Monte Carlo Rolex Masters 2017, Monaco, ATP Masters 1000

[El Dude]

Dude..it's the truth..you are still working for the Rog...take a poll if you don't believe it or ask Keli

LOL.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Dude..it's the truth..you are still working for the Rog...take a poll if you don't believe it or ask Keli

LOL.

Btw..For free lance gigs like this, Does the Rog pays W2 or 1099:snicker

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I honestly don't know how a tennis fan could "hate" Rafa or Roger. It would be like a rock and roll fan "hating" John Lennon or Jimi Hendrix. These guys are iconic, incredible athletes.

Now I don't love Rafa's style of play, but I respect it for its effectiveness. I've said before, but I think you could make a good argument that Rafa, in his prime and on his favorite surface, is the hardest player to beat in tennis history. In fact, I think it goes beyond "making a good argument" to being almost incontestable.

What people forget is that Stan had beat Novak, the three time defending champion, in a fantastic QF match that went to five sets. If people wanted another proof that Stan was playing too good at AO 2014, this can do it. Stan fully deserves the AO title in 2014, not withstanding any injury Rafa may or may not have had. No asterisks. This board was full of crap when the AO 2014 ended. I don't really want to relive that.

It's a funny line of argument: Soderling had taken out Rafa in four sets in Paris, a much more difficult prospect than beating Nole in Oz, yet a final proved to be a totally different space, wouldn'tcha say?

What nonsense! These two are incomparable situations. If Federer had some injuries and lost the finals to Soderling, then again Soderling fully deserves the title, not withstanding any injury Fed may or may not have had.

However, Fed had actually won the match and so there is no similarity here.

 

[Fiero425]

What people forget is that Stan had beat Novak, the three time defending champion, in a fantastic QF match that went to five sets. If people wanted another proof that Stan was playing too good at AO 2014, this can do it. Stan fully deserves the AO title in 2014, not withstanding any injury Rafa may or may not have had. No asterisks. This board was full of crap when the AO 2014 ended. I don't really want to relive that.

It's a funny line of argument: Soderling had taken out Rafa in four sets in Paris, a much more difficult prospect than beating Nole in Oz, yet a final proved to be a totally different space, wouldn'tcha say?

What nonsense! These two are incomparable situations. If Federer had some injuries and lost the finals to Soderling, then again Soderling fully deserves the title, not withstanding any injury Fed may or may not have had.

However, Fed had actually won the match and so there is no similarity here.

Which has always frustrated me with Rafa since the beginning! If he lost a match, it had to be an injury; usually reinforced by Uncle Tony with a wink and a nod! No doubt the most spoiled and pampered top player of all time! Even the rule's changes proposed by him as the VP of the ATP were self-serving! :nono :cover - - - Nole Blog - - -

 

[Kieran]

That's a non-answer, Kieran - you just quoted me and said you disagreed with it.

But let me see if I understand: you disagree with the view that Rafa fans are being overly defensive and attacking everyone that disagrees? OK, fair enough. I disagree, because my experience has been otherwise. It is my experience that some Rafa fans here don't differentiate and put everyone who at all says something other than "Rafa's the best!" into one category. That's the circle the wagons thing.

I always factor in the possibility that I'm wrong. But what exactly are you saying I'm wrong about? That's what I'm not clear on.

Settle down, bro, I can't do much more than show you your own words in order to show that you were biased in that post that drew me back in, Al Pacino-like :snicker . I know you like to think you're above the fray, but I said to you about 6 pages ago that you were encouraging the troll, but you continued. It isn't the first time that rafa fans see this - that he gets a victory (first one in a year) and the troll comes out swinging with the flip-flops and the thread's derailed.

Maybe you and I shoulda stayed in Padova, if that's what you meant. I heard it's somewhere in Italy.

 

[Kieran]

What people forget is that Stan had beat Novak, the three time defending champion, in a fantastic QF match that went to five sets. If people wanted another proof that Stan was playing too good at AO 2014, this can do it. Stan fully deserves the AO title in 2014, not withstanding any injury Rafa may or may not have had. No asterisks. This board was full of crap when the AO 2014 ended. I don't really want to relive that.

It's a funny line of argument: Soderling had taken out Rafa in four sets in Paris, a much more difficult prospect than beating Nole in Oz, yet a final proved to be a totally different space, wouldn'tcha say?

What nonsense! These two are incomparable situations. If Federer had some injuries and lost the finals to Soderling, then again Soderling fully deserves the title, not withstanding any injury Fed may or may not have had.

However, Fed had actually won the match and so there is no similarity here.

Something went whoosh right over your head there, and you missed the point I was making. Players who kill in the quarters often find that playing in the final is a totally different proposition, it's more rarefied air, and they fail to perform. We';ve seen it so often, and I remember Lendl being one of the worst offenders when he was young: lost his first four slam finals after chopping easily through the field. In 1982 he destroyed McEnroe in the USO semi - butchered him alive! - then next day nerves kicked in and he dropped a calf in the final. It's commonplace.

The fact that Stan beat Novak in the QF is not proof that he was playing well enough to win the title, anymore than Soderling beating rafa in Paris (a much tougher proposition) was proof that he deserved to win the title there. Or even evidence that he'd play so well again in the final, which was my real point.

And yeah, I know Stan started well against rafa, and was up a set and a break, and I give him credit for that. The same way I give Baghdatis credit for being up a set and a break against Federer in the 2006 Oz Final. We give them all credit at that stage of the match - we don't give them titles, though...

 

[mrzz]

The problem with that AO final is that you can make a very good argument for either side (I won´t repeat them, as you guys surely had repeated them all over the years). But GSM´s point about the QF against Djokovic is a good one -- even if not conclusive. The argument is good not only because of who he had beaten, but how he did it.

Anyway, I won´t fall in the trap in be just one more voicing his opinion. I think it is a quite interesting discussion, in fact (worth a thread), but I´ll save it for calmer times. All I say now is that only thing that we can be certain about is that there is no way to be certain about the outcome of that match if things turned out differently. We can discuss what would be more likely -- and even that is a tough call anyway.

Had Nadal injured himself at 3-1 in the fifth this year in Australia, would anyone argue that Federer would win the match otherwise? (I would love the have thought of a different example, with different players, but I could not). Anyway the point is: we´ll never know. Live with that.

 

[the AntiPusher]

It's a funny line of argument: Soderling had taken out Rafa in four sets in Paris, a much more difficult prospect than beating Nole in Oz, yet a final proved to be a totally different space, wouldn'tcha say?

What nonsense! These two are incomparable situations. If Federer had some injuries and lost the finals to Soderling, then again Soderling fully deserves the title, not withstanding any injury Fed may or may not have had.

However, Fed had actually won the match and so there is no similarity here.

Something went whoosh right over your head there, and you missed the point I was making. Players who kill in the quarters often find that playing in the final is a totally different proposition, it's more rarefied air, and they fail to perform. We';ve seen it so often, and I remember Lendl being one of the worst offenders when he was young: lost his first four slam finals after chopping easily through the field. In 1982 he destroyed McEnroe in the USO semi - butchered him alive! - then next day nerves kicked in and he dropped a calf in the final. It's commonplace.

The fact that Stan beat Novak in the QF is not proof that he was playing well enough to win the title, anymore than Soderling beating rafa in Paris (a much tougher proposition) was proof that he deserved to win the title there. Or even evidence that he'd play so well again in the final, which was my real point.

And yeah, I know Stan started well against rafa, and was up a set and a break, and I give him credit for that. The same way I give Baghdatis credit for being up a set and a break against Federer in the 2006 Oz Final. We give them all credit at that stage of the match - we don't give them titles, though...

Lendl turned out to be a bad matchup for McEnroe. Against Lendl, John serves needed to hit all spots to set up his serve and volley attack, if not he was a sitting duck. Just like a pitcher's breakin ball, John's slicing serve had to break and keeping sliding or he was just toast vs Ivan.
I still remember that match and coming to school and having my teacher troll me about how McEnroe got taken to The woodshed that day. I always felt John was too stubborn to rely on his slice bh instead of coming over his backhand to put more pressure on Ivan..Also..John should have attempted more drop shots to moved Ivan into the front court whereas Lendl wasn't comfortable. Connors game played perfectly against Ivan. Connors understood the concept of taking control of the center of the court and using Ivan's pace to reset court position. Connor was an brilliant tactical player especially versus Lendl. Yes. Lendl had a good record vs Jimmy but Connors was able to upstage him in the grand slams. However, Connors had no answer for Borg's topspin on grass or clay. Tennis is a strange and funny game at times when you look at just the matchups.

 

[Kieran]

See bro, here's why I call it The Old Match-Up Scam. When you say that "Lendl turned out to be a bad matchup for McEnroe", it's true only as long as McEnroe was scared of Lendl, which began after their second match, if we look at their H2H. The blurb young Lendl spouted was that once he beat you, he owned you. He could be distant, haughty and irritating, and he got to Mac, and beat him seven times on the bounce.

Then in Philly 1983, Mac got stuck in and won a brawl - and he went on to beat Ivan 8 of the next 9 times they met, until he twitched that day in RG, and they began to share the W's, until 1985 when Mac had gone surprisingly over the hill.

So where was the match up problem when Mac won 8 out of 9? And 10 out of 12? The H2H ended 21-15 in favour of Lendl, but he snaffled the last 6 matches between them, once Mac had truly gone into dodgy marriage, cocaine fueled, air guitar, decline. Most so-called match-up issues at that level are strictly between the ears...

 

[El Dude]

That's a non-answer, Kieran - you just quoted me and said you disagreed with it.

But let me see if I understand: you disagree with the view that Rafa fans are being overly defensive and attacking everyone that disagrees? OK, fair enough. I disagree, because my experience has been otherwise. It is my experience that some Rafa fans here don't differentiate and put everyone who at all says something other than "Rafa's the best!" into one category. That's the circle the wagons thing.

I always factor in the possibility that I'm wrong. But what exactly are you saying I'm wrong about? That's what I'm not clear on.

Settle down, bro, I can't do much more than show you your own words in order to show that you were biased in that post that drew me back in, Al Pacino-like :snicker . I know you like to think you're above the fray, but I said to you about 6 pages ago that you were encouraging the troll, but you continued. It isn't the first time that rafa fans see this - that he gets a victory (first one in a year) and the troll comes out swinging with the flip-flops and the thread's derailed.

Maybe you and I shoulda stayed in Padova, if that's what you meant. I heard it's somewhere in Italy.

You're probably right that I shouldn't stir the pot, at least if I want to generate serious discussion. That said, I started simply by agreeing that Soderling was playing well against Rafa, and Rafa didn't look hampered. It escalated from there.

I don't see myself as "above the fray," just that I try to be as objective as possible in terms of trying to understand these things, and try to be aware of any tendency to angle my views towards propping Roger up. I think it is a mistake to think that simply because I'm a Roger fan, any view I have on Rafa - like that he wasn't hampered in the 2009 AO - must be biased, because all Roger fans hate Rafa and/or want to tear him down.

But I empathize with you in that it sucks that this thread, which should be focused on celebrating Rafa's first big title in a year, as you said, got derailed into another Fedal debate. I apologize for my part in that and want to reiterate my congratulations to Rafa and his fans.

 

[El Dude]

See bro, here's why I call it The Old Match-Up Scam. When you say that "Lendl turned out to be a bad matchup for McEnroe", it's true only as long as McEnroe was scared of Lendl, which began after their second match, if we look at their H2H. The blurb young Lendl spouted was that once he beat you, he owned you. He could be distant, haughty and irritating, and he got to Mac, and beat him seven times on the bounce.

Then in Philly 1983, Mac got stuck in and won a brawl - and he went on to beat Ivan 8 of the next 9 times they met, until he twitched that day in RG, and they began to share the W's, until 1985 when Mac had gone surprisingly over the hill.

So where was the match up problem when Mac won 8 out of 9? And 10 out of 12? The H2H ended 21-15 in favour of Lendl, but he snaffled the last 6 matches between them, once Mac had truly gone into dodgy marriage, cocaine fueled, air guitar, decline. Most so-called match-up issues at that level are strictly between the ears...

This is a good point, and I generally agree, but think that it more points to the fact that "match-up issues" are often complex and usually multi-faceted, and we probably should be thinking beyond simply how two players' skill sets match up on court.

First of all, a "match-up problem" refers to when two players' H2H is vastly different than their overall ability and performance levels. Roger and Rafa is a recent case which has been done to death, but we can also look at Becker-Edberg (25-10), or even Davydenko-Nadal (6-5). I would say we have to take into account several factors:

*Skills (e.g. how their skill-sets and play styles match up on court)
*Age and context of where the two players were in their careers, relative to each other (e.g. did they play most of their matches when one player was in his prime, and the other just developing or old, or did they play a lot when one player was struggling mentally)
*Context of courts (e.g. did they tend to meet on one player's favored surfaced)
*Mental aspects (e.g. did one player get in the head of the other)

Most discussions focus on that first point and minimize or even ignore the rest.

Another interesting element is how there is often a rock-paper-scissors effect. Consider, for instance, that Nikolay Davydenko has utterly dominated Rafa on hards (6-1), been utterly dominated by Roger on hards (2-15), and Roger and Rafa have been close to equal (10-9). Go figure.

 

[the AntiPusher]

See bro, here's why I call it The Old Match-Up Scam. When you say that "Lendl turned out to be a bad matchup for McEnroe", it's true only as long as McEnroe was scared of Lendl, which began after their second match, if we look at their H2H. The blurb young Lendl spouted was that once he beat you, he owned you. He could be distant, haughty and irritating, and he got to Mac, and beat him seven times on the bounce.

Then in Philly 1983, Mac got stuck in and won a brawl - and he went on to beat Ivan 8 of the next 9 times they met, until he twitched that day in RG, and they began to share the W's, until 1985 when Mac had gone surprisingly over the hill.

So where was the match up problem when Mac won 8 out of 9? And 10 out of 12? The H2H ended 21-15 in favour of Lendl, but he snaffled the last 6 matches between them, once Mac had truly gone into dodgy marriage, cocaine fueled, air guitar, decline. Most so-called match-up issues at that level are strictly between the ears...

There were other issues going on with McEnroe..I thought if he was scared of Ivan but really didn't have a lot of good cheer about him.

 

[Fiero425]

See bro, here's why I call it The Old Match-Up Scam. When you say that "Lendl turned out to be a bad matchup for McEnroe", it's true only as long as McEnroe was scared of Lendl, which began after their second match, if we look at their H2H. The blurb young Lendl spouted was that once he beat you, he owned you. He could be distant, haughty and irritating, and he got to Mac, and beat him seven times on the bounce.

Then in Philly 1983, Mac got stuck in and won a brawl - and he went on to beat Ivan 8 of the next 9 times they met, until he twitched that day in RG, and they began to share the W's, until 1985 when Mac had gone surprisingly over the hill.

So where was the match up problem when Mac won 8 out of 9? And 10 out of 12? The H2H ended 21-15 in favour of Lendl, but he snaffled the last 6 matches between them, once Mac had truly gone into dodgy marriage, cocaine fueled, air guitar, decline. Most so-called match-up issues at that level are strictly between the ears...

There were other issues going on with McEnroe. I thought if he was scared of Ivan but really didn't have a lot of good cheer about him.

I don't think "fear" was involved; just a bad match-up at different times during their rivalry! I can't remember if it was Don Budge or Jack Kramer that supposedly got in McEnroe's face telling him he needed to attack relentlessly after being owned by Lendl at the beginning! It was sorta like Fedal where Lendl's strength of a great FH beat into that slice BH of McEnroe's! He had to start coming over it more and attacking the net! He turned it around until '85 USO where Ivan reestablished his dominance! Love that match; McEnroe up a break 5-2, didn't serve it out at 5-3 and allowed Lendl to come all the way back taking the TB! The rest of the match was just a formality! IIRC Ivan only lost a set early to Yzaga! Lendl had taken on Tony Roche as his coach and it really made a difference in his attacking game getting to sev. semis & 2 Wimbl. finals! :angel: :clap - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[the AntiPusher]

See bro, here's why I call it The Old Match-Up Scam. When you say that "Lendl turned out to be a bad matchup for McEnroe", it's true only as long as McEnroe was scared of Lendl, which began after their second match, if we look at their H2H. The blurb young Lendl spouted was that once he beat you, he owned you. He could be distant, haughty and irritating, and he got to Mac, and beat him seven times on the bounce.

Then in Philly 1983, Mac got stuck in and won a brawl - and he went on to beat Ivan 8 of the next 9 times they met, until he twitched that day in RG, and they began to share the W's, until 1985 when Mac had gone surprisingly over the hill.

So where was the match up problem when Mac won 8 out of 9? And 10 out of 12? The H2H ended 21-15 in favour of Lendl, but he snaffled the last 6 matches between them, once Mac had truly gone into dodgy marriage, cocaine fueled, air guitar, decline. Most so-called match-up issues at that level are strictly between the ears...

There were other issues going on with McEnroe..I didn't think he was scared of Ivan but really didn't have a lot of good cheer about him.

 

[the AntiPusher]

See bro, here's why I call it The Old Match-Up Scam. When you say that "Lendl turned out to be a bad matchup for McEnroe", it's true only as long as McEnroe was scared of Lendl, which began after their second match, if we look at their H2H. The blurb young Lendl spouted was that once he beat you, he owned you. He could be distant, haughty and irritating, and he got to Mac, and beat him seven times on the bounce.

Then in Philly 1983, Mac got stuck in and won a brawl - and he went on to beat Ivan 8 of the next 9 times they met, until he twitched that day in RG, and they began to share the W's, until 1985 when Mac had gone surprisingly over the hill.

So where was the match up problem when Mac won 8 out of 9? And 10 out of 12? The H2H ended 21-15 in favour of Lendl, but he snaffled the last 6 matches between them, once Mac had truly gone into dodgy marriage, cocaine fueled, air guitar, decline. Most so-called match-up issues at that level are strictly between the ears...

There were other issues going on with McEnroe. I thought if he was scared of Ivan but really didn't have a lot of good cheer about him.

I don't think "fear" was involved; just a bad match-up at different times during their rivalry! I can't remember if it was Don Budge or Jack Kramer that supposedly got in McEnroe's face telling him he needed to attack relentlessly after being owned by Lendl at the beginning! It was sorta like Fedal where Lendl's strength of a great FH beat into that slice BH of McEnroe's! He had to start coming over it more and attacking the net! He turned it around until '85 USO where Ivan reestablished his dominance! Love that match; McEnroe up a break 5-2, didn't serve it out at 5-3 and allowed Lendl to come all the way back taking the TB! The rest of the match was just a formality! IIRC Ivan only lost a set early to Yzaga! Lendl had taken on Tony Roche as his coach and it really made a difference in his attacking game getting to sev. semis & 2 Wimbl. finals! :angel: :clap - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

Sorry fiero.. I meant I didn't think John was afraid of Ivan..sorry I didn't mean to imply that

 

[the AntiPusher]

Carol, you are a MASSIVE fangirl - but wear it proudly! How can you possibly deny it?

Sorry but I can say the same about you, Front, MSAG (and what can I say about DarthFed lol) your passion and admiration for Federer is too much and you can't deny it and my problem is that all of you love to dismiss everything Rafa does (his game, his achievements , his personality) and then I try to defend him. Hey, you should be focused more on your idol before to critic to anyone else because it would have a lot to talk, he is very far to be perfect......popcorn

Carol before you came on the boards, during the days when Rafa was dominated over the tour including Djokovic, Tennisman123 would post a lot about Rafa's accomplishments and the Fed fans(I didn't say some but mostly all) were sharks in the water. He was called a fan boy.. A former Rafa fan whose is in Canadian cyberspace now would always refer to me as a fan boy because we argue tremendously about changes that I felt needed to made to Rafa's game which turns out I was correct because I saw Novak coming. Look at it this way, being callled a fan girl on this board can be a highest form of a compliments. There was a great poster Rafa fan whom I thought was very resilient, Hunting you..very knowledgeable and it's too bad he left the board. ClayDeath aka Samson was another one who the Fed fans had no answer for. Samson solution to any hiccup in Rafa's level of play was to have Rafa go back to the beginning..the clay and his game would get revitalize. (If you read the Batman comics, there a Ra's al Ghau who lived for centuries because he would soak his injuries and aged body in the Lazarus's pits to regain his youth and strength). This same scenario would happen every year during the clay season for Rafa. Then came the Djokovic Becker influence counters which Rafa never recovered from so far. Getting back to Samson ignored the bias comments of the Fed fans and only listened to one beat in his mind, Nadal.