Most complete player ever - Djokovic or Federer

[Moxie]

I'm not willing to keep arguing, either. I was just trying to say that Roger didn't play as bad as advertised. Which it seems you agree with, since you've moderated "sucked" to 'something milder.'

 

[Fiero425]

I am not in a mood to argue now. However, it is very clear that you are misunderstanding the post. First of all forget the word suck. If you like change it to playing bad or some other milder terms.

The important point is that you think I am saying "Roger either wins or plays really bad when he loses". That is not what I was saying at all.

I don't understand; why can't someone just beat Federer even if he's playing well? Nole's done it enough time; saving 2 MP's in the SF of '10 & '11 USO! Del Po had to come back to beat Roger in that '09 USO final after smoking Nadal the day before 2, 2, & 2! Am I missing something? :whistle: :cuckoo:

 

[Moxie]

I don't understand; why can't someone just beat Federer even if he's playing well? Nole's done it enough time; saving 2 MP's in the SF of '10 & '11 USO! Del Po had to come back to beat Roger in that '09 USO final after smoking Nadal the day before 2, 2, & 2! Am I missing something? :whistle: :cuckoo:

As you say, it's been done many times. Rafa's done it loads. Berdych has done it, Kyrgios, even ol' Baghdatis has.

 

[Federberg]

I don't think the bolded is actually true. And I don't think most of us do. Often, with elite players involved with lessers, there is a clear winner because one is a superior player. But when two top players are involved at the same time, it's more likely a question of the better on the day. In many cases, the loser doesn't actually "suck." As you say, there are shades of gray. The notion of "sucking" is a dismal performance. What I saw from that match was not dismal from Federer or "sucking." He just played less well.

I didn't say he was "fine" against Del Potro. I said that I didn't see the obvious signs of back injury that I was expecting, based on the report from the front, and the post-game later. And I have watched Roger play when it's clear he's compromised in his back. It's not hard to detect. I know Darth's script chapter and verse: 'how could he have gone 5 sets via Tiafoe,' and 'Youzhny...please?!' I'm actually willing to believe the Fedfan assessment that he was a bit compromised in the back. What I don't buy is that he was "rubbish." He was rather better than mediocre, by his standards. He wasn't stellar, and I know you all expect that. As to the the comparison with the 2009 FO and Rafa, it wasn't even in my mind. You're hanging onto that just a bit too much, my friend.

We all expect that? You presume. And please stop with the he was better than mediocre. He played fighting tennis, that’s all that could be said. Given his physical limitations in the match you could argue that he fought well, but that doesn’t really constitute playing well. But it’s your motive for beating on this issue I question. You might claim innocence but I’m not buying it, keep trying to suggest I’m the one holding on to RG09 though, that’s really hilarious

 

[mrzz]

This time I am forced to go to the compromising option... yes, Federer has been beaten playing well, but against del Potro he was at best mediocre. If it was 2016 or 2015, yes, maybe you could say that it was his average self, but not in 2017. His average 2017 was much better than that....

...or, thinking it again, maybe there is no "average" 2017 Federer. If we recall match by match, set by set, there are more "brilliant" or "crap" matches and sets than "average" ones. It is hard even to remember an "average" set.

 

[DarthFed]

This time I am forced to go to the compromising option... yes, Federer has been beaten playing well, but against del Potro he was at best mediocre. If it was 2016 or 2015, yes, maybe you could say that it was his average self, but not in 2017. His average 2017 was much better than that....

...or, thinking it again, maybe there is no "average" 2017 Federer. If we recall match by match, set by set, there are more "brilliant" or "crap" matches and sets than "average" ones. It is hard even to remember an "average" set.

Why be so diplomatic when we can take this Fedal war to another level? . By 2013 standards the DP match would have been great for Roger. Any other year you can think of...NO. I think this is turning into Moxie hugely exaggerating DP's level or trying to give more credit to Nadal's USO win. There is a reason Del Po has barely been in the top 10 after all his injuries following 2009. He isn't that good anymore, period. Roger playing average beats him in 4 at most in that match.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm only talking about the Del Potro match. The key comment is "he was fucking pathetic by his standards." This is where you guys get all gooey and crazy. I'm not saying it's not possible that he was hampered, but I will say it wasn't visible. But that's not my point: you guys think that if he's not brilliant, it's clear there's something wrong. His footwork was good, and his serve seemed on most of that match. Whatever hampered him only took him down a peg. All I'm saying is that he didn't "suck." He wasn't awful. He played to a reasonable version of his game, and Del Potro beat him. Give the man the credit. And it's not "either/or." Just because Superman Roger didn't show up, he surely wasn't horrible. That's what I expected to see when I watched that match the other day, based on what you, especially, Darth, had said. Surely, he wasn't stellar, but he wasn't terrible. Hampered or whatever, he was a mediocre version of himself, and he lost.

I guess it comes down to this: one lady's version of mediocre is another man's version of awful. If that was Fed's mediocre level the past 15 years he wouldn't be sitting on 9 slams let alone 19. His footwork wasn't good, his return was putrid that match because he didn't have explosive movement, he was coming in on many lame duck approach shots and he had appalling misses and poor shot selection in the biggest moments. Did you see the way he choked the 3rd set TB? Or how about the last game of the match when he had an easy putaway volley that would've given him break point to even the set?

 

[Moxie]

We all expect that? You presume. And please stop with the he was better than mediocre. He played fighting tennis, that’s all that could be said. Given his physical limitations in the match you could argue that he fought well, but that doesn’t really constitute playing well. But it’s your motive for beating on this issue I question. You might claim innocence but I’m not buying it, keep trying to suggest I’m the one holding on to RG09 though, that’s really hilarious

:lulz2: You're the one who keeps bringing it up, dude.

 

[Federberg]

:lulz2: You're the one who keeps bringing it up, dude.

Because it's fairly obvious where you're going with your "objective" assessment

By the way you also made a comment about how Delpo was able to use his 2 hander more against Rafa. I know you know more about tennis than that comment implied. It's fairly obvious why that would be the case. But when you say things like that it makes me wonder Particularly as you also claimed you hadn't really watched the Fed match at the time you said that

 

[Moxie]

Because it's fairly obvious where you're going with your "objective" assessment

By the way you also made a comment about how Delpo was able to use his 2 hander more against Rafa. I know you know more about tennis than that comment implied. It's fairly obvious why that would be the case. But when you say things like that it makes me wonder Particularly as you also claimed you hadn't really watched the Fed match at the time you said that

I honestly wasn't thinking about any other match/tournament. You are reading in too much. It's not ALWAYS about the Fedal wars. I just hadn't watched that match and thought you guys overstated how bad/gimpy Roger was.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

From what I remember, Federer played a few good games and rest of it most probably was below average. The guy had some discomfort. That's why he said in some days that he wants to be 100% fit for Shanghai.

 

[Federberg]

I honestly wasn't thinking about any other match/tournament. You are reading in too much. It's not ALWAYS about the Fedal wars. I just hadn't watched that match and thought you guys overstated how bad/gimpy Roger was.

I'm just reading what you wrote. On the one hand you claimed you hadn't really watched the Fed match, but at the same time you stated that Delpo was using his two hander more against Rafa? How does that work? Quite apart from the fact that a rather obvious tactic for Roger against Delpo has always been to give him lots of slices to make him dip low. You can try to play innocent and reasonable now, but your written word didn't make much sense to me. Anyway, this isn't a big deal, I just found the ploy amusing!

 

[Busted]

I appreciate that, but just being "not as crisp" nor as "mentally sharp" is not the same as being injured in his back, which is what I thought I was being told, during the USO I couldn't watch. To me, this sounds like Federer fans making excuses for his play. Or, to put it another way, the other guy was better on the day. It happens. And it sounds like it happened to Roger during the USO.

You misunderstood what I was saying or wasn't clear enough . I said -

in real time you could see his movement wasn't as crisp as it had been and the wasn't playing with the same authority - especially off the backhand side - that he'd played with all season.

By that I meant that because his back was still jacked up - which he even said in his post-match interviews - and again at the Laver Cup - that it did hamper him and that's why he wasn't as crisp or sharp. Given that was your question I assumed - erroneously - that you would infer from my answer that I was saying, yes, his back was still an issue in that match.

Re: DelPo being better that day? Well, yeah, that's a given - he won. Roger even said as much in the press conference after the match that DelPo was better and deserved to win. However, that doesn't negate that Roger wasn't able to play better because he was injured. That's not an "excuse" - just a fact. He would have played a different match if he'd been healthy. That's a no brainer. All you have to do is look at his matches against DelPo in Miami, Shanghai and Basel to see that. I actually thought DelPo played better in Shanghai and Basel than he did at the USO - and he lost those matches because Roger wasn't injured and played better than he did at the USO.