Nadal Would Have Been Crucified...

[El Dude]

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.

That's a bit harsh! First of all, Rafa hadn't done nothing on grass yet - he had made it to the Wimby finals in each of the last two years, and it isn't like there weren't other good players around. Second of all, that match could have gone either way - not unlike 2013 Roland Garros. It really was a toss-up.

Maybe it would be more accurate in my "greatness rankings" to put Rafa and Roger equal in 2008, because overall they really were. I just give the edge to Rafa for winning at Wimby and having the edge in the match-up.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

No, but in order to show double standards, you have to tackle both sides of the story.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

That's a bit harsh! First of all, Rafa hadn't done nothing on grass yet - he had made it to the Wimby finals in each of the last two years, and it isn't like there weren't other good players around. Second of all, that match could have gone either way - not unlike 2013 Roland Garros. It really was a toss-up.

Maybe it would be more accurate in my "greatness rankings" to put Rafa and Roger equal in 2008, because overall they really were. I just give the edge to Rafa for winning at Wimby and having the edge in the match-up.

Not the first time I've been called harsh

But seriously, are we going to say the 5 time defending champion losing a match is some accomplishment for him? To the Nadal nuts maybe. The only quality loss Roger could have on grass is if you put Pete in a time machine...

 

[Riotbeard]

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.

That's a bit harsh! First of all, Rafa hadn't done nothing on grass yet - he had made it to the Wimby finals in each of the last two years, and it isn't like there weren't other good players around. Second of all, that match could have gone either way - not unlike 2013 Roland Garros. It really was a toss-up.

Maybe it would be more accurate in my "greatness rankings" to put Rafa and Roger equal in 2008, because overall they really were. I just give the edge to Rafa for winning at Wimby and having the edge in the match-up.

Dude, the only way to win this thread is to not engage. Nobody's mind is gonna be changed uzzled

 

[Kieran]

I love it, Darth, I love it! You're on great form, buddy. :clap

Apart from reaching two Wimbo finals and winning Queens, Rafa had done nothing on grass. And so a defeat to him was obviously a disaster. And there was me almost falling for your line on another thread that Roger had such a well-developed masterly rival in the young Rafa, and you cited the two Wimbledon finals of 2006 and 2007 as an example of why...

EDIT: forgot to add a smiley: :lolz:

 

[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.

No, but in order to show double standards, you have to tackle both sides of the story.

It's not apples to apples. Roger doesn't have the same reputation as Nadal does. Fair or unfair, it's the reality. Even you are aware of it, and bothered by it, hence the creation of this thread.

If Rafa said what Roger said in '04, '05, '06, no one would bat an eye. Fed says he was hurt, more people take that for what it is. Rafa says he's hurt, more eyebrows raise.

However, pretending that Nadal is the only player to have his injuries questioned is silly. People STILL bring up Fed's mono. It was clear last year something was wrong , or off with Roger. When something is wrong with Rafa it is widely more acknowledged than refuted.

Those who question Nadal aren't going to read this thread and think "Oh you're right! What a hypocrite I've been!" It's just going to make them defensive.

 

[DarthFed]

I love it, Darth, I love it! You're on great form, buddy. :clap

Apart from reaching two Wimbo finals and winning Queens, Rafa had done nothing on grass. And so a defeat to him was obviously a disaster. And there was me almost falling for your line on another thread that Roger had such a well-developed masterly rival in the young Rafa, and you cited the two Wimbledon finals of 2006 and 2007 as an example of why...

EDIT: forgot to add a smiley: :lolz:

That was a response to your claim that Rafa was not any kind of a rival until 2007, so Fed got his first 9 slams for free. Rafa was a rival in 05 and 06, it just happened that it was mostly on clay as Roger couldn't break through.

Who is greater on grass by a country mile, Roger or Rafa? Maybe in your world the answer isn't easy. So disaster ain't far from the truth.

 

[Kieran]

In 2008, who was better? Rafa.

Therefore, no disaster to lose to him...

 

[DarthFed]

In 2008, who was better? Rafa.

Therefore, no disaster to lose to him...

And Darcis was better than Rafa for a match in 2013...no disaster right?

 

[Kieran]

In 2008, who was better? Rafa.

Therefore, no disaster to lose to him...

And Darcis was better than Rafa for a match in 2013...no disaster right?

He was the better player, but are you comparing an all-time Wimbledon final performance by an all-time great tennis player with an upset by an upstart?

Rafa played tennis in 2008 as great as anyone has ever played it. I'm at a loss as to how it's a disaster to lose to that...

 

[DarthFed]

In 2008, who was better? Rafa.

Therefore, no disaster to lose to him...

And Darcis was better than Rafa for a match in 2013...no disaster right?

He was the better player, but are you comparing an all-time Wimbledon final performance by an all-time great tennis player with an upset by an upstart?

Rafa played tennis in 2008 as great as anyone has ever played it. I'm at a loss as to how it's a disaster to lose to that...

Not comparing it, just showing the flaw of the logic that it can't be a disaster because Rafa was the better player that day. Losing to Rafa was just a lesser disaster...

That is a bold statement regarding Rafa in 2008 but that's your opinion. Not the highest level I've seen on grass by any means.

 

[Kieran]

Well, since they slowed the grass, it was as high a level as we've seen. Certainly, Rafa's record on grass is second only to Roger, in the modern game. I think that retrospectively you might be a bit more generous about it, yaknowwhatimean?

 

[El Dude]

Can we just cut to the chase and start comparing penis sizes?

 

[Kieran]

Can we just cut to the chase and start comparing penis sizes?

Well, I don't want to boast, but... :snigger

 

[huntingyou]

I'm happy I no longer feel the urges to engage myself in discussions like this. I'm glad to see BS laying the hammer DOWN big time. This thread was a gem in that regard.

Darth's fantasy world where Rafa is just a regular dude on grass that Roger should have never lost to makes me smile every time I read it. Never mind the 5 consecutive finals......

Roger it's as ordinary as Rafa but I prefer to see them both as EXTRAORDINARY players with unique skills we might never see again in our life time. You cheapen Rafa at Roger's expense my friend.

 

[Federberg]

If you say so.. Speaking as an observer.. and admittedly not a fan... it seems to me every loss of his is due to an injury. I even tongue in cheek asked if he'd been playing hurt during his recent Dolgo loss It's no surprise that people (and not just on these boards) ask if Rafa's ever lost when he's not injured. Even pundits writing after Rafa losses are very specific in having to clarify that his movement looked fine. Don't want to tread over ground we've gone over many many many times... But I recall that match against Soderling. I watched that match.. and not once during it did I think that Rafa was impaired. Actually I couldn't get my head round why he kept on hitting short balls. But it seems to be conventional wisdom amongst his fans that he was clearly injured. I may not be a fan, but that does't make me lose my critical reasoning. If he was injured I would say it, if his movement had been impaired I would acknowledge it. Sorry... didn't see it. No revisionism changes that. But the guys ego couldn't tolerate a narrative where he's human and simply had an off day. Pitiful...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND the bait worked.

THAT is the kind of response I was hoping for. Now, let's see:

Federer basically blamed an entire season (give or take) on a back injury. Essentially, he's saying "I'm winning because I'm healthy" which implies that "I was losing because I wasn't." And yet, that is perfectly OK because...? You're a fan of his.

Nadal loses to Soderling at the FO, SKIPS WIMBLEDON AS THE DEFENDING CHAMPION, yet nothing was impairing him because you couldn't observe it (you see, players should be screaming in pain as they reach for every ball in case they're injured). I'm sure Nadal skipped Wimbledon because he's a mental midget who couldn't get over his loss to Soderling. After all, mental fortitude has never been Nadal's forte. Or maybe he really was injured, but sustained his injury AFTER the Soderling match, while ordering a cab. Makes perfect sense.

Also, anyone who actually pays attention could tell that Nadal wasn't moving well in that Soderling match. No, this isn't some revisionist history. I'll forever keep bringing this up because I have people to back me up on this: I kept saying Nadal was moving poorly that entire clay season, way before Nadal lost to Soderling, and I still remember Haelfix, a very knowledgeable poster and Fed fan, immediately talking about how badly Nadal moved after the Sod match, way before talks of any injury.

Nadal whines about injuries a lot. That doesn't mean that some of them aren't true, especially those that actually force him on the sidelines. Like, the dude skips a major, and yet people still question him.

Just got back on this thread. All very tiring really

Opinions opinions.. you have one, some of us have another. Rafa looked fine to me in that match. I repeat it was the short balls that really hurt him. I don't care if he had been the bionic man, you put short balls like that the way Soderling was playing, the result would have been the same. If he was achieving the depth that he was getting in the prior round against Hewitt, then maybe you folks might have a leg to stand on.. but nope.. he didn't and you don't. As for Roger making excuses about last season? I don't necessarily disagree with that. But don't start trying to say he's in Rafa's league where excuses are concerned. I've said it many times, you're good enough to get on the court you get what you deserve. Don't go whining about the results! Rafa doesn't get a pass for his whining because old man Roger has started to make a few excuses. Perhaps he's noticed that Rafa never gets called on his nonsense, so why not get a piece of the action :laydownlaughing

 

[Kieran]

So, make me laugh, Federberg: why did he skip Wimbledon in 2009?

 

[I.Haychew]

I'm happy I no longer feel the urges to engage myself in discussions like this.

...and yet, you have. ???

 

[Moxie]

I'm happy I no longer feel the urges to engage myself in discussions like this.

...and yet, you have. ???

Oh, come on. We all like a good tussle. Even those who want to be above the fray get sucked in. Look at HY and you. Next thing you know, you'll be mud wrestling with the rest of us. :laydownlaughing

 

[Moxie]

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.

Dude, I know you prefer to stay above the fray, and you do a good job of it. However, if you nip into the muck, you will find you've got to address all issues. You tell us all off for having the same agendas, but you do ignore the OP. Your point that Federer is old has nothing to do with the notion that he had a back issue all last year, and whether or not his fans treated that as an "excuse." I'm sorry I'm not as funny about all this as Kieran is…but, realistically, whoever is?

:laydownlaughing :nono :heart: