The perfect player

[Moxie]

That was mostly done to stupid stubbornness on Roger's part. He never tried hitting the backhand harder and taking the ball earlier really till 2017. His tactics against Nadal were all wrong before then, always blocking back backhand returns and slicing a lot in rallies. Allowed himself to get pinned on his backhand side and bullied. Maybe it took Ljubicic to show him the light.

I know you guys keep saying (variations of) this, but doesn't it seem implausible to you? Re-read the bolded above. So he didn't hit the ball harder at 23-26, etc. than he did because he didn't try to? Didn't take the ball earlier, even though his inclinations are aggressive? How about he was pushed back by a harder hitting Nadal? I think you guys, at the very least, underestimate a lessening in Nadal's game that helps Roger's "new technique" work for him. Oh, right...and that racquet that it only took him 2 1/2 years to adjust to.

 

[Front242]

I know you guys keep saying (variations of) this, but doesn't it seem implausible to you? Re-read the bolded above. So he didn't hit the ball harder at 23-26, etc. than he did because he didn't try to? Didn't take the ball earlier, even though his inclinations are aggressive? How about he was pushed back by a harder hitting Nadal? I think you guys, at the very least, underestimate a lessening in Nadal's game that helps Roger's "new technique" work for him. Oh, right...and that racquet that it only took him 2 1/2 years to adjust to.

He had a completely different racquet in his prime. Honestly, I'm 100% confident he'd have a lot more slams now if he used his current racquet the last 12 years or so. Much bigger sweet spot and way less shanks and more power, both of which he was conning himself out of for years. Right, so Federer can only beat poor old Nadal. Same for Djokovic I guess There you have it everyone. Read this post. Age is NOT only an issue apparently when it comes to Federer. Incidentally, the ancient Nadal of 2017 was a geriatric 31. Truly ancient. Please...

It does take a lot of time to adjust to a new racquet given these guys have such a long season. The main thing was Ljubicic making him hit through the ball more on his backhand and he had 6+ months to do that in 2016 due to injury layoff. When exactly are you supposed to otherwise get 6+ straight months to practice ?

 

[Bonaca]

He had a completely different racquet in his prime. Honestly, I'm 100% confident he'd have a lot more slams now if he used his current racquet the last 12 years or so. Much bigger sweet spot and way less shanks and more power, both of which he was conning himself out of for years. Right, so Federer can only beat poor old Nadal. Same for Djokovic I guess There you have it everyone. Read this post. Age is NOT only an issue apparently when it comes to Federer. Incidentally, the ancient Nadal of 2017 was a geriatric 31. Truly ancient. Please...

It does take a lot of time to adjust to a new racquet given these guys have such a long season. The main thing was Ljubicic making him hit through the ball more on his backhand and he had 6+ months to do that in 2016 due to injury layoff. When exactly are you supposed to otherwise get 6+ straight months to practice ?

Think you are right. Since he made the changes he was significantly better than the bull.
Had he done it before, I really think in this case he would be in unreachable heights, looking at slam count.
It’s not done yet.

 

[DarthFed]

That's fine, if you think so. I don't see how the timing of this really affects my argument. Darth says that what made the difference for Roger in 2017 was finally making adjustments to accommodate a player who had been beating him since 2004. I still don't see why that took so many years, and finally worked when Roger was 35.

What you're failing to understand is Roger didn't change his game in 2017 to deal with Nadal. He changed his game in general. Roger was mostly beating everyone like a drum aside from one player on one surface until 2008. Roger was too stubborn to change his game which worked well in pretty much every situation aside from one.

Roger didn't adjust his game much until 2014, new racquet and finally accepting his sharp decline. Fed stepped up the aggression quite a bit and then did so further in 2017 after the injury and realizing he needed to shorten play as much as possible.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

What you're failing to understand is Roger didn't change his game in 2017 to deal with Nadal. He changed his game in general. Roger was mostly beating everyone like a drum aside from one player on one surface until 2008. Roger was too stubborn to change his game which worked well in pretty much every situation aside from one.

Roger didn't adjust his game much until 2014, new racquet and finally accepting his sharp decline. Fed stepped up the aggression quite a bit and then did so further in 2017 after the injury and realizing he needed to shorten play as much as possible.

This is the perfect player thread not the Fed fans talk thread... :sleep: Federer is far from perfect, especially on break points and in tiebreaks...

 

[Front242]

This is the perfect player thread not the Fed fans talk thread... :sleep: Federer is far from perfect, especially on break points and in tiebreaks...

Could probably write a book on why Nadal isn't perfect either, so kindly just do us all a favour and vacate the premises.

 

[DarthFed]

This is the perfect player thread not the Fed fans talk thread... :sleep: Federer is far from perfect, especially on break points and in tiebreaks...

This also isn't a clay thread so the vastly inferior Ralphy shouldn't be brought up either.

 

[Moxie]

This also isn't a clay thread so the vastly inferior Ralphy shouldn't be brought up either.

Please see OP. Nadal is perfect in several areas, according other players.

 

[mrzz]

Much bigger sweet spot and way less shanks and more power

I wouldn't say more power per se, but more confidence to begin with, that leads to more power. (but, yes, the end result is the same).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is the perfect player thread not the Fed fans talk thread... :sleep: Federer is far from perfect, especially on break points and in tiebreaks...

Just because Roger lost Wimbledon by losing three tiebreaks you are making fun of him. But, in reality Roger is generally pretty good on tie breaks and is one of the top few players when considering tie break record alone (unlike say his record in five set matches that goes to distance, which is poor).

 

[DarthFed]

Just because Roger lost Wimbledon by losing three tiebreaks you are making fun of him. But, in reality Roger is generally pretty good on tie breaks and is one of the top few players when considering tie break record alone (unlike say his record in five set matches that goes to distance, which is poor).

Roger's tiebreak mark is a bit misleading. It's true that every TB is a big moment but he seems to lose the majority of the really huge ones such as decisive last set TB's in big matches. I'm not sure they keep that stat officially but trust me it's ugly for him.

And also the other really pivotal TB in a major is the 3rd set TB in a match that is tied. Roger has lost those quite often, at least when he's been past his prime.

 

[Moxie]

What you're failing to understand is Roger didn't change his game in 2017 to deal with Nadal. He changed his game in general. Roger was mostly beating everyone like a drum aside from one player on one surface until 2008. Roger was too stubborn to change his game which worked well in pretty much every situation aside from one.

Roger didn't adjust his game much until 2014, new racquet and finally accepting his sharp decline. Fed stepped up the aggression quite a bit and then did so further in 2017 after the injury and realizing he needed to shorten play as much as possible.

Does it matter if he changed it to beat Nadal or to lengthen his career, in general? The one thing I find hard to swallow is that he waited so long to find a solution to Nadal, when it was clear that he was searching for one. Stubbornness? Possible, but it doesn't seem plausible, after about 2009. I don't doubt that he made changes...we saw the SABR as an effort before 2017. And he was trying to make a new racquet work for rather a long time. But it is something that this all came together for him at such a late stage. Look, Rafa has been making changes, too, that have been lengthening his career, and Djokovic's serve was once crap and is now a weapon. It happens. But you go ahead and keep thinking that it's all a progress for Roger, and then tell me that what Rafa does is just cheat, and that's where we'll but heads, OK? :hunting:

 

[DarthFed]

Does it matter if he changed it to beat Nadal or to lengthen his career, in general? The one thing I find hard to swallow is that he waited so long to find a solution to Nadal, when it was clear that he was searching for one. Stubbornness? Possible, but it doesn't seem plausible, after about 2009. I don't doubt that he made changes...we saw the SABR as an effort before 2017. And he was trying to make a new racquet work for rather a long time. But it is something that this all came together for him at such a late stage. Look, Rafa has been making changes, too, that have been lengthening his career, and Djokovic's serve was once crap and is now a weapon. It happens. But you go ahead and keep thinking that it's all a progress for Roger, and then tell me that what Rafa does is just cheat, and that's where we'll but heads, OK? :hunting:

The point we are making is that Roger didn't ever change his game for one player. The changes he made in 2017 weren't for facing Nadal, they were made against the field as a whole. It just so happens that it clearly has helped him against Nadal and it is common sense that he is better off being aggressive against Nadal. I think you guys should be grateful for how stubborn he was to adjust his game and it's the reason his 30's look to be a hell of a lot weaker than his enemies. Roger in the 2010-2016 period played as though it was still 2006 and the results were extremely poor.

I'm not even sure what you mean about the racquet taking a while for him to work. It clearly helped him out compared to where he was in 2013. He wasn't exactly a total scrub from 2014-2016 even if he had bad results at majors for the most part.

 

[Moxie]

The point we are making is that Roger didn't ever change his game for one player. The changes he made in 2017 weren't for facing Nadal, they were made against the field as a whole. It just so happens that it clearly has helped him against Nadal and it is common sense that he is better off being aggressive against Nadal. I think you guys should be grateful for how stubborn he was to adjust his game and it's the reason his 30's look to be a hell of a lot weaker than his enemies. Roger in the 2010-2016 period played as though it was still 2006 and the results were extremely poor.

I'm not even sure what you mean about the racquet taking a while for him to work. It clearly helped him out compared to where he was in 2013. He wasn't exactly a total scrub from 2014-2016 even if he had bad results at majors for the most part.

I never quite understand when you think Roger was a scrub and when he wasn't. That seems to change depending on the specific match, and it started in 2008, which makes it a very moving target. You understand this is why some of us can't understand when he was "old" and when his age didn't matter. You're so happy with the changes that he finally made, but you make no assessment of how it might finally have worked against Nadal, when Nadal wasn't as fast as he once was. That's all I'm saying. They both do age, right? My point about the racquet is that he was working with it for ages, and would try, then put it aside, then pick it up again...is that not true? I thought he started working with that new racquet in 2013-14. And the other point, of course, is when Roger got so much stamina after a huge lay-off in 2017. It was not just us but the commentators that thought he'd found the "fountain of youth" again. Surprising sea-change there for him, if only briefly.

 

[DarthFed]

I never quite understand when you think Roger was a scrub and when he wasn't. That seems to change depending on the specific match, and it started in 2008, which makes it a very moving target. You understand this is why some of us can't understand when he was "old" and when his age didn't matter. You're so happy with the changes that he finally made, but you make no assessment of how it might finally have worked against Nadal, when Nadal wasn't as fast as he once was. That's all I'm saying. They both do age, right? My point about the racquet is that he was working with it for ages, and would try, then put it aside, then pick it up again...is that not true? I thought he started working with that new racquet in 2013-14. And the other point, of course, is when Roger got so much stamina after a huge lay-off in 2017. It was not just us but the commentators that thought he'd found the "fountain of youth" again. Surprising sea-change there for him, if only briefly.

He played with the new racquet a couple tournaments in 2013 before the USO and then switched back because he thought it'd give him the best chance at the USO. 2014 on he played with the new racquet so I'm really not sure where you're going with that. He clearly should've switched before he did and it took a disastrous 2013 for him to do it.

Roger didn't find the fountain of youth. What he found is better tactics and unlike most of the last decade he fared pretty well mentally, that year (2017), which let's face it, is a believable thing when he had 6 months away following nearly 20 years full-time on tour. In 2017 you didn't see mental disasters like the last two Wimbledon's, this year's OZ, etc. It's not like he was far away in 2014 and 2015. Nor is he that far away now. Nadal has had a much much bigger and more consistent recovery of form from 2015-2016 to present day. What would you say accounts for that?

 

[Moxie]

He played with the new racquet a couple tournaments in 2013 before the USO and then switched back because he thought it'd give him the best chance at the USO. 2014 on he played with the new racquet so I'm really not sure where you're going with that. He clearly should've switched before he did and it took a disastrous 2013 for him to do it.

Roger didn't find the fountain of youth. What he found is better tactics and unlike most of the last decade he fared pretty well mentally, that year (2017), which let's face it, is a believable thing when he had 6 months away following nearly 20 years full-time on tour. In 2017 you didn't see mental disasters like the last two Wimbledon's, this year's OZ, etc. It's not like he was far away in 2014 and 2015. Nor is he that far away now. Nadal has had a much much bigger and more consistent recovery of form from 2015-2016 to present day. What would you say accounts for that?

I wouldn't say it was either a bigger or more consistent recovery of form. Nadal has had injury lay-offs and returns across his career. And since 2017, he's still been up and down with injuries, so not that consistent. My beef with you is: look how reasonable you sound (suddenly) when you talk about Roger's career, (including injuries, comebacks, strategic adjustments,) and compare it with how outrageous you are with regards to Nadal. And when folks like Broken and me give you reasonable answers to where Nadal was at various places in his career, you completely sneer, or worse, mostly ignore it and then just go blithely along spewing baseless bullsh** around the forums about doping, despite mountains of completely rational and more-than-plausible counter-arguments. You're all smooth water when it comes to Roger's late career, but all slander when it comes to anything Nadal.

"Roger didn't find the fountain of youth." According to you. Even though turning around a 4.5 year Major drought at 35 would raise a flag for a lot of people. Well, Rafa didn't either...he actually had youth on his side when he started besting Roger. And if you're going to make a mountain out of Roger's tactical adjustments now, then you have to respect Nadal's tactics when he was beating Roger...and everyone else. That you think one can win with his game and the other does because he dopes is just, well, dopey. Ludicrous. This is a 15+ year rivalry. Now Djokovic is in the mix, too. I know that you want to think that Roger wins because his tennis is sublime and Rafa and Novak win because of other reasons, including cheating and Roger being crap and old etc., but it just doesn't work that way. There are 3 great tennis players playing right now, and they elbow each other out sometimes and by turns. That is the nature of sport. That you need to make Nadal out to be a doper speaks only to your insecurity as a fan of TMF...if he were so mighty, why did he lose to Nadal? Well, now it seems it wasn't because Nadal "doped", but because Roger had the wrong racquet and the wrong tactics. Now that he's got a gigantic racquet and a more aggressive style, he can beat Nadal and could have all along. So you can drop the doping charge, right? And the fact that Roger is stronger on his BH than he has been his whole career is nothing to look at, right?

 

[Moxie]

@DarthFed: I noticed that rather than replying here, or to my post in the USO thread, you decided to troll into the WTA thread to drop a dime on your favorite, unjustifiable theme...doping. Just to consolidate it, and not disrupt other threads, I said this in the USO men's thread:

"Two can play at your cheesy game, Darth. It's only a glass house in your imagination. The fact that the race is this close is proof that all of the Big 3 players are great. Your notion that Roger has "under-achieved" as proving anything is actually only proof of your bias. What Roger has done is win a LOT. What he has also done is lose to two other all-time greats. That you have to make it about things other than straight-forward losing is on you and your sour grapes."

Also, there is my above comment. You wanna talk about Sharapova and doping? Why don't we do it here?

 

[DarthFed]

@DarthFed: I noticed that rather than replying here, or to my post in the USO thread, you decided to troll into the WTA thread to drop a dime on your favorite, unjustifiable theme...doping. Just to consolidate it, and not disrupt other threads, I said this in the USO men's thread:

"Two can play at your cheesy game, Darth. It's only a glass house in your imagination. The fact that the race is this close is proof that all of the Big 3 players are great. Your notion that Roger has "under-achieved" as proving anything is actually only proof of your bias. What Roger has done is win a LOT. What he has also done is lose to two other all-time greats. That you have to make it about things other than straight-forward losing is on you and your sour grapes."

Also, there is my above comment. You wanna talk about Sharapova and doping? Why don't we do it here?

You are just itching for a fight my dear. I am apparently not allowed to post about a known doper without you thinking my post is about Nadal. The Serena-Maria match naturally got a lot of attention and I'm glad she destroyed Maria. I am allowed to point out the FACT that she is nothing without her PED's.

There is no need to respond to your other post. You started off with a zinger in saying Rafa's step up in form from 2015-2016 was less than Roger's. Do you remember how bad Rafa was those years? Truth is I don't think Ralphy is on the Tabasco now or for awhile. But 2012 I have pretty much no doubt there was more than a career threatening knee injury/ life threatening tummy ache. I also do think he was embracing the noteworthy Spanish sports culture early on at the very least.

 

[Jelenafan]

Darth, I hope you don’t think my PATS are juiced.....B-)

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger's tiebreak mark is a bit misleading. It's true that every TB is a big moment but he seems to lose the majority of the really huge ones such as decisive last set TB's in big matches. I'm not sure they keep that stat officially but trust me it's ugly for him.

And also the other really pivotal TB in a major is the 3rd set TB in a match that is tied. Roger has lost those quite often, at least when he's been past his prime.

See this stat page from ATP site . According to this, Fed is better than both Novak and Nadal in under pressure situations this year. Note that this "under pressure rating" involves four things viz., break points converted, break points saved, TBs won and deciding sets won.

If you look at the same rating for whole career, he is not bad either. He comes in 4th. Nadalovic and Pistol are ahead of him as can be seen here