Roger's stellar season (ESPN)

[the AntiPusher]

I'm talking only off clay. The H2H is 12-9 to Roger and quite frankly that's piss poor given how much stronger he is than Nadal on everything except clay. The lack of success off clay is due to more than the 1HBH.

Darth ..It’s very similar to Roger loosing US 09 to JMDP. And 08 SW19 .you have got to just admit Roger got outplayed..

 

[Moxie]

That it cost ranking points it is almost sure. That those points would be enough for #1 is another matter. If the points difference were smaller down the stretch things could have been different, but given the Goffin loss -- where he was rested and injury free -- I wouldn't think too much about it.

Losses like this will happen more and more not only for him, but to the whole big 3+1.

It's almost sure that it cost him ranking points. OK, that's pretty easy, because you don't get rankings points if you don't win or can't play. But I think there's too much faith in the notion that if he hadn't played Montreal, he would all but surely have been healthy and done better at Cincy and USO...perhaps even have won both. Perhaps, but the one thing we DO know is that he hurt his back, which also means that he could have hurt it at Cincy or the USO. It takes a lot of assuming to have him winning a tournament that he didn't even play, or one where he lost in the QFs. (Not saying that you have, but there's a lot of that swirling around.)

 

[DarthFed]

Darth ..It’s very similar to Roger loosing US 09 to JMDP. And 08 SW19 .you have got to just admit Roger got outplayed..

If you lose you got outplayed, so yes Roger got outplayed even in the 2009 USO which was the most costly choke of his career. I'm just saying there were a lot of matches off clay vs Rafa he flat out underperformed. People from both sides argue "matchup advantage" too much to explain some of the losses. Roger has had 4 disasters on paper vs Rafa (Dubai, Cincy, London, and Wimbledon). Those are 4 of his best tourneys and naturally some of Rafa's weakest...

 

[DarthFed]

It's almost sure that it cost him ranking points. OK, that's pretty easy, because you don't get rankings points if you don't win or can't play. But I think there's too much faith in the notion that if he hadn't played Montreal, he would all but surely have been healthy and done better at Cincy and USO...perhaps even have won both. Perhaps, but the one thing we DO know is that he hurt his back, which also means that he could have hurt it at Cincy or the USO. It takes a lot of assuming to have him winning a tournament that he didn't even play, or one where he lost in the QFs. (Not saying that you have, but there's a lot of that swirling around.)

I think you have too much faith that Roger was destined to have a back injury. He got injured in the final vs Zverev on a point that he was being run around like a rag doll. Montreal plays a lot slower than Cincy, if he had done the smart thing and practiced the week of Montreal and just played Cincy chances are he wouldn't have gotten injured. Much faster court and with practice he probably doesn't come in playing passive and crappy.

He would've been the heavy favorite to win Cincy, that goes without saying. After that it's all conjecture...maybe he would've got hurt at Cincy as you assume.

 

[Moxie]

I think you have too much faith that Roger was destined to have a back injury. He got injured in the final vs Zverev on a point that he was being run around like a rag doll. Montreal plays a lot slower than Cincy, if he had done the smart thing and practiced the week of Montreal and just played Cincy chances are he wouldn't have gotten injured. He would've been the heavy favorite to win Cincy, that goes without saying. After that it's all conjecture...maybe he would've got hurt at Cincy as you assume.

I have no "faith" that he was destined to injure his back. But, as you say, it's all conjecture, beyond what actually did happen. Did he really not practice at all between Wimbledon and Montreal? If so, that's dumb, and I get why a fan would be pissed.

 

[Moxie]

If you lose you got outplayed, so yes Roger got outplayed even in the 2009 USO which was the most costly choke of his career. I'm just saying there were a lot of matches off clay vs Rafa he flat out underperformed. People from both sides argue "matchup advantage" too much to explain some of the losses. Roger has had 4 disasters on paper vs Rafa (Dubai, Cincy, London, and Wimbledon). Those are 4 of his best tourneys and naturally some of Rafa's weakest...

You say that Roger under-performed in those matches, though you give no value to Rafa's performance in those matches. Why do you think he under-performed, then, if it wasn't match-up advantage, or Rafa's particularly good performances?

 

[DarthFed]

I have no "faith" that he was destined to injure his back. But, as you say, it's all conjecture, beyond what actually did happen. Did he really not practice at all between Wimbledon and Montreal? If so, that's dumb, and I get why a fan would be pissed.

Yes he basically decided to play Montreal last second and had not practiced at all after Wimbledon. Just light gym work from what I heard.

 

[DarthFed]

You say that Roger under-performed in those matches, though you give no value to Rafa's performance in those matches. Why do you think he under-performed, then, if it wasn't match-up advantage, or Rafa's particularly good performances?

He underperformed because Rafa was in his head following all the clay beatdowns in 2008 and he also was too stubborn to adjust when playing Nadal especially on the return of serve. Roger should have been much more aggressive on the return for the past 8-9 years when the rest of his game started to decline and he no longer was getting every return back in play. That putrid return cost him a lot of slams most likely. Better late than never but if he could return aggressively at age 35/36 he could've done it earlier. And against the mediocre serve of Nadal that could've made a big difference.

 

[Moxie]

Except that he seemed to tweet that he was practicing.

 

[Moxie]

He underperformed because Rafa was in his head following all the clay beatdowns in 2008 and he also was too stubborn to adjust when playing Nadal especially on the return of serve. Roger should have been much more aggressive on the return for the past 8-9 years when the rest of his game started to decline and he no longer was getting every return back in play. That putrid return cost him a lot of slams most likely. Better late than never but if he could return aggressively at age 35/36 he could've done it earlier. And against the mediocre serve of Nadal that could've made a big difference.

Right. And surely nothing to do with how well Rafa played. OK. Always about Roger's racquet. You can blame it on the scar tissue, and too many clay matches, and Roger's stubbornness, and lack of aggression on the return, but it does add up to a lot of why the hell, if he's the GOAT, couldn't he have played Nadal better before 2017? I would argue that there's something in Nadal's own play, in there. Roger isn't a dummy. You propose too many excuses. Sometimes, and many times, Nadal was just better.

 

[DarthFed]

Except that he seemed to tweet that he was practicing.

Where does it show that in the link?

Edit: I see that now. Guess the other sources were wrong. Doesn't mean he had the adequate practice beforehand

 

[DarthFed]

Right. And surely nothing to do with how well Rafa played. OK. Always about Roger's racquet. You can blame it on the scar tissue, and too many clay matches, and Roger's stubbornness, and lack of aggression on the return, but it does add up to a lot of why the hell, if he's the GOAT, couldn't he have played Nadal better before 2017? I would argue that there's something in Nadal's own play, in there. Roger isn't a dummy. You propose too many excuses. Sometimes, and many times, Nadal was just better.

And I can flip that back and say why is a 36 year old destroying a 31 year old but not before that. What changed this year so much? Aggression off ROS and the backhand is what flipped it. He could've done it much earlier, be grateful he didn't.

 

[Moxie]

And I can flip that back and say why is a 36 year old destroying a 31 year old but not before that. What changed this year so much? Aggression off ROS and the backhand is what flipped it. He could've done it much earlier, be grateful he didn't.

Yes, but he's got an older Nadal who's a step slower. And he finally figured out how to work that bigger racquet head. If he could have done things differently before, what is to make us think he wouldn't have? It did take an equipment change, so you can't really say it was just attitude or aggression. I don't begrudge him the "new-ish" racquet. Just don't try to tell me it's all about his new attitude.

 

[mrzz]

Where does it show that in the link?

Edit: I see that now. Guess the other sources were wrong. Doesn't mean he had the adequate practice beforehand

I really won't bother to look but I remember distinctly Federer himself saying in press-conferences that he had almost zero practice before Montreal. He repeated that following the Shangai win, where he said that there he made the correct preparation (this one I remember, just find his post match interviews and conferences after that final). People here started mentioning this for a reason....

Again, I do not think the problem was to play Montreal, the problem was to play Montreal unprepared.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

I really won't bother to look but I remember distinctly Federer himself saying in press-conferences that he had almost zero practice before Montreal. He repeated that following the Shangai win, where he said that there he made the correct preparation (this one I remember, just find his post match interviews and conferences after that final). People here started mentioning this for a reason....

Again, I do not think the problem was to play Montreal, the problem was to play Montreal unprepared.

Yeah he came directly from vacation iirc his post match interviews

 

[DarthFed]

Yes, but he's got an older Nadal who's a step slower. And he finally figured out how to work that bigger racquet head. If he could have done things differently before, what is to make us think he wouldn't have? It did take an equipment change, so you can't really say it was just attitude or aggression. I don't begrudge him the "new-ish" racquet. Just don't try to tell me it's all about his new attitude.

Why didn't he change before? Because he's known for being extremely stubborn. During Roger's peak his ROS was very good because damn near everything was put back in play. Even then he should've been more aggressive against the weak Nadal serve but it was understandable as he at least wasn't missing much. Starting in 2008 his ROS was a disaster, and he never adjusted until this year. Roger did a pretty good job of becoming more aggressive overall as time went by but his ROS was always weak and pathetic. It didn't fit with the rest of his game. If you think he didn't have the talent to return aggressively before this year I think you're reaching a bit. The change this year was simply (finally) a change in strategy. The new racquet may have helped but even with the old one Roger was simply too stubborn and wasn't playing smart. It's been mentioned before but these players are human, just because they are top professionals doesn't mean they are always playing tactically correct.

 

[Ricardo]

Darth ..It’s very similar to Roger loosing US 09 to JMDP. And 08 SW19 .you have got to just admit Roger got outplayed..

what eyes of yours tell you he got outplayed in US09? outplayed by being within 2 points of winning the match and was leading the match all the way till then? get your facts right.

 

[Ricardo]

Why didn't he change before? Because he's known for being extremely stubborn. During Roger's peak his ROS was very good because damn near everything was put back in play. Even then he should've been more aggressive against the weak Nadal serve but it was understandable as he at least wasn't missing much. Starting in 2008 his ROS was a disaster, and he never adjusted until this year. Roger did a pretty good job of becoming more aggressive overall as time went by but his ROS was always weak and pathetic. It didn't fit with the rest of his game. If you think he didn't have the talent to return aggressively before this year I think you're reaching a bit. The change this year was simply (finally) a change in strategy. The new racquet may have helped but even with the old one Roger was simply too stubborn and wasn't playing smart. It's been mentioned before but these players are human, just because they are top professionals doesn't mean they are always playing tactically correct.

oh no Roger wasn't just too 'stubborn', you are way too biased towards your idol.....as if he could've turned it around by 'simply' being adjusting his level of aggression and as if Nadal was just an inferior player that he should just run him over. You can however take the consolation that, based on facts, Nadal is better on clay while Fed is better on other surfaces than Nadal.

 

[DarthFed]

oh no Roger wasn't just too 'stubborn', you are way too biased towards your idol.....as if he could've turned it around by 'simply' being adjusting his level of aggression and as if Nadal was just an inferior player that he should just run him over. You can however take the consolation that, based on facts, Nadal is better on clay while Fed is better on other surfaces than Nadal.

So in your opinion it took him 36 years to develop the ability to time the ball well enough on the return to hit through it consistently?

All I've said is that he hasn't done well off clay against Rafa and the 12-9 record speaks for itself. Rafa isn't anywhere near as good as Roger off clay and my whole point is that the matchup advantage gets overstated. Could returning serve aggressively have helped? I'd say so. And are you really arguing Roger should've been reduced to just blocking the ball back in play on 2nd serves? What a talentless hack.

I've seen many Rafa fans complain about his court positioning and other tactics at times during his career. The idea that these guys are playing smart tactically 100% of the time is a dream world.

 

[the AntiPusher]

If you lose you got outplayed, so yes Roger got outplayed even in the 2009 USO which was the most costly choke of his career. I'm just saying there were a lot of matches off clay vs Rafa he flat out underperformed. People from both sides argue "matchup advantage" too much to explain some of the losses. Roger has had 4 disasters on paper vs Rafa (Dubai, Cincy, London, and Wimbledon). Those are 4 of his best tourneys and naturally some of Rafa's weakest...

nah..Roger biggest choked job was the USO 2011..when he had those two mps vs Novak..Novak went for broke and all Roger could say was "It's was very low percentage shot by Novak, no one would take that risk." ..