Higher level of tennis: 2008 final or 2014 final?

[DarthFed]

^^ This is why I said that I'm not sure what measure people are using the measure "higher level of tennis." It's subjective, because you say that "was expected to be great and damn near impossible to beat on that court", and I wouldn't have been surprised if Rafa won in straights. You say, "a truly ghastly first 2 sets" and I wonder if you even seen the match.

So if we leave aside our own slant, how are we to measure "higher level of play?" Rafa holding serve 29 times out of 30? That's just a statistic. Roger losing serve once the whole of this years tournament - until the final, where he lost serve four times. That can be assessed both ways: poor serving in the final - or better opposition.

I think the 2008 final has a mythic quality that this years one didn't reach, partly because - as I say - both were in their primes in 2008, and they were alone at the top for three straight years. Now, there's two alone at the top, but there are others who have a shot.

This question might be best judged by people who are neither Fedal fans, or Djoker fans, but neutrals, because we all have - as Britbox puts it - personal investment in the match...

I agree that "higher level of play" is a subjective call, between the matches. Partly depending on taste, because yesterday's final was dependent much more on serve and shorter points. Of course, Roger wasn't "ghastly" in the first 2 sets of the 08, as Darth claims. He didn't win them, though, even with a lead in the 2nd. The weather and the length of the match created more ebbs and flows, too.

Understood that dramatic set-up and back-story aren't the main criterion for a great match, but they were huge in the '08 final. As you say, Kieran, that match had a mythic quality that's hard to recreate. From the last ball of the '08 RG final, everyone who cares about tennis was looking towards the presumptive Federer v. Nadal final at Wimbledon. They were the only 2, and they'd met each of the 2 years previous. Roger to keep the crown, or Rafa to snatch it, finally, after 3 years the bridesmaid. And it was a bare knuckles brawl. Maybe not always as pretty as yesterday's match, but raw with the sense of all-chips-on-the-table. And, yes, both players blinked at times.

Cosmo once asked the mostly unanswerable question: Would it have been considered the greatest tennis match of all time if Federer had won? For sure Nadal winning made better copy. But everyone who watched that match in real time was held breathless throughout most of it - surely the end of it - and we didn't know who would win. Kieran, you're right that that match, and the final yesterday, are probably better judged by those dispassionate few. Still, it's not often a tennis match makes the front page of the NYTimes, as it did in '08. (It did not, today.) The final yesterday was a very great match, but it wasn't legendary. If you ask me.

The personal investment can't be denied when talking about this. Perhaps a more interesting question is whether or not the fact it was Nadal playing Federer in 2008 makes the perception different. Even back in 2008 Nadal was way more popular than Nole is now and much more a media darling/commentator favorite. And Roger back then was still considered a great player though he had a dismal year until USO whereas now he is pretty washed up and there are not great expectations on him. The fact that Nadal won and Roger looked increasingly weak that year made everyone almost sympathetic for Roger and they vastly overrated his level and mental toughness in that match. I remember an article by the ultimate Rafanut Steve Tignor on tennis.com claiming that this was Roger's most memorable moment. You'd think he had done something to be respected that day instead of winning 2 of 5 sets...like I said, personal investment.

That said, as Nehmeth pointed out, there was tons on the line yesterday. Nole has been a punching bag in slam finals for over a year with no end in sight if he had lost yesterday. Roger was going for #8 and #18 and a chance to show he can still win the ones that matter. And perhaps we will look back and say this was his last chance to win another one, and he needs to win at least one or two to save his legacy in all likelihood. This was an absolutely enormous match. The last 3 RG's have been more important for Djokovic but this would likely be the next biggest match in his career. For Roger a chance to claim Wimbledon as his kingdom and put more space between him and Nadal to avoid the ultimate humiliation.

These are 2 of your least favorite players, if there was a way you could make both lose yesterday you'd probably have done everything possible to make that happen...just sayin' And that might affect how you perceived the match...personal investment.

I think both players exceeded expectations yesterday, Nole by far did and Roger did in many ways too. The fact that Roger was younger and better in 2008 doesn't mean much. In most ways he played a stronger match yesterday, showed a lot more guts and mental toughness, IMO.

 

[Moxie]

^^ This is why I said that I'm not sure what measure people are using the measure "higher level of tennis." It's subjective, because you say that "was expected to be great and damn near impossible to beat on that court", and I wouldn't have been surprised if Rafa won in straights. You say, "a truly ghastly first 2 sets" and I wonder if you even seen the match.

So if we leave aside our own slant, how are we to measure "higher level of play?" Rafa holding serve 29 times out of 30? That's just a statistic. Roger losing serve once the whole of this years tournament - until the final, where he lost serve four times. That can be assessed both ways: poor serving in the final - or better opposition.

I think the 2008 final has a mythic quality that this years one didn't reach, partly because - as I say - both were in their primes in 2008, and they were alone at the top for three straight years. Now, there's two alone at the top, but there are others who have a shot.

This question might be best judged by people who are neither Fedal fans, or Djoker fans, but neutrals, because we all have - as Britbox puts it - personal investment in the match...

I agree that "higher level of play" is a subjective call, between the matches. Partly depending on taste, because yesterday's final was dependent much more on serve and shorter points. Of course, Roger wasn't "ghastly" in the first 2 sets of the 08, as Darth claims. He didn't win them, though, even with a lead in the 2nd. The weather and the length of the match created more ebbs and flows, too.

Understood that dramatic set-up and back-story aren't the main criterion for a great match, but they were huge in the '08 final. As you say, Kieran, that match had a mythic quality that's hard to recreate. From the last ball of the '08 RG final, everyone who cares about tennis was looking towards the presumptive Federer v. Nadal final at Wimbledon. They were the only 2, and they'd met each of the 2 years previous. Roger to keep the crown, or Rafa to snatch it, finally, after 3 years the bridesmaid. And it was a bare knuckles brawl. Maybe not always as pretty as yesterday's match, but raw with the sense of all-chips-on-the-table. And, yes, both players blinked at times.

Cosmo once asked the mostly unanswerable question: Would it have been considered the greatest tennis match of all time if Federer had won? For sure Nadal winning made better copy. But everyone who watched that match in real time was held breathless throughout most of it - surely the end of it - and we didn't know who would win. Kieran, you're right that that match, and the final yesterday, are probably better judged by those dispassionate few. Still, it's not often a tennis match makes the front page of the NYTimes, as it did in '08. (It did not, today.) The final yesterday was a very great match, but it wasn't legendary. If you ask me.

The personal investment can't be denied when talking about this. Perhaps a more interesting question is whether or not the fact it was Nadal playing Federer in 2008 makes the perception different. Even back in 2008 Nadal was way more popular than Nole is now and much more a media darling/commentator favorite. And Roger back then was still considered a great player though he had a dismal year until USO whereas now he is pretty washed up and there are not great expectations on him. The fact that Nadal won and Roger looked increasingly weak that year made everyone almost sympathetic for Roger and they vastly overrated his level and mental toughness in that match. I remember an article by the ultimate Rafanut Steve Tignor on tennis.com claiming that this was Roger's most memorable moment. You'd think he had done something to be respected that day instead of winning 2 of 5 sets...like I said, personal investment.

That said, as Nehmeth pointed out, there was tons on the line yesterday. Nole has been a punching bag in slam finals for over a year with no end in sight if he had lost yesterday. Roger was going for #8 and #18 and a chance to show he can still win the ones that matter. And perhaps we will look back and say this was his last chance to win another one, and he needs to win at least one or two to save his legacy in all likelihood. This was an absolutely enormous match. The last 3 RG's have been more important for Djokovic but this would likely be the next biggest match in his career. For Roger a chance to claim Wimbledon as his kingdom and put more space between him and Nadal to avoid the ultimate humiliation.

These are 2 of your least favorite players, if there was a way you could make both lose yesterday you'd probably have done everything possible to make that happen...just sayin' And that might affect how you perceived the match...personal investment.

I think both players exceeded expectations yesterday, Nole by far did and Roger did in many ways too. The fact that Roger was younger and better in 2008 doesn't mean much. In most ways he played a stronger match yesterday, showed a lot more guts and mental toughness, IMO.

I've admitted my personal investment in the '08 match. (And Roger is not one of my least favorite players, for the record.) However, the question in the OP is valid, and so is my opinion, which I believe to be fairly stating my (already obvious) bias. Roger and Rafa were both total media darlings at that point. They had created the best rivalry that tennis had seen in decades, particularly men's tennis. Roger still being the fan and commentator favorite, though, I would say. I don't know what you mean by the question being different if Roger hadn't been playing Nadal. That doesn't even make sense. He played Nadal for all the marbles. That's why that match matters. The question of how good it was is what's on the table.

I don't believe for a minute that people view the 08 final through the notion that they feel sorry for Roger and how his 2008 was going. (He did win the USO.) He has not been retrospectively "overrated" in that match, as you suggest. He's been retrospectively underrated by you, if you ask me. In that final, he ran into a Nadal who had been learning to play better on grass, and learning how to beat Roger. At that point in time, it was the only thing in Nadal's way. It was a problem, and he solved it.

Sure, there was a lot on the line yesterday, but the various options were diffused by Roger not being the one that Novak would have been taking the #1 from, nor harming specifically by getting his 18th Major. And Nole wanting to win was about getting a Slam-final monkey off his own back, which had very little to do with Roger. Yes, they both had a lot to play for, but not so much against each other.

 

[DarthFed]

^^ This is why I said that I'm not sure what measure people are using the measure "higher level of tennis." It's subjective, because you say that "was expected to be great and damn near impossible to beat on that court", and I wouldn't have been surprised if Rafa won in straights. You say, "a truly ghastly first 2 sets" and I wonder if you even seen the match.

So if we leave aside our own slant, how are we to measure "higher level of play?" Rafa holding serve 29 times out of 30? That's just a statistic. Roger losing serve once the whole of this years tournament - until the final, where he lost serve four times. That can be assessed both ways: poor serving in the final - or better opposition.

I think the 2008 final has a mythic quality that this years one didn't reach, partly because - as I say - both were in their primes in 2008, and they were alone at the top for three straight years. Now, there's two alone at the top, but there are others who have a shot.

This question might be best judged by people who are neither Fedal fans, or Djoker fans, but neutrals, because we all have - as Britbox puts it - personal investment in the match...

I agree that "higher level of play" is a subjective call, between the matches. Partly depending on taste, because yesterday's final was dependent much more on serve and shorter points. Of course, Roger wasn't "ghastly" in the first 2 sets of the 08, as Darth claims. He didn't win them, though, even with a lead in the 2nd. The weather and the length of the match created more ebbs and flows, too.

Understood that dramatic set-up and back-story aren't the main criterion for a great match, but they were huge in the '08 final. As you say, Kieran, that match had a mythic quality that's hard to recreate. From the last ball of the '08 RG final, everyone who cares about tennis was looking towards the presumptive Federer v. Nadal final at Wimbledon. They were the only 2, and they'd met each of the 2 years previous. Roger to keep the crown, or Rafa to snatch it, finally, after 3 years the bridesmaid. And it was a bare knuckles brawl. Maybe not always as pretty as yesterday's match, but raw with the sense of all-chips-on-the-table. And, yes, both players blinked at times.

Cosmo once asked the mostly unanswerable question: Would it have been considered the greatest tennis match of all time if Federer had won? For sure Nadal winning made better copy. But everyone who watched that match in real time was held breathless throughout most of it - surely the end of it - and we didn't know who would win. Kieran, you're right that that match, and the final yesterday, are probably better judged by those dispassionate few. Still, it's not often a tennis match makes the front page of the NYTimes, as it did in '08. (It did not, today.) The final yesterday was a very great match, but it wasn't legendary. If you ask me.

The personal investment can't be denied when talking about this. Perhaps a more interesting question is whether or not the fact it was Nadal playing Federer in 2008 makes the perception different. Even back in 2008 Nadal was way more popular than Nole is now and much more a media darling/commentator favorite. And Roger back then was still considered a great player though he had a dismal year until USO whereas now he is pretty washed up and there are not great expectations on him. The fact that Nadal won and Roger looked increasingly weak that year made everyone almost sympathetic for Roger and they vastly overrated his level and mental toughness in that match. I remember an article by the ultimate Rafanut Steve Tignor on tennis.com claiming that this was Roger's most memorable moment. You'd think he had done something to be respected that day instead of winning 2 of 5 sets...like I said, personal investment.

That said, as Nehmeth pointed out, there was tons on the line yesterday. Nole has been a punching bag in slam finals for over a year with no end in sight if he had lost yesterday. Roger was going for #8 and #18 and a chance to show he can still win the ones that matter. And perhaps we will look back and say this was his last chance to win another one, and he needs to win at least one or two to save his legacy in all likelihood. This was an absolutely enormous match. The last 3 RG's have been more important for Djokovic but this would likely be the next biggest match in his career. For Roger a chance to claim Wimbledon as his kingdom and put more space between him and Nadal to avoid the ultimate humiliation.

These are 2 of your least favorite players, if there was a way you could make both lose yesterday you'd probably have done everything possible to make that happen...just sayin' And that might affect how you perceived the match...personal investment.

I think both players exceeded expectations yesterday, Nole by far did and Roger did in many ways too. The fact that Roger was younger and better in 2008 doesn't mean much. In most ways he played a stronger match yesterday, showed a lot more guts and mental toughness, IMO.

I've admitted my personal investment in the '08 match. (And Roger is not one of my least favorite players, for the record.) However, the question in the OP is valid, and so is my opinion, which I believe to be fairly stating my (already obvious) bias. Roger and Rafa were both total media darlings at that point. They had created the best rivalry that tennis had seen in decades, particularly men's tennis. Roger still being the fan and commentator favorite, though, I would say. I don't know what you mean by the question being different if Roger hadn't been playing Nadal. That doesn't even make sense. He played Nadal for all the marbles. That's why that match matters. The question of how good it was is what's on the table.

I don't believe for a minute that people view the 08 final through the notion that they feel sorry for Roger and how his 2008 was going. (He did win the USO.) He has not been retrospectively "overrated" in that match, as you suggest. He's been retrospectively underrated by you, if you ask me. In that final, he ran into a Nadal who had been learning to play better on grass, and learning how to beat Roger. At that point in time, it was the only thing in Nadal's way. It was a problem, and he solved it.

Sure, there was a lot on the line yesterday, but the various options were diffused by Roger not being the one that Novak would have been taking the #1 from, nor harming specifically by getting his 18th Major. And Nole wanting to win was about getting a Slam-final monkey off his own back, which had very little to do with Roger. Yes, they both had a lot to play for, but not so much against each other.

What I'm getting at in regards to how it is perceived differently since he played Nadal is that Rafa is way more popular than Nole especially among commentators and columnists on sites like tennis.com and that can affect how each match is viewed. I think a ton was on the line in both matches for all the reasons I stated. Maybe a bit more in 2008 especially in retrospect (Roger's career was never the same and it helped Rafa take off). Yet even that is up in the air as we don't know if this will turn things back around for Nole. It was also huge for Roger, it's comical that people are shrugging off that he has 17 slams so no big deal. 17 slams is awesome now but it might not be in 2 years. Great athletes have to see the "potential" future and I'd be shocked if Roger hasn't gazed into it a bit.

 

[Moxie]

I've admitted my personal investment in the '08 match. (And Roger is not one of my least favorite players, for the record.) However, the question in the OP is valid, and so is my opinion, which I believe to be fairly stating my (already obvious) bias. Roger and Rafa were both total media darlings at that point. They had created the best rivalry that tennis had seen in decades, particularly men's tennis. Roger still being the fan and commentator favorite, though, I would say. I don't know what you mean by the question being different if Roger hadn't been playing Nadal. That doesn't even make sense. He played Nadal for all the marbles. That's why that match matters. The question of how good it was is what's on the table.

I don't believe for a minute that people view the 08 final through the notion that they feel sorry for Roger and how his 2008 was going. (He did win the USO.) He has not been retrospectively "overrated" in that match, as you suggest. He's been retrospectively underrated by you, if you ask me. In that final, he ran into a Nadal who had been learning to play better on grass, and learning how to beat Roger. At that point in time, it was the only thing in Nadal's way. It was a problem, and he solved it.

Sure, there was a lot on the line yesterday, but the various options were diffused by Roger not being the one that Novak would have been taking the #1 from, nor harming specifically by getting his 18th Major. And Nole wanting to win was about getting a Slam-final monkey off his own back, which had very little to do with Roger. Yes, they both had a lot to play for, but not so much against each other.

What I'm getting at in regards to how it is perceived differently since he played Nadal is that Rafa is way more popular than Nole especially among commentators and columnists on sites like tennis.com and that can affect how each match is viewed. I think a ton was on the line in both matches for all the reasons I stated. Maybe a bit more in 2008 especially in retrospect (Roger's career was never the same and it helped Rafa take off). Yet even that is up in the air as we don't know if this will turn things back around for Nole. It was also huge for Roger, it's comical that people are shrugging off that he has 17 slams so no big deal. 17 slams is awesome now but it might not be in 2 years. Great athletes have to see the "potential" future and I'd be shocked if Roger hasn't gazed into it a bit.

No, I understand your point about Rafa being much more popular that Novak. But it isn't merely a popularity contest. As you pointed out above, "maybe a bit more in 2008." You say that Roger was never the same, and Rafa's career took off. That's what I mean by all chips were on the table. In 2008, it was rather "winner take all." You seem to agree with that.

In yesterday's final, we see a more muted and nuanced outcome: Djokovic proves he can win a Slam final again, but we'll all still be waiting to see how he performs in next one. And Roger proves he's not out of the game. But did it hugely shift the conversation? Not the way the 2008 one did.

 

[Kieran]

One other aspect of these two matches is of course, the contrasts. There's a greater contrast between Rafa and Roger than there is between Roger and Novak, and this makes for huge adjustments and terror and drama, in itself....

 

[the AntiPusher]

One other aspect of these two matches is of course, the contrasts. There's a greater contrast between Rafa and Roger than there is between Roger and Novak, and this makes for huge adjustments and terror and drama, in itself....

Agreed..

 

[DarthFed]

^ There are no adjustments in the Roger-Nadal matchup. You see one or two of their rallies you've seen them all. Rafa lobs the ugly forehand high to the backhand until it misses or gives a weak reply that he puts away or Roger takes control with the forehand and either finishes the point or makes an error on the extra 2-3 balls that come his way. There is more variety in the Fed-Djokovic matches and there have been more good matches in that rivalry than the fake one.

 

[shawnbm]

I agree more with DarthFed on this one. To me, Fed versus Novak has more interesting shotmaking, aggression and an undercurrent of borderline dislike pulsating beneath the surface. Whereas Rofer and Rafa will fly together and earnestly complement one another, Roger and Nole appear to really want to get at each other. For me, it is the better match up and the quality (not necessarily the historicity of it--although that was up there too) from beginning to end was better. This one is one I think of with Safin-Federer from almost ten years ago. There were fabulous rallies, although the Safin one was more brutally powerful, plus it was on a hard court.

 

[Federberg]

I would give the edge to 2014, purely because of the sustained high level of play. But only in the sense that there was a consistently high level. However I do think that in the last 3 sets in 2008 greater heights were reached. This is the only way I can reconcile this, because in 2008 Rogers forehand was almost unplayable. I remember having an epiphany in that final, when I realised that Rafa was targetting Roger's backhand not necessarily because it was a weakness, but because almost anything on Rogers forehand was being sent back as a winner. Because of the fact that Roger simply doesn't have that sort of forehand anymore, it's patently obvious that when the level was high in 2008 it was much much higher than in this match.

I found this match sickening in an almost physical sense. I actually wasn't bothered about the outcome, but I could barely watch it. The stress got to a point where I thought.. hang on a minute.. you're not enjoying this so watch something that's pleasant! To be honest I was a bit relieved when my sister sent me a text telling me it was over and Novak had won. I may be a Fedfan.. but a loss there might have finished Novak off for good. I wouldn't have liked that

 

[DarthFed]

I would give the edge to 2014, purely because of the sustained high level of play. But only in the sense that there was a consistently high level. However I do think that in the last 3 sets in 2008 greater heights were reached. This is the only way I can reconcile this, because in 2008 Rogers forehand was almost unplayable. I remember having an epiphany in that final, when I realised that Rafa was targetting Roger's backhand not necessarily because it was a weakness, but because almost anything on Rogers forehand was being sent back as a winner. Because of the fact that Roger simply doesn't have that sort of forehand anymore, it's patently obvious that when the level was high in 2008 it was much much higher than in this match.

I found this match sickening in an almost physical sense. I actually wasn't bothered about the outcome, but I could barely watch it. The stress got to a point where I thought.. hang on a minute.. you're not enjoying this so watch something that's pleasant! To be honest I was a bit relieved when my sister sent me a text telling me it was over and Novak had won. I may be a Fedfan.. but a loss there might have finished Novak off for good. I wouldn't have liked that

Good post and I tend to agree. From Roger's end he was deadlier from the baseline in 2008 just because of that forehand. It was really clicking the last 3 sets of that match. Roger also served well in 2008. However in this past final Roger's serve was ridiculous. I doubt there has been a match that he's served that well in and lost. Also, I think mentally Roger was there right away up until the end with only a couple brief drops in play (start of 2nd set and the 3rd set tiebreak). 2008 was more of an up and down performance from him with especially weak play in the first 2 sets. In many ways it is hard to compare but I think as a whole he played pretty well in 2014 for 2014 standards and pretty poor in 2008 for 2008 standards. One similarity is that his ROS was just plain awful in both matches and that is what mainly did him in. JMO.