The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread
- Thread starter Murat Baslamisli
- Start date
Johnsteinbeck
Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reactions
- 14
- Points
- 38
Kirijax
Grand Slam Champion
Just my two cents, but the H2H between Federer and Nadal is one of the strangest things in the history of tennis. Just baffles the mind how Federer, as good as he is/was keeps/kept falling to Nadal. In a corner of my mind, I imagne Federer beating Nadal in the French Open final and then all would be once again right with this tennis world. But that's not how it works and it is what it is.
Anyhow,
What's the Djokovic-Murray equivalent of Fedal?
Djorray?
Nozza?
Sorry, off topic. Carry on.
Anyhow,
What's the Djokovic-Murray equivalent of Fedal?
Djorray?
Nozza?
Sorry, off topic. Carry on.
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
Kirijax said:
Here's my thinking on it. Something I wrote a long time ago on the old forum...
I think the reason why Fed apologists - of which I'm not one - bring up the clay issue, is because it points to the major contradiction in the H2H. Because of Rogers success on all surfaces, he was able to contend with Rafa on all surfaces. But because Rafa was not as good a player in the earlier years, he was unable to meet Roger in his domain on a regular basis.
I do have some sympathy with the argument. How can it be, that if Federer had been a less complete player, the H2H would not have become so skewed against him. How can it be that his very success penalises him. It's a conundrum, perhaps even the fatal flaw against the primacy of H2H in determining a champions place in history.
Consider it... if Mac had been a better clay courter his record would be less good against Borg. If Sampras had been a better clay courter, would his record be as dominant against Agassi? In a very real way, Rogers inferior H2H record against Rafa actually augments his claim to GOAThood, btw it augments Rafa's claims too. Federer is unique in history in this regard. The idea that the H2H diminishes him when you look at it in this light is a factual incosistency in my humble opinion...
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
federberg said:
This is fair. Though too bad Roger could have made sure the H2H is less skewed if he showed dominance over Nadal on hards the way Nadal did against him on clay. He didn't. That's a fact nobody can escape from.
DarthFed
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 17,724
- Reactions
- 3,477
- Points
- 113
Roger has a poor H2h vs Rafa on everything except indoor hards where he is an acceptable 4-1. It isn't all about clay, Roger has wet the bed in big matches at Wimbledon and Australia and lost on fast hards at Dubai and Cincy
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
Broken_Shoelace said:
Context mate, context :nono You really want to play don't you?
That was something I wrote years ago about about a h2h discussion. I have this image of you sitting in a darkened room trawling through all my posts trying to find an excuse to pick a fight. But I'd better not say too much, I don't want to upset you again! :snicker
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
federberg said:Broken_Shoelace said:
Context mate, context :nono You really want to play don't you?
And I have this image of you sitting in a darkened room saving your every post re: Fedal h2h in case you ever need to dig it up again years later. Oh, wait...
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
Broken_Shoelace said:federberg said:Broken_Shoelace said:
Context mate, context :nono You really want to play don't you?
And I have this image of you sitting in a darkened room saving your every post re: Fedal h2h in case you ever need to dig it up again years later. Oh, wait...
:laydownlaughing I actually wrote that originally in an email discussion I was having with my sister, who happens to be a Nadal fan. I later posted it in the old forum. She's not a worshipper as some folks seem to be. So nice when one can have adult conversations. But well played! :lolz:
Johnsteinbeck
Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reactions
- 14
- Points
- 38
i think this observation is fitting better here than anywhere else:
the ladies' side at the FO already had one match-up between former champs (Schiavone-Kuznetsova). Within the draw, three more could happen (Schiavone-Williams, Sharapova-Ivanovic, with the winners meeting one another in the final).
for the gentlemen, thanks mainly to Rafa, only one such match-up is possible, no matter what the draw looks like. i know this isn't news or something, just thought it was a fun indicator of the well known differences between the two fields.
the ladies' side at the FO already had one match-up between former champs (Schiavone-Kuznetsova). Within the draw, three more could happen (Schiavone-Williams, Sharapova-Ivanovic, with the winners meeting one another in the final).
for the gentlemen, thanks mainly to Rafa, only one such match-up is possible, no matter what the draw looks like. i know this isn't news or something, just thought it was a fun indicator of the well known differences between the two fields.
Fiero425
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2013
- Messages
- 11,476
- Reactions
- 2,563
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Website
- fiero4251.blogspot.com
johnsteinbeck said:
This is how it used to be for the men; many GS winners, sometimes as many as 12 while the ladies only had 2 or 3! How times have changed! :angel: :dodgy:
tented
Administrator
ftan
Masters Champion
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,606
- Reactions
- 14,764
- Points
- 113
I was following the argument in the Wimbledon Preview Talk thread, which started with Darth stating (once again) that Roger never should have lost the 2008 final to Rafa. He mentioned along the course of the conversation that Roger was the clear favorite, which Broken disputed. My memory also was that there was a lot of discussion that Rafa would get it done that year.
Here is a link to historical odds. They list 2.00 for Rafa v. 1.75 for Roger. I think that's pretty close.
Also, The Guardian article after the semis, which states: "While Federer's progress to the second Sunday has been serene, however - he has yet to drop a set - overcoming the final hurdle promises to be a whole lot more difficult. Blocking his path is the muscular form of Rafael Nadal, Federer's conqueror in the recent French Open final and the man tipped by many to end his championship hegemony."
Rather than rely on dueling memories, I thought I would offer some actual context from the time before that final was played. While ending Roger's run of 65 match wins on grass was note-worthy, it was not unforeseen that Rafa had a good chance of doing it, so that doesn't quite rise to the level of "upset," or, perhaps, depending on how one defines "upset." In any case, there is nothing but fannishness in saying that Federer never "should" have lost to Nadal in that match. Rafa was the better player in that period of time. And reading back historically, Roger was actually playing very well on grass, so it isn't just that he was generally crap that first half of 2008.
We don't have to start this conversation all over again, but I thought I should put this post where it belongs, respecting the other thread.
Here is a link to historical odds. They list 2.00 for Rafa v. 1.75 for Roger. I think that's pretty close.
Also, The Guardian article after the semis, which states: "While Federer's progress to the second Sunday has been serene, however - he has yet to drop a set - overcoming the final hurdle promises to be a whole lot more difficult. Blocking his path is the muscular form of Rafael Nadal, Federer's conqueror in the recent French Open final and the man tipped by many to end his championship hegemony."
Rather than rely on dueling memories, I thought I would offer some actual context from the time before that final was played. While ending Roger's run of 65 match wins on grass was note-worthy, it was not unforeseen that Rafa had a good chance of doing it, so that doesn't quite rise to the level of "upset," or, perhaps, depending on how one defines "upset." In any case, there is nothing but fannishness in saying that Federer never "should" have lost to Nadal in that match. Rafa was the better player in that period of time. And reading back historically, Roger was actually playing very well on grass, so it isn't just that he was generally crap that first half of 2008.
We don't have to start this conversation all over again, but I thought I should put this post where it belongs, respecting the other thread.
