Nadal Would Have Been Crucified...

[Denis]

Old age is the new injury, right?

Age and results are 2 facts. One always goes up and after a certain amount of time the other ... Most fans accept it, that's why some even seemed pleased to see him be competitive with a dude who has done next to nothing the last year (Nole). I don't think that lowly of his ability yet.

So according to you, the only person to have achieved anything last year is Nadal. Winning one slam doesn't count apparently... :s

Was referring to the last 12 months. IMO, aside from last Fall, Nole has not been impressive to say the least.

Yeah we had this conversation before. 'Last year' is 2013 in the ordinary meaning of those words. Your use of it is highly artificial, in attempt to make your argument a bit more credible, but it's actually counterproductive.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There are more Rafa fans than just here...you should read the garbage they spew on tennis.com.

Buddy, there's fans of all shades who spew garbage. You should go on RogerFederer.com, and so on. Fans are the same everywhere, no matter who they support...

Not really. Take the h2h for example and read the garbage from Nadal fans there.

The only "garbage" has been Fed's results against Nadal. Rafa was comfortably ahead on the H2H since pretty much day one.

It was 8-6 before Roger's dreadful 2008 for the record.

Ah, so Roger was old in 2008? He was about the same age Nadal is now.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Re: Federer being old. That's undeniable. But it's hilarious how Front is trying to sway this.

Roger has been past his prime for a few years now. However, I'm pretty sure I remember him playing one of the best clay court matches of his career to beat Novak at RG in 2011, two days before losing to Nadal in the final. You can't just shrug off that loss as "Oh well, Fed is old" when he was playing so well all tournament long. The same applies to their 2012 AO match, which took place on the heels of Federer's breathtaking performance against DP, and a few months before his incredible 2012 run...during which he beat Nadal at IW. I guess these matches only count when Federer wins.

Doesn't matter what he did in certain matches. That is the Mikeone narrative where we can take one match to show he is as good as ever. Fact of the matter is "on average" the guy is a shell of himself and has been for quite some time. You don't go from 23 straight semis to barely making half if there isn't a huge drop off in ability (on average) involved...

Uh, you know me better than that. It wasn't the fact that it was one match. It was the fact that he reached the final of a major! In case you're unaware, he didn't beat Novak in the first round at the FO. He beat him in semis, to make the final. He must have been playing good. When did I debate that Roger's level of a match-to-match basis dropped significantly?

But you mean to tell me he was playing so badly before losing to Nadal at the 2011 FO? 2012 AO? 2013 AO? How does the "old" excuse carry any weight in those matches, given his form when they occurred? It's not like they went the distance and he gassed...

Of course Roger was playing like crap at IW last year and Rome for example. Ditto for Miami 2011. But lazily grouping together every Nadal victory since 2010 (or 2008!) is ridiculous.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Right on par with the myth that Roger has never declined and is the same player he always was.

Anybody ever said that? Other than Cali, but he doesn't count.

 

[DarthFed]

Buddy, there's fans of all shades who spew garbage. You should go on RogerFederer.com, and so on. Fans are the same everywhere, no matter who they support...

Not really. Take the h2h for example and read the garbage from Nadal fans there.

The only "garbage" has been Fed's results against Nadal. Rafa was comfortably ahead on the H2H since pretty much day one.

It was 8-6 before Roger's dreadful 2008 for the record.

Ah, so Roger was old in 2008? He was about the same age Nadal is now.

No, I'd say he was past his best by then and I'd argue the same for Nadal at this point to.

 

[DarthFed]

Right on par with the myth that Roger has never declined and is the same player he always was.

Anybody ever said that? Other than Cali, but he doesn't count.

I've seen Kieran, HY and others say it as late as 2012. After last year I doubt even MikeOne would argue it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not really. Take the h2h for example and read the garbage from Nadal fans there.

The only "garbage" has been Fed's results against Nadal. Rafa was comfortably ahead on the H2H since pretty much day one.

It was 8-6 before Roger's dreadful 2008 for the record.

Ah, so Roger was old in 2008? He was about the same age Nadal is now.

No, I'd say he was past his best by then and I'd argue the same for Nadal at this point to.

I'd agree on both accounts. But I don't think it changes much re: interpretation of the H2H because then you'd have to analyze every single match they've had and carefully examine the circumstances.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Right on par with the myth that Roger has never declined and is the same player he always was.

Anybody ever said that? Other than Cali, but he doesn't count.

I've seen Kieran, HY and others say it as late as 2012. After last year I doubt even MikeOne would argue it.

I've been saying Fed is past his prime since 2009, despite his results. In the past few years it's so obvious. I just don't think you can lump together every loss during that period because context differs from match to match depending on form, confidence, level of play, surface, etc...

 

[DarthFed]

Depends who you are comparing Djokovic to Darth. If you are looking at the field as a whole then he's the second best player in the world as it stands.

I guess the bigger question is What are your realistic expectations of Roger Federer?

At this stage of his career, I think he's having a good year. I think he's got the potential to add maybe one more major, but overall I'm happy to see him playing good tennis. I'm guessing your bar is set way higher.

Actually I don't expect great things from Roger at this point. For instance I don't think he'll win another major but that doesn't mean I'm happy if it turns out I'm right. Doesn't mean I'm satisfied when he loses a match like Sunday vs. a reeling Djokovic who was having all sorts of issues closing a match.

I certainly think he still has the ability to win a major at Wimbledon and USO, but I have doubts he can put it together for 2 straight weeks.

 

[DarthFed]

Right on par with the myth that Roger has never declined and is the same player he always was.

Anybody ever said that? Other than Cali, but he doesn't count.

I've seen Kieran, HY and others say it as late as 2012. After last year I doubt even MikeOne would argue it.

I've been saying Fed is past his prime since 2009, despite his results. In the past few years it's so obvious. I just don't think you can lump together every loss during that period because context differs from match to match depending on form, confidence, level of play, surface, etc...

For the record I don't think I've ever said Roger lost such and such match because he is old. And I don't see others do it. I do say that Roger is not what he was or even close to it starting in 2010. Naturally this means much poorer results against the entire field.

 

[El Dude]

No, that's not the point. We already think our guy is the best guy. You tip your hand by the bolded above. The question isn't if Federer is old, but if his fans are allowed to make an excuse out of his back, when Nadal isn't allowed to make one out of his knees. It's fairly straightforward. And for all of Front's feigning that that wasn't a conversation all last year, (the Federer back,) I would beg to differ.

Tip my hand?! You're missing the point and I won't be goaded into the fray. The point is they're ALL excuse narratives (and the ones I gave are just examples, possible narratives that some use) - and you and some others just keep playing them out, like school-yard kids arguing about whose dad is stronger. Hey, if that's your gig, fine, but at least recognize it for what it is!

In other words, I don't have a problem with this sort of thing, but let's be honest about it, and let's do it with a bit of humor (a hat tip to Kieran, who always seems to be able to laugh at himself and his self-admitted bias). And I personally try to be as objective as possible, because I'm a fan of the game first and my favorite player second, so I'm more interested in understanding the historical and analytical perspective than I am in "winning" the game of my dad vs. your dad.

In the end, we interpret things how we want to, to support our preferred narrative, and usually one that paints our favorite player in a better light. That is natural. I just don't find it very satisfying, or rather I find trying to get a broader, more truthful picture to be more satisfying.

 

[Kieran]

Right on par with the myth that Roger has never declined and is the same player he always was.

Anybody ever said that? Other than Cali, but he doesn't count.

I've seen Kieran, HY and others say it as late as 2012. After last year I doubt even MikeOne would argue it.

Are you certain my name should be in that list? I'm usually careful with my words...

 

[DarthFed]

Right on par with the myth that Roger has never declined and is the same player he always was.

Anybody ever said that? Other than Cali, but he doesn't count.

I've seen Kieran, HY and others say it as late as 2012. After last year I doubt even MikeOne would argue it.

I've been saying Fed is past his prime since 2009, despite his results. In the past few years it's so obvious. I just don't think you can lump together every loss during that period because context differs from match to match depending on form, confidence, level of play, surface, etc...

I've always said he loses to Nadal for a variety of reasons and the most you'll see me do is breaking it down to years. For instance what I've always argued is that the one point they were on an even playing field regarding age (22-23 year old Rafa vs. 26-27 year old Roger) was 2008 and start of 2009 and Roger failed miserably especially Wimbledon 08 and AO 09. That's always been my opinion. Before 2008, Roger had the "age" edge AND he did have the edge off clay while Rafa dominated him on clay from the get go. After 2009 Rafa has the "age" edge and has dominated him everywhere except indoors.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

nadal is more like Federer in 2009 than 2008 in terms of age,

give or take a week or two..age 27yrs 9/10 months means the summer of 2009 for the fedster.

 

[Kieran]

nadal is more like Federer in 2009...

Great! Then he'll win two majors.

Just once he isn't more like Nadal in 2009, that's the main thing...

 

[El Dude]

I've always said he loses to Nadal for a variety of reasons and the most you'll see me do is breaking it down to years. For instance what I've always argued is that the one point they were on an even playing field regarding age (22-23 year old Rafa vs. 26-27 year old Roger) was 2008 and start of 2009 and Roger failed miserably especially Wimbledon 08 and AO 09. That's always been my opinion. Before 2008, Roger had the "age" edge AND he did have the edge off clay while Rafa dominated him on clay from the get go. After 2009 Rafa has the "age" edge and has dominated him everywhere except indoors.

I agree with this except for the bold part. How did Roger "fail miserably" in Wimbledon 2008? He lost, sure, but the match was very even - and considered probably the greatest match in tennis history. There's no "miserable failure" in that.

But I do think Wimby 2008 marks the shift of the tide, which was cemented in AO 2009 and only stalled out by Rafa's loss at Roland Garros and injury at Wimbledon. So while Roger was #1 in 2009, I think Rafa was already the greater player, if only by a small edge. The gap widened considerably in 2010, and this is partially due to a slight decline in Roger - which I think was evidenced in his loss to del Potro at the 2009 USO.

 

[House]

An eye for an eye?

The idea of mimicking something that irritates you or bothers you in the pursuit of "fairness" has never made sense to me.

 

[DarthFed]

I've always said he loses to Nadal for a variety of reasons and the most you'll see me do is breaking it down to years. For instance what I've always argued is that the one point they were on an even playing field regarding age (22-23 year old Rafa vs. 26-27 year old Roger) was 2008 and start of 2009 and Roger failed miserably especially Wimbledon 08 and AO 09. That's always been my opinion. Before 2008, Roger had the "age" edge AND he did have the edge off clay while Rafa dominated him on clay from the get go. After 2009 Rafa has the "age" edge and has dominated him everywhere except indoors.

I agree with this except for the bold part. How did Roger "fail miserably" in Wimbledon 2008? He lost, sure, but the match was very even - and considered probably the greatest match in tennis history. There's no "miserable failure" in that.

But I do think Wimby 2008 marks the shift of the tide, which was cemented in AO 2009 and only stalled out by Rafa's loss at Roland Garros and injury at Wimbledon. So while Roger was #1 in 2009, I think Rafa was already the greater player, if only by a small edge. The gap widened considerably in 2010, and this is partially due to a slight decline in Roger - which I think was evidenced in his loss to del Potro at the 2009 USO.

All he did in Wimby 08 final is join the ranks of Kendricks, Sod and Youzhny as guys who lost to Nadal in 5 at Wimbledon, later to be joined by Petz and Haase. Roger showed up lame, imposed himself late and then showed weakness at the end in the tightest moment. The point of competition is to win, not come close to someone who hadn't done anything on grass yet.

 

[El Dude]

So in other words, here's the order of greatness, with year-end ages:

2004: Roger (23)
2005: Roger (24), Rafa (19)
2006: Roger (25), Rafa (20)
2007: Roger (26), Rafa (21)
2008: Rafa (22), Roger (27)
2009: Rafa (23), Roger (28)
2010: Rafa (24), Roger (29)
2011: Novak (24), Rafa (25)
2012: The Year of the Big Four
2013: Rafa (27), Novak (26)
2014: ???

Again, this is NOT by year-end rankings, but by dominance and overall greatness - how good and dominant the player was. 2012 was a magical year because it felt quite balanced between the Big Four, all of whom won a Slam and had their periods of dominance.

 

[House]

I wonder if the moral of the story "The boy who cried wolf" is applicable to this scenario.