also, think of the weird scheduling decisions by the USO and the men's final over more than a couple of years: TV would surely prefer that they'd play the men's final on a Sunday.

 

[Federberg]

(Maybe a light meter?) They probably don't buy another technology for a circumstance that doesn't come up so often, compared to a roof for rain and Hawkeye, for example. I'd say they were better off investing in lights, and at RG, as well. (Which I hope they will do, with the renovations coming in Paris. Anyone remember a Monfils/Fognini match at RG in 2010 basically finished by the light of the scoreboard? THAT was a joke.)

It isn't actually that simple. I would argue that the tournament is the most motivated to finish a match. Think of the cost to regroup everything for another day. Also, think of the weird scheduling decisions by the USO and the men's final over more than a couple of years: TV would surely prefer that they'd play the men's final on a Sunday.

Lol! Are you kidding me? The tournament would actually make money if the match continued the next day, with ticket sales, not to talk of more food and drink sales. However it causes major scheduling problems for the tv companies and they've already paid their money. They're not going to get the same ratings on the Monday so they'll probably lose ad revenue if they even bothered to show it. So I respectfully utterly disagree with you

 

[DarthFed]

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.

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.

He had a bad day because he was mentally spooked and also too stubborn to become more aggressive until it was too late. It's like he came out and didn't learn from the 2007 match which would've gotten away if he didn't noticeably become more aggressive in the 5th set.

I've never denied it was a classic match but Roger had everything to regret about his play that day. I'd like to hear what evidence you have that he played such a great match. He was 1/13 on BP's, had probably close to a tournament record with 52 UFE's and he was atrocious at net. Also easily blew a 4-1 lead in a must win set. On paper he lost to a topspinning baseliner with a mediocre serve who was allergic to net.

 

[Moxie]

Lol! Are you kidding me? The tournament would actually make money if the match continued the next day, with ticket sales, not to talk of more food and drink sales. However it causes major scheduling problems for the tv companies and they've already paid their money. They're not going to get the same ratings on the Monday so they'll probably lose ad revenue if they even bothered to show it. So I respectfully utterly disagree with you

And I utterly, yet respectfully, disagree with you. Tickets, food and drink have nothing on the cost of a full day. (You know what I do for a living, and it has something related to event planning, and union issues.) The butts in the seats are nothing compared to ad revenue. Think of all the people that have to come back to support potentially a few games of tennis: lines people, security, vendors, ticket takers, grounds people. And, yes, the media has to send all of their people again. Against poor ad revenue. There's really not enough strawberries and cream, and Pimm's cup to make up for that.

 

[Moxie]

He had a bad day because he was mentally spooked and also too stubborn to become more aggressive until it was too late. It's like he came out and didn't learn from the 2007 match which would've gotten away if he didn't noticeably become more aggressive in the 5th set.

I've never denied it was a classic match but Roger had everything to regret about his play that day. I'd like to hear what evidence you have that he played such a great match. He was 1/13 on BP's, had probably close to a tournament record with 52 UFE's and he was atrocious at net. Also easily blew a 4-1 lead in a must win set. On paper he lost to a topspinning baseliner with a mediocre serve who was allergic to net.

I'd say you've tried to deny it was a classic match all the time by saying that Roger played poorly. As to evidence that Roger played a great match, I supplied a link. It's up to you to review it. I know you'll never watch the match again. I thought perhaps you could peruse the live commentary from the moment in order to gain some perspective. If he was mentally spooked and didn't play aggressively enough, that's on him. But Rafa played a very fine match, which you completely refuse to acknowledge. I know you hate that Rafa beat Roger at Wimbledon, especially in his prime. But it did happen, and it's a great cap to Rafa.

 

[Federberg]

And I utterly, yet respectfully, disagree with you. Tickets, food and drink have nothing on the cost of a full day. (You know what I do for a living, and it has something related to event planning, and union issues.) The butts in the seats are nothing compared to ad revenue. Think of all the people that have to come back to support potentially a few games of tennis: lines people, security, vendors, ticket takers, grounds people. And, yes, the media has to send all of their people again. Against poor ad revenue. There's really not enough strawberries and cream, and Pimm's cup to make up for that.

Then we agree to disagree. The data is there showing it’s the tv companies that have the issue with extended tournaments not the slams themselves

 

[Moxie]

Then we agree to disagree. The data is there showing it’s the tv companies that have the issue with extended tournaments not the slams themselves

And yet you ignore my argument for how much it would cost the tournament to extend it a day. I'm not clear what "data" you're quoting.

 

[Federberg]

And yet you ignore my argument for how much it would cost the tournament to extend it a day. I'm not clear what "data" you're quoting.

I’m about to go to bed and don’t particularly care to sustain this debate, but the costs aren’t as adverse as you make out. A huge part of the wind down would have continued with minimal disruption and the sales on Henman Hill have to be factored in as well. It’s significantly more than you assume. That’s not the point in any case, I repeat, the primary disincentive would be from the tv companies who would definitely not benefit

 

[DarthFed]

I'd say you've tried to deny it was a classic match all the time by saying that Roger played poorly. As to evidence that Roger played a great match, I supplied a link. It's up to you to review it. I know you'll never watch the match again. I thought perhaps you could peruse the live commentary from the moment in order to gain some perspective. If he was mentally spooked and didn't play aggressively enough, that's on him. But Rafa played a very fine match, which you completely refuse to acknowledge. I know you hate that Rafa beat Roger at Wimbledon, especially in his prime. But it did happen, and it's a great cap to Rafa.

I've seen Roger play enough on grass to realize he was trash. Just like all of 2008 He won very few long rallies and it was clear early on he was going to have to play more aggressive than normal. At least it was clear to all but him. Roger gets overstated in that match by Rafa fans and people who just don't like him and they point to his mini-rally to send it 5. But aside from the 3rd set TB and the last few points of the 4th set TB it was not some monumental effort. More like he went from abysmal to mediocre.

You can't get past the stats I listed and I remember the match well enough. He barely won a big point the entire match. His C level on grass is still going to be tough for far inferior grass court players to handle. And that's the point of contention. Apparently Rafa nuts have it in their heads that Rafa at his best on grass is equal or superior to Federer. Pretty laughable, there's a reason he had won 54 straight on grass before 2008 which was such a weak season for him to begin with.

 

[Moxie]

I've seen Roger play enough on grass to realize he was trash. Just like all of 2008 He won very few long rallies and it was clear early on he was going to have to play more aggressive than normal. At least it was clear to all but him. Roger gets overstated in that match by Rafa fans and people who just don't like him and they point to his mini-rally to send it 5. But aside from the 3rd set TB and the last few points of the 4th set TB it was not some monumental effort. More like he went from abysmal to mediocre.

You can't get past the stats I listed and I remember the match well enough. He barely won a big point the entire match. His C level on grass is still going to be tough for far inferior grass court players to handle. And that's the point of contention. Apparently Rafa nuts have it in their heads that Rafa at his best on grass is equal or superior to Federer. Pretty laughable, there's a reason he had won 54 straight on grass before 2008 which was such a weak season for him to begin with.

Only you think he was "trash." When he lost that first set in the final, it was the first "first" set he'd lost all year. Amazing for such a "weak season." You keep pretending he was so much less of himself. Roger gets "overstated," if you like, in that match, by every commentator on tennis, and I hate to break this to you, but they get paid for it, because they know more about it than you and I do. They're dispassionate, and you're disgruntled. It's impossible to take you seriously in your assessment of that match. You don't actually remember it 'well enough.' It was 10 years ago, and you've never watched it again. It was a thrilling match, pretty much start to finish. Your basic premise is that Roger couldn't have played well, otherwise he wouldn't have lost on grass to Nadal. This puts you in the realm of unicorns and...well, blinkered fans. You can say that if he'd played more to his standards, I guess, he might have won. But he didn't. He wasn't miserable, though. Certainly never "abysmal." Nor anything close to it.

 

[Moxie]

I’m about to go to bed and don’t particularly care to sustain this debate, but the costs aren’t as adverse as you make out. A huge part of the wind down would have continued with minimal disruption and the sales on Henman Hill have to be factored in as well. It’s significantly more than you assume. That’s not the point in any case, I repeat, the primary disincentive would be from the tv companies who would definitely not benefit

Night-night! You can read my post above about how the ship sailed on quitting due to light tomorrow, I guess.

 

[DarthFed]

Only you and a few think he was "trash." When he lost that first set in the final, it was the first "first" set he'd lost all year. Amazing for such a "weak season." You keep pretending he was so much less of himself. Roger gets "overstated," if you like, in that match, by every commentator on tennis, and I hate to break this to you, but they get paid for it, because they know more about it than you and I do. They're dispassionate, and you're disgruntled. It's impossible to take you seriously in your assessment of that match. You don't actually remember it 'well enough.' It was 10 years ago, and you've never watched it again. It was a thrilling match, pretty much start to finish. Your basic premise is that Roger couldn't have played well, otherwise he wouldn't have lost on grass to Nadal. This puts you in the realm of unicorns and...well, blinkered fans. You can say that if he'd played more to his standards, I guess, he might have won. But he didn't. He wasn't miserable, though. Certainly never "abysmal." Nor anything close to it.

lol, "commentators said it was an incredible match" (it was) and that both players were amazing (hardly) and that is a fact. When is the last time you've watched an individual sport and seen a commentator badly criticize someone's play? It rarely happens and of course it isn't going to happen on what I agree is probably the greatest match of all time due to drama and stakes. But I repeat, statistically we are talking the GOAT on his best surface and he had numbers like 1-13, 52, 4-1, and below 60% at net. Sorry but I will take my own eyes and memory. I think you should know by now I have a pretty healthy memory when it comes to sports I have a rooting interest in. But sure we are all biased to a degree.

 

[Moxie]

lol, "commentators said it was an incredible match" (it was) and that both players were amazing (hardly) and that is a fact. When is the last time you've watched an individual sport and seen a commentator badly criticize someone's play? It rarely happens and of course it isn't going to happen on what I agree is probably the greatest match of all time due to drama and stakes. But I repeat, statistically we are talking the GOAT on his best surface and he had numbers like 1-13, 52, 4-1, and below 60% at net. Sorry but I will take my own eyes and memory. I think you should know by now I have a pretty healthy memory when it comes to sports I have a rooting interest in. But sure we are all biased to a degree.

This match was not just commie hyperbole. The New York Times put it on the front page of the paper. Not the front page of the sports section...the actual front page. Jon Wertheim got an entire book out of proclaiming it the greatest match of all time. And neither of them, nor the Guardian seemed to feel that Roger wasn't up to snuff. I could probably go on quoting any number of other sources. I'm sure you feel quite confident in your memory, but it's clearly clouded by your fandom. You've never admitted before this thread that it was a classic match. The very fact that your opinion is mutable brings into question your ability to be objective about that match.

 

[DarthFed]

This match was not just commie hyperbole. The New York Times put it on the front page of the paper. Not the front page of the sports section...the actual front page. Jon Wertheim got an entire book out of proclaiming it the greatest match of all time. And neither of them, nor the Guardian seemed to feel that Roger wasn't up to snuff. I could probably go on quoting any number of other sources. I'm sure you feel quite confident in your memory, but it's clearly clouded by your fandom. You've never admitted before this thread that it was a classic match. The very fact that your opinion is mutable brings into question your ability to be objective about that match.

There have been threads on this in multiple other boards where I've said it is the greatest match I've seen. So yes it is your memory that is foggy. And you think you have the ability to be objective about the match?

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

People can call me salty but darkness was one of the main reason Federer lost that 5th set.Darkness affects the comparatively low margin player(federer) much more than one of the best percentage player(Nadal)

They should've stopped play.The last few games were not even viewable to the audiences and the match suffered an anti-climatic end due to stubbornness of not delaying play.

 

[Moxie]

There have been threads on this in multiple other boards where I've said it is the greatest match I've seen. So yes it is your memory that is foggy. And you think you have the ability to be objective about the match?

I guess it's your memory against mine, and maybe you said it when we were on different boards, but you are the one who is still saying that Roger played crap in that match, so I have a larger leg to stand on, as to how you represent that match. You can say it's a classic, (and I don't remember your ever saying that before,) but if you keep saying Roger played "abysmally," you've got your fingers crossed behind your back.

As far as my objectivity, I have said that Roger started slowly. I've also said that I watched it from the edge of my seat like everyone else did, on the day. There were many, many amazing points, between them. It was a nail-biter. Won at the last minute, in the gloaming, by Nadal. How would you like me to be more objective?

 

[Moxie]

People can call me salty but darkness was one of the main reason Federer lost that 5th set.Darkness affects the comparatively low margin player(federer) much more than one of the best percentage player(Nadal)

They should've stopped play.The last few games were not even viewable to the audiences and the match suffered an anti-climatic end due to stubbornness of not delaying play.

The entire match wasn't played in darkness, nor even much of the end. Once Nadal broke, they had to play it out. Surely you agree on that.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

The entire match wasn't played in darkness, nor even much of the end.

Talking specifically about that 5th set.

Once Nadal broke, they had to play it out. Surely you agree on that.

Sure,in the end a deserving winner

 

[Moxie]

Talking specifically about that 5th set.

Sure,in the end a deserving winner

I'll say it another way: sunset on that day in London was 9:18pm. The match finished at 9:16. I understand a lot about twilight, etc. But if you go back through when they were tied, there was still daylight and one can't blame the organizers for pushing for it to go on. Frankly, the crowd wouldn't have stood for them stopping if there were still light, either. You'd have been asking for them to stop at 7-7. I can find no reliable timing for when they started at 7-7, but, as I've said, when Nadal broke, they had to play it out. If Roger had broken back, they'd have quit and come back the next day. I appreciate that you say "deserving winner." It was about as tight as matches get. Nadal was just that much better on the day.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The 2008 final was a classic match and a non-classic match.

It is a classic match in terms of the story line, in terms of the players involved, in terms of their rivalry, in terms of Nadal gradually improving on grass over the last three years, in terms of its contribution to change in #1, the sheer drama of changing fortunes etc.

It is a non-classic match in terms of actual play. A match is classic in terms of play, if both of them play at the high level at the same time (even though somebody has to win each point, each game, set and match). Of course, there were patches in that match were both played at high level. TMF was basically MIA in the first two sets and then it was too little and too late. Yes, Rafa did not mess up his part of play that much. But, none the less the match was more lost by Fed than won by Rafa. However, it is all part of life. There is no asterisk. Rafa deserved to win.