The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[the AntiPusher]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Btw, I said his prime actually ended in 2007 and not 2008. His prime was 2004-2007. This is widely considered his prime by most. 2012 being the end of his prime I heard tonight for the first time.

It's my opinion, Roger still had a good chance to capture a grand slam titles after age 26-31. Sure he wasn't the same Federer facing the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, bagdathis , or Nalbalian. Instead he faced guys like Rafa , Djokovic,JMDP and Murray who could move as well as he could , striking the ball as hard as Federer and didn't run and hide.Btw, Moxie,I Never said 33 year old Federer was still in his prime, that's was Front trying to change the narrative.

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Front you stated that Fed was last in prime years 2008, well he could only manage to win less than 6 games against Rafa at RG 2008 but he was able to do better in 2011 RG final
, feel me .

AP, don't be dense. It's well known and painfully obvious Roger played complete crap in that 2008 final. :cover

It is "well-known and painfully obvious" only to Federer fans. Saying it over and over doesn't make it "well-known" to the rest of the world. A lot of people, including sportswriters and tennis experts reckon that was one of the greatest matches ever played, and Roger did his part in the drama. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, you (and on this matter, Darth, too,) like to say that if Rafa won, his opponent must have been utter crap. What is well-acknowledged is that Roger was more lack-luster than Nadal in the first two sets, though there were plenty of exciting points and games. But he found his fight and his best tennis by the 3rd, especially after the rain delay. That match was a thrill ride, with great tennis produced on both sides of the net. Just not often enough from Roger's side, for your taste. If you can say that a player past his prime can still have some great days, then it has to be fair to say that a player still in his prime can have a match where his not his best, gets out-played, but that doesn't, by definition, make him out of his prime. Anymore than beating Djokovic in 2011 RG, or whatever, means that Roger was prime. Only "vintage."

Rain delay? AP was talking about RG '08 as was I. And yes, Roger was crap that day at RG '08 and Toni Nadal said the same thing.

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Btw, I said his prime actually ended in 2007 and not 2008. His prime was 2004-2007. This is widely considered his prime by most. 2012 being the end of his prime I heard tonight for the first time.

It's my opinion, Roger still had a good chance to capture a grand slam titles after age 26-31. Sure he wasn't the same Federer facing the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, bagdathis , or Nalbalian. Instead he faced guys like Rafa , Djokovic,JMDP and Murray who could move as well as he could , striking the ball as hard as Federer and didn't run and hide.Btw, Moxie,I Never said 33 year old Federer was still in his prime, that's was Front trying to change the narrative.

No, it's you trying to change it from 33 to 31 now here. He was practically 31 in 2012 and you claimed he was still in his prime :cover

 

[Kieran]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

AP, don't be dense. It's well known and painfully obvious Roger played complete crap in that 2008 final. :cover

No, he didn't. He lost because he was 5 years older than Rafa. And because it was on clay.

Oh yeah, and he had mono...

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

AP, don't be dense. It's well known and painfully obvious Roger played complete crap in that 2008 final. :cover

No, he didn't. He lost because he was 5 years older than Rafa. And because it was on clay.

Oh yeah, and he had mono...

Yeah yeah. He played a crap match. It happens. Prime or not, Nadal was better on clay. Hence how he raced to an early substantial lead in the h2h.

 

[Moxie]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

AP, don't be dense. It's well known and painfully obvious Roger played complete crap in that 2008 final. :cover

It is "well-known and painfully obvious" only to Federer fans. Saying it over and over doesn't make it "well-known" to the rest of the world. A lot of people, including sportswriters and tennis experts reckon that was one of the greatest matches ever played, and Roger did his part in the drama. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, you (and on this matter, Darth, too,) like to say that if Rafa won, his opponent must have been utter crap. What is well-acknowledged is that Roger was more lack-luster than Nadal in the first two sets, though there were plenty of exciting points and games. But he found his fight and his best tennis by the 3rd, especially after the rain delay. That match was a thrill ride, with great tennis produced on both sides of the net. Just not often enough from Roger's side, for your taste. If you can say that a player past his prime can still have some great days, then it has to be fair to say that a player still in his prime can have a match where his not his best, gets out-played, but that doesn't, by definition, make him out of his prime. Anymore than beating Djokovic in 2011 RG, or whatever, means that Roger was prime. Only "vintage."

Rain delay? AP was talking about RG '08 as was I. And yes, Roger was crap that day at RG '08 and Toni Nadal said the same thing.

OK, I didn't read carefully. I thought everyone was too demure to ever mention the 2008 RG final again. What Toni said was that Roger gave up, which shocked him. Roger wasn't crap. There was nothing he could do. Nadal was at a very high level on clay that whole season.

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

It is "well-known and painfully obvious" only to Federer fans. Saying it over and over doesn't make it "well-known" to the rest of the world. A lot of people, including sportswriters and tennis experts reckon that was one of the greatest matches ever played, and Roger did his part in the drama. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, you (and on this matter, Darth, too,) like to say that if Rafa won, his opponent must have been utter crap. What is well-acknowledged is that Roger was more lack-luster than Nadal in the first two sets, though there were plenty of exciting points and games. But he found his fight and his best tennis by the 3rd, especially after the rain delay. That match was a thrill ride, with great tennis produced on both sides of the net. Just not often enough from Roger's side, for your taste. If you can say that a player past his prime can still have some great days, then it has to be fair to say that a player still in his prime can have a match where his not his best, gets out-played, but that doesn't, by definition, make him out of his prime. Anymore than beating Djokovic in 2011 RG, or whatever, means that Roger was prime. Only "vintage."

Rain delay? AP was talking about RG '08 as was I. And yes, Roger was crap that day at RG '08 and Toni Nadal said the same thing.

OK, I didn't read carefully. I thought everyone was too demure to ever mention the 2008 RG final again. What Toni said was that Roger gave up, which shocked him. Roger wasn't crap. There was nothing he could do. Nadal was at a very high level on clay that whole season.

No, he said Roger did not play well. And he was right. He pretty much tanked set 3 yes, not the rest. He actually broke serve I believe in set 2. But he was complete crap that day and yes, Nadal also played very well but that was not the best Nadal has played on clay either in that final. He didn't need to.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

AP, don't be dense. It's well known and painfully obvious Roger played complete crap in that 2008 final. :cover

No, he didn't. He lost because he was 5 years older than Rafa. And because it was on clay.

Oh yeah, and he had mono...

Yeah yeah. He played a crap match. It happens. Prime or not, Nadal was better on clay. Hence how he raced to an early substantial lead in the h2h.

What?! Even conceding 5 years advantage?

Buddy, you're all over the place. Why not just congratulate Rafa on being the great player he is, and stop trying to put wallpaper over a torrential crack in a dam...

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

No, he didn't. He lost because he was 5 years older than Rafa. And because it was on clay.

Oh yeah, and he had mono...

Yeah yeah. He played a crap match. It happens. Prime or not, Nadal was better on clay. Hence how he raced to an early substantial lead in the h2h.

What?! Even conceding 5 years advantage?

Buddy, you're all over the place. Why not just congratulate Rafa on being the great player he is, and stop trying to put wallpaper over a torrential crack in a dam...

I'm not all even the slightest bit all over the place. Any sane third party with no vested interest in Nadal or Federer would tell you 5 years difference in pro sports is huge. You're in complete denial and too blindly worshipping Nadal to realize it's not possible for 2 people 5 years apart to have the same prime years in sport. If there is there's something seriously fishy going on.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

I'm not all even the slightest bit all over the place. Any sane third party with no vested interest in Nadal or Federer would tell you 5 years difference in pro sports is huge. You're in complete denial and too blindly worshipping Nadal to realize it's not possible for 2 people 5 years apart to have the same prime years in sport. If there is there's something seriously fishy going on.

Exactly, so give credit to Rafa for overcoming the 5 year gap in his calf years and racking up a thunderous start to the H2H... :clap :clap

 

[Moxie]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Of course on their day any old player can have a good tournament. Look at Connors at 39 at the USO in 1991. But that's the exception rather than the rule and Roger beat Murray again this year but lost in the final to Novak two years in a row. Given we know how good he was in his prime on grass, you'd have to think the fact that he's 34 in a few days has more than just a bit of an impact on those results. Roger won a set in a final? Wow, he must definitely still be in his prime! Seriously, read back what you're typing. He won a set at Wimbledon too this year in the final but did he win it? No. His prime ended years ago.

I agree completely that at 33 Roger is no longer in his "prime years" (which I think can be distinguished from "peak," even though Fed's game and health have kept him at a good level (except 2013) even as he begins to decline. Someone as great and as motivated as Roger can have good results even against the best in the world. However, it's ridiculous to claim that Roger was no longer in his prime when he was only 26-27 (2008,) or even in 2009. The thinking from some Fed fans is that 'how can Roger be in his prime if Rafa was beating him so much in 08?' But Rafa was hitting a 'peak' at that point, and that's the difference. It defies logic to say that anyone (who is healthy)who wins his first Major at nearly 22 is past his prime at 27. Saying the H2H is about the age gap is rewriting history, even if you skip anything past 2009.

End-of-Year 2006, (when they were 20 & 25) it was 6-2 in favor of Nadal, including 2 Majors to 1.
EOY 2007, 8-6, (3-2 in Majors.)
EOY 2008, 12-6 (5-2 in Majors.)
EOY 2009, 13-8. (I mention 09 because they were 22 & 27 the only matches they played.)

You can't staunch the bleeding by pretending that Roger was old and washed up by 2008, or however you want to coach it. It's always been a difficult match-up for Roger, and the worst of the damage was done before Roger hit even plateau years, much less decline.

(And someone will likely want us to take this to the Fedal thread. Sorry...I know we can't help ourselves. :snicker)

Yeah, and what does the massive drop from 2007 to 2008 tell you other than what I said about his prime ending in 2007 and what I posted already about most of the Nadal wins being on clay at that point? 6 of the 8 wins in that period up to 2007 for Nadal were on clay where he's clearly better. Then Roger got that back to 6-8 pretty pronto.

OK, let's try it this way: Lots of Fedfans say that the H2H doesn't matter, it's how he competes against the field. So let's look at his W-L record to see where he was during those years, and if there was a "massive drop." Because I know you don't want to use Rafa as the only measure of Roger's career.

2006: 95-5
2007: 68-9
2008: 66-15
2009: 61-12
2010: 65-13
2011: 64-12

Gosh, maybe his peak ended in 2006, when he was 25? As you see, there was no "massive drop" between 07-08. And his W-L is not that greatly inconsistent all the way thru 2011. (I didn't look up any more.) Roger is hugely praised for his consistency, and rightly so. He really didn't fall apart in any appreciable way at the dawning of 2008. (But another note on the H2H: those 5 losses in 2006...4 were to Nadal. You can't say that was about the age difference. Trivia question: who was the other loss to?)

 

[the AntiPusher]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Btw, I said his prime actually ended in 2007 and not 2008. His prime was 2004-2007. This is widely considered his prime by most. 2012 being the end of his prime I heard tonight for the first time.

It's my opinion, Roger still had a good chance to capture a grand slam titles after age 26-31. Sure he wasn't the same Federer facing the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, bagdathis , or Nalbalian. Instead he faced guys like Rafa , Djokovic,JMDP and Murray who could move as well as he could , striking the ball as hard as Federer and didn't run and hide.Btw, Moxie,I Never said 33 year old Federer was still in his prime, that's was Front trying to change the narrative.

No, it's you trying to change it from 33 to 31 now here. He was practically 31 in 2012 and you claimed he was still in his prime :cover

I was responding to Moxie saying she agrees that at 33Federer wasn't no longer in his prime. I am assuming she was referring to your quote. Btw, how can you say AP, don't be dense, dude that's foul of you to say to me because you are using the excuse "we all know he didn't play well" . Heck, face it he got thumped and outclassed , just like Rafa did vs Djokovic at RG in the qtrs. Front watch your tone, don't ever say don't be dense .That's disrespectful and that's how all these boards get heated , if you can't keep your response dignified , then move on to another thread brother.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

^^Federer lost to murray in cincinnatti. in 2006

Federer results in 2008 were ruined by mono, until april..then he also had another back injury and flu/cold at the end of 2008 in paris/.wtf I think..

Federer bounced back though, I always think 2009 is prime Federer, he reached all 4 major finals after all.

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

I agree completely that at 33 Roger is no longer in his "prime years" (which I think can be distinguished from "peak," even though Fed's game and health have kept him at a good level (except 2013) even as he begins to decline. Someone as great and as motivated as Roger can have good results even against the best in the world. However, it's ridiculous to claim that Roger was no longer in his prime when he was only 26-27 (2008,) or even in 2009. The thinking from some Fed fans is that 'how can Roger be in his prime if Rafa was beating him so much in 08?' But Rafa was hitting a 'peak' at that point, and that's the difference. It defies logic to say that anyone (who is healthy)who wins his first Major at nearly 22 is past his prime at 27. Saying the H2H is about the age gap is rewriting history, even if you skip anything past 2009.

End-of-Year 2006, (when they were 20 & 25) it was 6-2 in favor of Nadal, including 2 Majors to 1.
EOY 2007, 8-6, (3-2 in Majors.)
EOY 2008, 12-6 (5-2 in Majors.)
EOY 2009, 13-8. (I mention 09 because they were 22 & 27 the only matches they played.)

You can't staunch the bleeding by pretending that Roger was old and washed up by 2008, or however you want to coach it. It's always been a difficult match-up for Roger, and the worst of the damage was done before Roger hit even plateau years, much less decline.

(And someone will likely want us to take this to the Fedal thread. Sorry...I know we can't help ourselves. :snicker)

Yeah, and what does the massive drop from 2007 to 2008 tell you other than what I said about his prime ending in 2007 and what I posted already about most of the Nadal wins being on clay at that point? 6 of the 8 wins in that period up to 2007 for Nadal were on clay where he's clearly better. Then Roger got that back to 6-8 pretty pronto.

OK, let's try it this way: Lots of Fedfans say that the H2H doesn't matter, it's how he competes against the field. So let's look at his W-L record to see where he was during those years, and if there was a "massive drop." Because I know you don't want to use Rafa as the only measure of Roger's career.

2006: 95-5
2007: 68-9
2008: 66-15
2009: 61-12
2010: 65-13
2011: 64-12

Gosh, maybe his peak ended in 2006, when he was 25? As you see, there was no "massive drop" between 07-08. And his W-L is not that greatly inconsistent all the way thru 2011. (I didn't look up any more.) Roger is hugely praised for his consistency, and rightly so. He really didn't fall apart in any appreciable way at the dawning of 2008. (But another note on the H2H: those 5 losses in 2006...4 were to Nadal. You can't say that was about the age difference. Trivia question: who was the other loss to?)

Yes 3 losses to Nadal on clay in 2006. We've all acknowledged a thousand times at this stage he is better on clay so that h2h doesn't mean a whole lot when Roger got it back to 6-8 not long afterwards. All it proves is Nadal is better on clay. There was a noticeable drop against the top players from 2008 onwards. As you can see, Roger's still good enough to beat nobodies and Murray in 2015 but he's still not winning a whole lot of slams these days is he?! Being out of your prime relates to beating the top competition, not the nobodies of the tour. He's not beating the younger guys in their prime much these days at slams when it comes to the top guys, whereas he was till 2007. Of course he can have a great day like he did against Murray this year at Wimbledon but he's not capable of doing it 2 matches in a row. That's what happens when you're no longer in your prime.

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

It's my opinion, Roger still had a good chance to capture a grand slam titles after age 26-31. Sure he wasn't the same Federer facing the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, bagdathis , or Nalbalian. Instead he faced guys like Rafa , Djokovic,JMDP and Murray who could move as well as he could , striking the ball as hard as Federer and didn't run and hide.Btw, Moxie,I Never said 33 year old Federer was still in his prime, that's was Front trying to change the narrative.

No, it's you trying to change it from 33 to 31 now here. He was practically 31 in 2012 and you claimed he was still in his prime :cover

I was responding to Moxie saying she agrees that at 33Federer wasn't no longer in his prime. I am assuming she was referring to your quote. Btw, how can you say AP, don't be dense, dude that's foul of you to say to me because you are using the excuse "we all know he didn't play well" . Heck, face it he got thumped and outclassed , just like Rafa did vs Djokovic at RG in the qtrs. Front watch your tone, don't ever say don't be dense .That's disrespectful and that's how all these boards get heated , if you can't keep your response dignified , then move on to another thread brother.

That's hilarious and rich coming from a guy who has frequently called people here clowns in the past. Trying to play it like you're a good boy now so some mod can come give me some? That's petty man. I was calling what you said dense, not you.

 

[the AntiPusher]

No, it's you trying to change it from 33 to 31 now here. He was practically 31 in 2012 and you claimed he was still in his prime :cover

I was responding to Moxie saying she agrees that at 33Federer wasn't no longer in his prime. I am assuming she was referring to your quote. Btw, how can you say AP, don't be dense, dude that's foul of you to say to me because you are using the excuse "we all know he didn't play well" . Heck, face it he got thumped and outclassed , just like Rafa did vs Djokovic at RG in the qtrs. Front watch your tone, don't ever say don't be dense .That's disrespectful and that's how all these boards get heated , if you can't keep your response dignified , then move on to another thread brother.

That's hilarious and rich coming from a guy who has frequently called people here clowns in the past. Trying to play it like you're a good boy now so some mod can come give me some? That's petty man. I was calling what you said dense, not you.

now you say good "boy"

Okay, remember I gave you an opportunity to come up with a better euphemism than the word you chose Pal.

 

[Front242]

Bedtime here AP but I was merely saying the notion that Roger was still in his prime in 2012 was a bit "out there". He had a very good year but prime Federer it was not.

 

[tented]

No, it's you trying to change it from 33 to 31 now here. He was practically 31 in 2012 and you claimed he was still in his prime :cover

I was responding to Moxie saying she agrees that at 33Federer wasn't no longer in his prime. I am assuming she was referring to your quote. Btw, how can you say AP, don't be dense, dude that's foul of you to say to me because you are using the excuse "we all know he didn't play well" . Heck, face it he got thumped and outclassed , just like Rafa did vs Djokovic at RG in the qtrs. Front watch your tone, don't ever say don't be dense .That's disrespectful and that's how all these boards get heated , if you can't keep your response dignified , then move on to another thread brother.

That's hilarious and rich coming from a guy who has frequently called people here clowns in the past. Trying to play it like you're a good boy now so some mod can come give me some? That's petty man. I was calling what you said dense, not you.

You wrote: "AP, don't be dense."

AP: I honestly don't think Front was trying to insult you, but I can understand how the wording made you think he was.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I was responding to Moxie saying she agrees that at 33Federer wasn't no longer in his prime. I am assuming she was referring to your quote. Btw, how can you say AP, don't be dense, dude that's foul of you to say to me because you are using the excuse "we all know he didn't play well" . Heck, face it he got thumped and outclassed , just like Rafa did vs Djokovic at RG in the qtrs. Front watch your tone, don't ever say don't be dense .That's disrespectful and that's how all these boards get heated , if you can't keep your response dignified , then move on to another thread brother.

That's hilarious and rich coming from a guy who has frequently called people here clowns in the past. Trying to play it like you're a good boy now so some mod can come give me some? That's petty man. I was calling what you said dense, not you.

You wrote: "AP, don't be dense."

AP: I honestly don't think Front was trying to insult you, but I can understand how the wording made you think he was.

no worries Tented..it's behind in my rear view mirror, Vamos Rafa :clap

 

[DarthFed]

I agree completely that at 33 Roger is no longer in his "prime years" (which I think can be distinguished from "peak," even though Fed's game and health have kept him at a good level (except 2013) even as he begins to decline. Someone as great and as motivated as Roger can have good results even against the best in the world. However, it's ridiculous to claim that Roger was no longer in his prime when he was only 26-27 (2008,) or even in 2009. The thinking from some Fed fans is that 'how can Roger be in his prime if Rafa was beating him so much in 08?' But Rafa was hitting a 'peak' at that point, and that's the difference. It defies logic to say that anyone (who is healthy)who wins his first Major at nearly 22 is past his prime at 27. Saying the H2H is about the age gap is rewriting history, even if you skip anything past 2009.

End-of-Year 2006, (when they were 20 & 25) it was 6-2 in favor of Nadal, including 2 Majors to 1.
EOY 2007, 8-6, (3-2 in Majors.)
EOY 2008, 12-6 (5-2 in Majors.)
EOY 2009, 13-8. (I mention 09 because they were 22 & 27 the only matches they played.)

You can't staunch the bleeding by pretending that Roger was old and washed up by 2008, or however you want to coach it. It's always been a difficult match-up for Roger, and the worst of the damage was done before Roger hit even plateau years, much less decline.

(And someone will likely want us to take this to the Fedal thread. Sorry...I know we can't help ourselves. :snicker)

Yeah, and what does the massive drop from 2007 to 2008 tell you other than what I said about his prime ending in 2007 and what I posted already about most of the Nadal wins being on clay at that point? 6 of the 8 wins in that period up to 2007 for Nadal were on clay where he's clearly better. Then Roger got that back to 6-8 pretty pronto.

OK, let's try it this way: Lots of Fedfans say that the H2H doesn't matter, it's how he competes against the field. So let's look at his W-L record to see where he was during those years, and if there was a "massive drop." Because I know you don't want to use Rafa as the only measure of Roger's career.

2006: 95-5
2007: 68-9
2008: 66-15
2009: 61-12
2010: 65-13
2011: 64-12

Gosh, maybe his peak ended in 2006, when he was 25? As you see, there was no "massive drop" between 07-08. And his W-L is not that greatly inconsistent all the way thru 2011. (I didn't look up any more.) Roger is hugely praised for his consistency, and rightly so. He really didn't fall apart in any appreciable way at the dawning of 2008. (But another note on the H2H: those 5 losses in 2006...4 were to Nadal. You can't say that was about the age difference. Trivia question: who was the other loss to?)

The records you posted show the huge drop off after 2007 (and 2007 was clearly a drop from his best year but that was to be expected). There is a world of difference between 68-9 and 66-15 and you can see that when you look at the titles Roger won in 2007 vs. 2008 (3 majors, YEC, 2 MS events, and 2 500's) vs. 1 major, 1 500 and 2 250's). In 2008 he lost to guys like Blake, Roddick, Karlovic, Fish, Simon, Stepanek, all throughout the year, and that's not even going into what many would call underperformances for his standards at AO and Wimbledon. He was still great for many years after 2007 but that doesn't mean he was playing at or even near the same level especially starting in 2010.