The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[DarthFed]

Yeah, this is the sort of stuff you all tell yourselves over on wodgerfederer.com, so you can sleep at night. A phony excuse, because Nadal has been beating him since he was a yellowhorn kid rookie on the tour. It has nothing to do with Federer being 5 years older, quit that one, please, it's just total horse radish...

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? The head to head was only 8-6 in Nadal's favour till 2007 and it's no secret that Federer's prime years were behind him from 2008 onwards. And the big lead Nadal had over Roger during Roger's prime at the beginning was down to Nadal being better on clay. During Roger's prime he was better on grass and he got that back to 8-6 before 2007. It's not rocket science. So, yes, 5 years is a huge gap. Roger's best years are long behind him and when his prime ended and Nadal's began things only got worse.

Oh and ps: if it is indeed horse radish then please tell me how Djokovic beating Nadal at RG is any different. One is in his prime now, the other isn't. Yes, the age gap is closer there but due to the way Nadal played all these years his body is older and more banged up. Otherwise smear your horse radish all over a tasty sandwich and munch it down 'cos you can't have it both ways.

Federer prime years was behind him, come on Front, can you hear your self. Roger has made a least 7-8 grand slam finals afterwards 2008, so he was still in his prime til 2012. Front give it a rest guy, I doubt that Darthfed would agree , well on second thought Darthfed is gonna give zero percent credit to any win or h2h Rafa has over the beloved Federer, IMO

He's made 9 GS finals from 2009-2015 but 17 from 2003-2008. Moreover, he has made just 4 finals since winning AO 2010 and won just 1. I think by almost anyone's measure the beginning of 2010 is clearly the end of Roger's prime, the period where he is still very good but clearly a shadow of his old self.

This narrative that Roger was somehow in his prime at age 31 sounds like it'd be straight from Mike One. AO 2010 was the 17th out of 18th GS final Roger made. After that he made 2 of the next 10 going up to Wimbledon 2012 and since then it has been 2 finals out of 12. If you don't see that as an enormous drop in play then I'm not sure what qualifies. If Roger was in his prime at 31 then we can definitely say Rafa is still well in his prime this year.

The way I see it is that 2008 - AO 2010 represented a drop in Roger's play, a small but clear drop. He was still excellent but not at the insane 2004-2007 level (similar to Rafa 2014 not being the same as what we had seen in prior years). Whether you want to call it "prime" or not is semantics but there was a noticeable drop in quickness from when he was in his early to mid 20's. But after AO 2010 there is no question Roger was no longer in his prime.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

You seriously comparing Fed's level in 2008-2009 to Nadal's level this year? I mean, you said "it's the same as Nadal losing to Djokovic at RG" so I don't want to be misinterpreting you, but I really don't think I am.

 

[Front242]

Actually you are misinterpreting me and it wouldn't be the first time. No I am not saying that. You can be outside your prime and still very good as Roger still is but his prime ended years ago.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Actually you are misinterpreting me and it wouldn't be the first time. No I am not saying that. You can be outside your prime and still very good as Roger still is but his prime ended years ago.

You're the one who gave the Nadal-Djokovic at RG 2015 analogy.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? The head to head was only 8-6 in Nadal's favour till 2007 and it's no secret that Federer's prime years were behind him from 2008 onwards. And the big lead Nadal had over Roger during Roger's prime at the beginning was down to Nadal being better on clay. During Roger's prime he was better on grass and he got that back to 8-6 before 2007. It's not rocket science. So, yes, 5 years is a huge gap. Roger's best years are long behind him and when his prime ended and Nadal's began things only got worse.

Oh and ps: if it is indeed horse radish then please tell me how Djokovic beating Nadal at RG is any different. One is in his prime now, the other isn't. Yes, the age gap is closer there but due to the way Nadal played all these years his body is older and more banged up. Otherwise smear your horse radish all over a tasty sandwich and munch it down 'cos you can't have it both ways.

Federer prime years was behind him, come on Front, can you hear your self. Roger has made a least 7-8 grand slam finals aftewellrwards 2008, so he was still in his prime til 2012. Front give it a rest guy, I doubt that Darthfed would agree , well on second thought Darthfed is gonna give zero percent credit to any win or h2h Rafa has over the beloved Federer, IMO

He's made 9 GS finals from 2009-2015 but 17 from 2003-2008. Moreover, he has made just 4 finals since winning AO 2010 and won just 1. I think by almost anyone's measure the beginning of 2010 is clearly the end of Roger's prime, the period where he is still very good but clearly a shadow of his old self.

This narrative that Roger was somehow in his prime at age 31 sounds like it'd be straight from Mike One. AO 2010 was the 17th out of 18th GS final Roger made. After that he made 2 of the next 10 going up to Wimbledon 2012 and since then it has been 2 finals out of 12. If you don't see that as an enormous drop in play then I'm not sure what qualifies. If Roger was in his prime at 31 then we can definitely say Rafa is still well in his prime this year.

The way I see it is that 2008 - AO 2010 represented a drop in Roger's play, a small but clear drop. He was still excellent but not at the insane 2004-2007 level (similar to Rafa 2014 not being the same as what we had seen in prior years). Whether you want to call it "prime" or not is semantics but there was a noticeable drop in quickness from when he was in his early to mid 20's. But after AO 2010 there is no question Roger was no longer in his prime.

Til the end of 2010 where Roger was still able to "peak" at the mayor GS may be more appropriate than trying to gauge Roger's prime years because of Roger's unique talent,IIMO. I think we can agree on this.

 

[Federberg]

We can't on the one hand agree that Roger is a unique talent in tennis, and even all sports, then quibble at the fact that he is still able to achieve far more success than ordinary mortals. Perhaps it would make more sense for us to reach a consensus about where his peak ends?

I guess I probably have a more nuanced view on the issue in terms of my understanding of his 2008. I believe he did have mono. I think he was impaired by mono in the AO only in so far as his travails against Tipsy left him unable to recover sufficiently to face Novak. That said... it's not clear to me that the result would have been any different. We have seen that Novak definitely has an edge against Roger on slower hards, and a fully fit Roger may not have survived that match.

I think the real damage that mono did to him was that he was unable to utilise his practise time in Dubai to prepare for the season ahead. This had a spiralling impact on the rest of his 2008 season. His timing on hard courts was awful, and it took a 5 setter at Flushing against the Russian whose name I always forget to help him get his groove back.

This is a long winded way of saying that but for the mono disruption to his 2008 and the loss of confidence that engendered, we would be talking about 2008 as part of his peak years. He didn't play badly for the rest of 2008 because he had mono. He played badly because mono completely disrupted his preparations, and led to a loss of confidence that is entirely understandable. If you had only lost 15 matches in 3 years, it's tough to adjust to a new reality. That's just life..

 

[brokenshoelace]

This is a long winded way of saying that but for the mono disruption to his 2008 and the loss of confidence that engendered, we would be talking about 2008 as part of his peak years. He didn't play badly for the rest of 2008 because he had mono. He played badly because mono completely disrupted his preparations, and led to a loss of confidence that is entirely understandable. If you had only lost 15 matches in 3 years, it's tough to adjust to a new reality. That's just life..

I don't find much wrong with the above, but I am highlighting it to point out the double standards bestowed against Nadal fans when they mention how, had it not been for tendinitis, Nadal would have continued his dominance in 2009. I think both are fair assumptions, by the way.

 

[DarthFed]

Federer prime years was behind him, come on Front, can you hear your self. Roger has made a least 7-8 grand slam finals aftewellrwards 2008, so he was still in his prime til 2012. Front give it a rest guy, I doubt that Darthfed would agree , well on second thought Darthfed is gonna give zero percent credit to any win or h2h Rafa has over the beloved Federer, IMO

He's made 9 GS finals from 2009-2015 but 17 from 2003-2008. Moreover, he has made just 4 finals since winning AO 2010 and won just 1. I think by almost anyone's measure the beginning of 2010 is clearly the end of Roger's prime, the period where he is still very good but clearly a shadow of his old self.

This narrative that Roger was somehow in his prime at age 31 sounds like it'd be straight from Mike One. AO 2010 was the 17th out of 18th GS final Roger made. After that he made 2 of the next 10 going up to Wimbledon 2012 and since then it has been 2 finals out of 12. If you don't see that as an enormous drop in play then I'm not sure what qualifies. If Roger was in his prime at 31 then we can definitely say Rafa is still well in his prime this year.

The way I see it is that 2008 - AO 2010 represented a drop in Roger's play, a small but clear drop. He was still excellent but not at the insane 2004-2007 level (similar to Rafa 2014 not being the same as what we had seen in prior years). Whether you want to call it "prime" or not is semantics but there was a noticeable drop in quickness from when he was in his early to mid 20's. But after AO 2010 there is no question Roger was no longer in his prime.

Til the end of 2010 where Roger was still able to "peak" at the mayor GS may be more appropriate than trying to gauge Roger's prime years because of Roger's unique talent,IIMO. I think we can agree on this.

Not even until the end of 2010 AP. After AO 2010 Roger lost in 2 straight QF's to Soderling and Berdych and had a really ugly loss to Nole at USO when Djokovic wasn't playing well at all. The main reason one would say 2010 AO was the end of Roger's prime is that he no longer was peaking at majors.

 

[Front242]

Actually you are misinterpreting me and it wouldn't be the first time. No I am not saying that. You can be outside your prime and still very good as Roger still is but his prime ended years ago.

You're the one who gave the Nadal-Djokovic at RG 2015 analogy.

The reason for that was because I very much doubt anyone else but Djokovic could have beaten him at RG even this year. Despite the poor season he's had, he played well still at RG eventhough he lost in straight sets to Djokovic. Apart from set 3 where he had pretty much accepted his fate, he tried very hard and played well the first 2 sets so in that respect he's still very good, but no longer in his prime and hence why Djokovic (who is in his prime) was finally able to win.

 

[Federberg]

This is a long winded way of saying that but for the mono disruption to his 2008 and the loss of confidence that engendered, we would be talking about 2008 as part of his peak years. He didn't play badly for the rest of 2008 because he had mono. He played badly because mono completely disrupted his preparations, and led to a loss of confidence that is entirely understandable. If you had only lost 15 matches in 3 years, it's tough to adjust to a new reality. That's just life..

I don't find much wrong with the above, but I am highlighting it to point out the double standards bestowed against Nadal fans when they mention how, had it not been for tendinitis, Nadal would have continued his dominance in 2009. I think both are fair assumptions, by the way.

To be clear... I'm not saying that without mono Roger would have cleaned up in 2008. That's woulda coulda, and I think everyone knows that's not my style by now. What I am saying is that mono was primarily responsible for 2008 NOT being a peak year for Federer anymore. Whether he would have cleaned up as per the previous years, without the illness, no one can really say and it's pointless speculation :blush: I'm not willing to disrespect the field and say that because he'd been winning it was going to continue to be that way.

 

[Kieran]

Actually you are misinterpreting me and it wouldn't be the first time. No I am not saying that. You can be outside your prime and still very good as Roger still is but his prime ended years ago.

You're the one who gave the Nadal-Djokovic at RG 2015 analogy.

The reason for that was because I very much doubt anyone else but Djokovic could have beaten him at RG even this year. Despite the poor season he's had, he played well still at RG eventhough he lost in straight sets to Djokovic. Apart from set 3 where he had pretty much accepted his fate, he tried very hard and played well the first 2 sets so in that respect he's still very good, but no longer in his prime and hence why Djokovic (who is in his prime) was finally able to win.

This is wrong from every angle imaginable. Firstly, you're blithely unaware that he missed the end of last season through injury and the appendix op - and he's stunk the gaff out since he came back. To say that you "very much doubt anyone else but Djokovic could have beaten him at RG even this year" is to have lost sight of what was actually happening. Actually, if Nole pulled up lame in the QF, then Murray would have dispatched him, and had he forgotten what time it was and missed the match, Stan would have beaten him. Rafa struggled against Jock Strap in the 4th round, for flip's sake. It has nothing to do with being in his prime, or past his prime, because last year at RG he was similarly "past his prime", and he beat Nole in four...

 

[Kieran]

This is a long winded way of saying that but for the mono disruption to his 2008 and the loss of confidence that engendered, we would be talking about 2008 as part of his peak years. He didn't play badly for the rest of 2008 because he had mono. He played badly because mono completely disrupted his preparations, and led to a loss of confidence that is entirely understandable. If you had only lost 15 matches in 3 years, it's tough to adjust to a new reality. That's just life..

I don't find much wrong with the above, but I am highlighting it to point out the double standards bestowed against Nadal fans when they mention how, had it not been for tendinitis, Nadal would have continued his dominance in 2009. I think both are fair assumptions, by the way.

To be clear... I'm not saying that without mono Roger would have cleaned up in 2008. That's woulda coulda, and I think everyone knows that's not my style by now. What I am saying is that mono was primarily responsible for 2008 NOT being a peak year for Federer anymore. Whether he would have cleaned up as per the previous years, without the illness, no one can really say and it's pointless speculation :blush: I'm not willing to disrespect the field and say that because he'd been winning it was going to continue to be that way.

We know your style by now, very well. Say something directly then very sneakily deny you said it. You might even throw in a "sigh". Fact: all you're giving us is a litany of excuses, and Broken is correct, that if Rafa fans said the same, you in particular would be all over them.

And just for the record, when you said " I think he was impaired by mono in the AO only in so far as his travails against Tipsy left him unable to recover sufficiently to face Novak" you were showing forgetfulness of the actual event: Roger got past Tipsy in the 3rd round - and 2 days later had miraculously recovered to defeat Berdy in straights - followed by another excellent display two days after this, in beating James Blake in the quarters.

Now, how did the Tipsy match affect him against Nole, again? :cover

 

[DarthFed]

I don't find much wrong with the above, but I am highlighting it to point out the double standards bestowed against Nadal fans when they mention how, had it not been for tendinitis, Nadal would have continued his dominance in 2009. I think both are fair assumptions, by the way.

To be clear... I'm not saying that without mono Roger would have cleaned up in 2008. That's woulda coulda, and I think everyone knows that's not my style by now. What I am saying is that mono was primarily responsible for 2008 NOT being a peak year for Federer anymore. Whether he would have cleaned up as per the previous years, without the illness, no one can really say and it's pointless speculation :blush: I'm not willing to disrespect the field and say that because he'd been winning it was going to continue to be that way.

We know your style by now, very well. Say something directly then very sneakily deny you said it. You might even throw in a "sigh". Fact: all you're giving us is a litany of excuses, and Broken is correct, that if Rafa fans said the same, you in particular would be all over them.

And just for the record, when you said " I think he was impaired by mono in the AO only in so far as his travails against Tipsy left him unable to recover sufficiently to face Novak" you were showing forgetfulness of the actual event: Roger got past Tipsy in the 3rd round - and 2 days later had miraculously recovered to defeat Berdy in straights - followed by another excellent display two days after this, in beating James Blake in the quarters.

Now, how did the Tipsy match affect him against Nole, again? :cover

Funny to see you mention excuses when you are talking about Rafa's non-tennis related operation at the end of last season. There's no way to say for sure what would have happened if Nole didn't beat Rafa at RG this year. Are you so sure Murray and/or Stan would've gotten the job done?

Roger played pretty poorly against Berd and Blake. Back then he could play bad and still dismiss both in straights which he did. Based on his 3 matches prior to the semi it was not surprising to see him get decked by Nole. The shock was how bad he was playing.

 

[the AntiPusher]

You're the one who gave the Nadal-Djokovic at RG 2015 analogy.

The reason for that was because I very much doubt anyone else but Djokovic could have beaten him at RG even this year. Despite the poor season he's had, he played well still at RG eventhough he lost in straight sets to Djokovic. Apart from set 3 where he had pretty much accepted his fate, he tried very hard and played well the first 2 sets so in that respect he's still very good, but no longer in his prime and hence why Djokovic (who is in his prime) was finally able to win.

This is wrong from every angle imaginable. Firstly, you're blithely unaware that he missed the end of last season through injury and the appendix op - and he's stunk the gaff out since he came back. To say that you "very much doubt anyone else but Djokovic could have beaten him at RG even this year" is to have lost sight of what was actually happening. Actually, if Nole pulled up lame in the QF, then Murray would have dispatched him, and had he forgotten what time it was and missed the match, Stan would have beaten him. Rafa struggled against Jock Strap in the 4th round, for flip's sake. It has nothing to do with being in his prime, or past his prime, because last year at RG he was similarly "past his prime", and he beat Nole in four...

I am starting to wonder if some of these posters (antiRafa) really have a Clue about the game of tennis. Kieran you are correct , from Front that is the most clueless analysis feedback about how Rafa played against Djokovic at RG.
yesterday, I said Roger played better against Rafa in 2011 at RG which was a tremendous improvement from winning 5-6 games at RG 2008.However, frontt called my post the d#.:idea::nono

 

[Kieran]

To be clear... I'm not saying that without mono Roger would have cleaned up in 2008. That's woulda coulda, and I think everyone knows that's not my style by now. What I am saying is that mono was primarily responsible for 2008 NOT being a peak year for Federer anymore. Whether he would have cleaned up as per the previous years, without the illness, no one can really say and it's pointless speculation :blush: I'm not willing to disrespect the field and say that because he'd been winning it was going to continue to be that way.

We know your style by now, very well. Say something directly then very sneakily deny you said it. You might even throw in a "sigh". Fact: all you're giving us is a litany of excuses, and Broken is correct, that if Rafa fans said the same, you in particular would be all over them.

And just for the record, when you said " I think he was impaired by mono in the AO only in so far as his travails against Tipsy left him unable to recover sufficiently to face Novak" you were showing forgetfulness of the actual event: Roger got past Tipsy in the 3rd round - and 2 days later had miraculously recovered to defeat Berdy in straights - followed by another excellent display two days after this, in beating James Blake in the quarters.

Now, how did the Tipsy match affect him against Nole, again? :cover

Funny to see you mention excuses when you are talking about Rafa's non-tennis related operation at the end of last season. There's no way to say for sure what would have happened if Nole didn't beat Rafa at RG this year. Are you so sure Murray and/or Stan would've gotten the job done?

Roger played pretty poorly against Berd and Blake. Back then he could play bad and still dismiss both in straights which he did. Based on his 3 matches prior to the semi it was not surprising to see him get decked by Nole. The shock was how bad he was playing.

There's something bizarre in this response, buddy: Tomas Muster had a "non-tennis related operation" to put his body back together after been run down by a car. Are only "tennis related" injuries the cause of players losing their form?

As for Nole beating Rafa at RG, there's a very clear reason why he hadn't done so until this year - when everybody was taking pieces out of Rafa. Yes, I'm very sure that Murray or Stan would have gotten the job done. Nole didn't do anything exceptional in the match with Rafa - he was brilliant at staying on top of Rafa, but it wasn't the greatest performance in Nole's career - and didn't need to be.

As for Roger playing poorly but still dispatching top players in straights (2 days after a near five hour tussle in the heat with Tipsy), you been banging that "weak opposition" stuff for too long... :snicker

 

[brokenshoelace]

Actually you are misinterpreting me and it wouldn't be the first time. No I am not saying that. You can be outside your prime and still very good as Roger still is but his prime ended years ago.

You're the one who gave the Nadal-Djokovic at RG 2015 analogy.

The reason for that was because I very much doubt anyone else but Djokovic could have beaten him at RG even this year. Despite the poor season he's had, he played well still at RG eventhough he lost in straight sets to Djokovic. Apart from set 3 where he had pretty much accepted his fate, he tried very hard and played well the first 2 sets so in that respect he's still very good, but no longer in his prime and hence why Djokovic (who is in his prime) was finally able to win.

How does that make the comparison to 2008 Federer any sillier? Roger was not losing to a player he was 1828282-3 against (Berdych) or some no name (Brown) in majors, nor was he ranked 10th in the world. It's still a terrible analogy.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'll say this much, Federer was clearly off his game at the AO in 2008.

 

[DarthFed]

We know your style by now, very well. Say something directly then very sneakily deny you said it. You might even throw in a "sigh". Fact: all you're giving us is a litany of excuses, and Broken is correct, that if Rafa fans said the same, you in particular would be all over them.

And just for the record, when you said " I think he was impaired by mono in the AO only in so far as his travails against Tipsy left him unable to recover sufficiently to face Novak" you were showing forgetfulness of the actual event: Roger got past Tipsy in the 3rd round - and 2 days later had miraculously recovered to defeat Berdy in straights - followed by another excellent display two days after this, in beating James Blake in the quarters.

Now, how did the Tipsy match affect him against Nole, again? :cover

Funny to see you mention excuses when you are talking about Rafa's non-tennis related operation at the end of last season. There's no way to say for sure what would have happened if Nole didn't beat Rafa at RG this year. Are you so sure Murray and/or Stan would've gotten the job done?

Roger played pretty poorly against Berd and Blake. Back then he could play bad and still dismiss both in straights which he did. Based on his 3 matches prior to the semi it was not surprising to see him get decked by Nole. The shock was how bad he was playing.

There's something bizarre in this response, buddy: Tomas Muster had a "non-tennis related operation" to put his body back together after been run down by a car. Are only "tennis related" injuries the cause of players losing their form?

As for Nole beating Rafa at RG, there's a very clear reason why he hadn't done so until this year - when everybody was taking pieces out of Rafa. Yes, I'm very sure that Murray or Stan would have gotten the job done. Nole didn't do anything exceptional in the match with Rafa - he was brilliant at staying on top of Rafa, but it wasn't the greatest performance in Nole's career - and didn't need to be.

As for Roger playing poorly but still dispatching top players in straights (2 days after a near five hour tussle in the heat with Tipsy), you been banging that "weak opposition" stuff for too long... :snicker

Rafa's surgery was a minor one and nothing that was going to affect his knees or other "more important" areas of the body in regards to tennis. You can see how that's different from a major car crash I hope :cover

The 2nd tier players were too weak to bother Roger in his prime. You've never seen me argue otherwise, and guess what, they'd still be too weak today if Roger was playing like he used to. That's what being dominant is all about.

 

[Federberg]

I'll say this much, Federer was clearly off his game at the AO in 2008.

He was. But after the double loss to Canas in 07, for the first time in a while I personally had a slight discomfort watching some of his matches. But what struck me was seeing the sweat so visible on his forehead in AO 08. Something didn't seem right, but even then I would have just passed it off as him becoming more human! To be honest, if it wasn't for some visible signs of mortality that's probably what I would have done. The news about mono gave a name to what seemed to be wrong with him. I didn't know too much about the disease until then, and he got off easy compared to Ancic and Soderling to be honest.

I still think his getting to the RG final that year was very impressive, sadly I was there live, and had to spend 3 hours at Gard du Nord waiting for my train back to London. I had counted on a much longer final! :laydownlaughing

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Federer had the mono/virus thing until sometime in feb. he had a fever in febuary and finally got everything checked out, which was when the docs told him he has the virus, but it was clear by late feb as his system was creating antibodies again.

he was lucky it didn't wipe him out like soderling and also lucky he didn't have a massive hangover (although a bit) with his play afterwards, he said he was happy to have made the AO SF after he found out, and if the docs had found out before he wouldn't even have played AO as the risk to his longterm health was great.

in late feb he was given the all clear to start training again, and got only a few days in before deciding to play Dubai where he got wasted by murray (I think),

federers level was clearly down as he lost early in indian wells/Miami and had other defeats, I think by may his physical level had improved and reached clay masters finals and whatnot. mentally he was not as calm.