The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[britbox]

I love this, in all of its wackiness as metaphor. Vanilla is perfect for Roger, and exactly why I never liked him. Classic. But even at his best, still a bit vanilla. And Rafa IS chocolate. The NOT vanilla. Darker and stranger. And let's face it: sexier. I'm laughing that you make Djokovic strawberry. Because it's true: when the chocolate and vanilla are all gone, there's still loads of strawberry left. I'm thinking Murray is Rum Raisin. A very particular (and I'd suggest sophisticated) taste. The raisin is for crotchetiness.

Beauty being in the eye of the beholder never rang truer... I'm guessing your using the term vanilla,as in predictable, conformist? Chocolate... mysterious, unpredictable?

I'd have them the other way around. Nadal is more predictable than Federer. His game is more predictable, his tactics are generally more predictable, the tournaments he succeeds in are more predictable. His interviews are very predictable (pretty much the same every week)... He's predictable, period.

Don't know about darker and stranger... but we know he is a grown man afraid of the dark (as said in his book), and he doesn't like dogs. Not your typical sexpot but each to their own. B-)

 

[Moxie]

Beauty being in the eye of the beholder never rang truer... I'm guessing your using the term vanilla,as in predictable, conformist? Chocolate... mysterious, unpredictable?

I'd have them the other way around. Nadal is more predictable than Federer. His game is more predictable, his tactics are generally more predictable, the tournaments he succeeds in are more predictable. His interviews are very predictable (pretty much the same every week)... He's predictable, period.

Don't know about darker and stranger... but we know he is a grown man afraid of the dark (as said in his book), and he doesn't like dogs. Not your typical sexpot but each to their own. B-)

I didn't pick Vanilla for Fed. But I don't mean predictable so much as "classic," which is also straightforward, conventional in his general approach. Nadal's game is rather more raised-by-wolves and unconventional. The lefty spin, buggy-whip over the head, bend it like Beckham around the net post is more unconventional, and so, as El Dude would have it, chocolate. And as I would have it, sexier. Nothing to do with the person, just the style. Sherlock Holmes v. Zorro. Roger tells you off in front of the class. Rafa picks your pocket. You get the drift.

 

[Ricardo]

I didn't pick Vanilla for Fed. But I don't mean predictable so much as "classic," which is also straightforward, conventional in his general approach. Nadal's game is rather more raised-by-wolves and unconventional. The lefty spin, buggy-whip over the head, bend it like Beckham around the net post is more unconventional, and so, as El Dude would have it, chocolate. And as I would have it, sexier. Nothing to do with the person, just the style. Sherlock Holmes v. Zorro. Roger tells you off in front of the class. Rafa picks your pocket. You get the drift.

Rafa picks his butt, not yours; i get that.

Brit is right that the characteristic of Nadal's game is more straight forward. We all know how he is going to beat you in what style. With Fed, it's different. If you beat him from baseline, he'll mix up and sneak into the net, and trying to counter with different way. the range of his shot making is bigger, shot speed difference is greater, and more variety mixed in his strokes.......yeah i get that the technique appears 'classic' while Nadal's more unorthodox but if we are talking 'content', Rafa's is more predictable.

Like Toni said, their way of beating Federer never changed......pound that single bh with lefty topspin into submission and job is done, or Rafa is gone...doesn't get a lot more straightforward than that.

 

[Moxie]

Holy Toledo! 25 pages of Fedal Wars. Be still my heart. Can't wait to read back over all of the sturm und drang.

 

[Moxie]

Just on cue, The Tennis Channel is showing the 2008 Wimbledon final right now. Worth noting that Federer hadn't dropped serve all tournament up until this match, as they just told us, so I'm not sure how much he was hampered.

 

[El Dude]

Just to be clear about vanilla. I love vanilla, but it depends upon the quality. When it is good, it is amazing - and it goes with everything.

Chocolate is also great, but a bit obvious.

(Of course vanilla and chocolate together is best of all)

 

[Moxie]

I re-watched the first 2 sets of the 2008 Wimbledon final today, then skimmed some of the rest, with @DarthFed's complaints about that match in mind. It occurs to me there is a solid chance that Darth has not re-watched it...who would want to revisit as a Fedfan? However, that would certainly color his contention of how "poorly" he thinks Roger was playing, and his harping on the 4-1 advantage in the second, especially if he's relying on stats and vague memory, rather than refreshing what actually happened. Roger did start a bit more lethargic than Rafa, and there were some tired looking shots in the first, mixed in with many wonderful exchanges. In the second, Roger appeared to find his range, but Nadal was keeping him pinned back, which was a key reason he wasn't coming up with more winners. When he had the chance to come in on something good, he often won the point. But he was also pressing, and coming in a bit early sometimes, leaving him often vulnerable to the pass. Also, it was very gusty. A couple of Rafa's shots that might have well been winners were visibly blown wide. Point being, Rafa is a better player in the wind, as the spin gives him more margin. Fed didn't fold in the second. It was hard-fought, but Nadal won the points that mattered, especially converting more breaks, but it wasn't like the tennis was ugly. It was good and often great. If one doesn't have the idea that Roger is God and should always play as such, it was perfectly plausible that Nadal was just that much better at that point in 2008. As it was, Fed put his head down the next two sets and fought hard, playing an amazing TB in the 3rd, and a really gutsy one with his back against it to with the 4th. Late in the 5th, you do see Roger tugging at his right shoulder...Nadal had worn it down, and that's what ended it. But that's not unreasonable, after nearly 5 hours of spinning bhs being thrown into it. Nadal made surprising errors on many occasions, too. There was a lot at stake in that match. I'd challenge anyone to revisit that match and tell me that Roger was terrible, or that it wasn't a thrilling match. By the time you get to the late-4th and 5th, even the usually well-behaved Wimbledon crowd was pretty demonstrative and beyond containing themselves. And I don't think that was the Pimm's Cup oohing and awwing.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I re-watched the first 2 sets of the 2008 Wimbledon final today, then skimmed some of the rest, with @DarthFed's complaints about that match in mind. It occurs to me there is a solid chance that Darth has not re-watched it...who would want to revisit as a Fedfan? However, that would certainly color his contention of how "poorly" he thinks Roger was playing, and his harping on the 4-1 advantage in the second, especially if he's relying on stats and vague memory, rather than refreshing what actually happened. Roger did start a bit more lethargic than Rafa, and there were some tired looking shots in the first, mixed in with many wonderful exchanges. In the second, Roger appeared to find his range, but Nadal was keeping him pinned back, which was a key reason he wasn't coming up with more winners. When he had the chance to come in on something good, he often won the point. But he was also pressing, and coming in a bit early sometimes, leaving him often vulnerable to the pass. Also, it was very gusty. A couple of Rafa's shots that might have well been winners were visibly blown wide. Point being, Rafa is a better player in the wind, as the spin gives him more margin. Fed didn't fold in the second. It was hard-fought, but Nadal won the points that mattered, especially converting more breaks, but it wasn't like the tennis was ugly. It was good and often great. If one doesn't have the idea that Roger is God and should always play as such, it was perfectly plausible that Nadal was just that much better at that point in 2008. As it was, Fed put his head down the next two sets and fought hard, playing an amazing TB in the 3rd, and a really gutsy one with his back against it to with the 4th. Late in the 5th, you do see Roger tugging at his right shoulder...Nadal had worn it down, and that's what ended it. But that's not unreasonable, after nearly 5 hours of spinning bhs being thrown into it. Nadal made surprising errors on many occasions, too. There was a lot at stake in that match. I'd challenge anyone to revisit that match and tell me that Roger was terrible, or that it wasn't a thrilling match. By the time you get to the late-4th and 5th, even the usually well-behaved Wimbledon crowd was pretty demonstrative and beyond containing themselves. And I don't think that was the Pimm's Cup oohing and awwing.

This is what I always felt Darth wanted us to do. Rewatch the match with his concerns about Roger's level of play. I think this plays very well to his base(sounds like I am talking about Trump but really Darth. ) such as Fronty , GSM and El Dude..However, he knows that he has no chance of swaying Kieran, PM, Carol or myself. I doubt that he will sway you Moxie but he will try to extend the goal posts of maybe Roger was not at his zenith of his skill which is extremely absurd.

 

[Moxie]

This is what I always felt Darth wanted us to do. Rewatch the match with his concerns about Roger's level of play. I think this plays very well to his base(sounds like I am talking about Trump but really Darth. ) such as Fronty , GSM and El Dude..However, he knows that he has no chance of swaying Kieran, PM, Carol or myself. I doubt that he will sway you Moxie but he will try to extend the goal posts of maybe Roger was not at his zenith of his skill which is extremely absurd.

I don't think we're the ones who need to be swayed. The general populace and perceived tennis wisdom believes that that match was the greatest ever. It's only a few that dispute that. And I don't really kid myself that my post will finally convince Darth or Front. I don't know that El Dude or GSM actually dispute how that match played out. However, I'm going fully at it in the spirit of the thread.

 

[kskate2]

Holy Toledo! 25 pages of Fedal Wars. Be still my heart. Can't wait to read back over all of the sturm und drang.

There's a 2-year break in the thread. Just think if all the Fedal posts found their way here, you'd be sifting through 60 pages easily.

 

[Moxie]

There's a 2-year break in the thread. Just think if all the Fedal posts found their way here, you'd be sifting through 60 pages easily.

Oh, please. We just did at least 8 pages on the Gerry Webber thread on Fedal. So think about all of the pages that aren't even on this one! Like it or not, "Fedal" is a Moveable Feast. (If only there were a Hemingway emoticon. Maybe the fishing one. :fishing

 

[DarthFed]

I re-watched the first 2 sets of the 2008 Wimbledon final today, then skimmed some of the rest, with @DarthFed's complaints about that match in mind. It occurs to me there is a solid chance that Darth has not re-watched it...who would want to revisit as a Fedfan? However, that would certainly color his contention of how "poorly" he thinks Roger was playing, and his harping on the 4-1 advantage in the second, especially if he's relying on stats and vague memory, rather than refreshing what actually happened. Roger did start a bit more lethargic than Rafa, and there were some tired looking shots in the first, mixed in with many wonderful exchanges. In the second, Roger appeared to find his range, but Nadal was keeping him pinned back, which was a key reason he wasn't coming up with more winners. When he had the chance to come in on something good, he often won the point. But he was also pressing, and coming in a bit early sometimes, leaving him often vulnerable to the pass. Also, it was very gusty. A couple of Rafa's shots that might have well been winners were visibly blown wide. Point being, Rafa is a better player in the wind, as the spin gives him more margin. Fed didn't fold in the second. It was hard-fought, but Nadal won the points that mattered, especially converting more breaks, but it wasn't like the tennis was ugly. It was good and often great. If one doesn't have the idea that Roger is God and should always play as such, it was perfectly plausible that Nadal was just that much better at that point in 2008. As it was, Fed put his head down the next two sets and fought hard, playing an amazing TB in the 3rd, and a really gutsy one with his back against it to with the 4th. Late in the 5th, you do see Roger tugging at his right shoulder...Nadal had worn it down, and that's what ended it. But that's not unreasonable, after nearly 5 hours of spinning bhs being thrown into it. Nadal made surprising errors on many occasions, too. There was a lot at stake in that match. I'd challenge anyone to revisit that match and tell me that Roger was terrible, or that it wasn't a thrilling match. By the time you get to the late-4th and 5th, even the usually well-behaved Wimbledon crowd was pretty demonstrative and beyond containing themselves. And I don't think that was the Pimm's Cup oohing and awwing.

Ah, the arrogance on you my dear. Since when have you known my memory of anything to be "vague"

I've been cursed with a long memory, there is nothing vague about it. Darth never forgets (or forgives for that matter).

I can recite the scores of every game from the Packers 1996 Super Bowl winning season, I remember the main details of damn near every big match Fed has played, etc.

Yes I won't convince you and you won't convince me. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Moxie]

Ah, the arrogance on you my dear. Since when have you known my memory of anything to be "vague"

I've been cursed with a long memory, there is nothing vague about it. Darth never forgets (or forgives for that matter).

I can recite the scores of every game from the Packers 1996 Super Bowl winning season, I remember the main details of damn near every big match Fed has played, etc.

Yes I won't convince you and you won't convince me. Let's leave it at that.

I can't swear by your memory, only you can. But answer me this question, point blank: have you ever re-watched the Federer-Nadal 2008 Wimbledon final, since the day it was broadcast live? In whole or in part?

 

[the AntiPusher]

I can't swear by your memory, only you can. But answer me this question, point blank: have you ever re-watched the Federer-Nadal 2008 Wimbledon final, since the day it was broadcast live? In whole or in part?

Darth, how much dinero did you loose on that match?

 

[DarthFed]

I can't swear by your memory, only you can. But answer me this question, point blank: have you ever re-watched the Federer-Nadal 2008 Wimbledon final, since the day it was broadcast live? In whole or in part?

Dumb question...of course not. Why would I ever re-watch that? The Super Bowl 32 tape found its way to the garbage quickly after the Packers lost that game. Had I taped 2008 Wimbledon it'd have found a similar fate.

 

[Moxie]

Dumb question...of course not. Why would I ever re-watch that? The Super Bowl 32 tape found its way to the garbage quickly after the Packers lost that game. Had I taped 2008 Wimbledon it'd have found a similar fate.

I didn't think so. But then it's reasonable for anyone to assume that your memory of this now 9-year-old match is colored by your own bias. That explains a lot.

 

[DarthFed]

I didn't think so. But then it's reasonable for anyone to assume that your memory of this now 9-year-old match is colored by your own bias. That explains a lot.

Yes and you clearly aren't biased either right? No one ever denied it's a great match, I've called it the greatest match I've ever seen due to the stakes and drama. I don't call it the greatest based on level of play, it's not even close and I don't see the problem with criticizing Fed's play especially in the big moments. It seems your goal is to get everyone to say it's the best match Fed ever played and he hardly put a foot wrong in the match. Need I remind you that Federer was on a 65 match win streak on grass and is generally regarded as the greatest grass court player ever. If he had played great the much lesser grass court player, that being Nadal, would've lost.

 

[Moxie]

Yes and you clearly aren't biased either right? No one ever denied it's a great match, I've called it the greatest match I've ever seen due to the stakes and drama. I don't call it the greatest based on level of play, it's not even close and I don't see the problem with criticizing Fed's play especially in the big moments. It seems your goal is to get everyone to say it's the best match Fed ever played and he hardly put a foot wrong in the match. Need I remind you that Federer was on a 65 match win streak on grass and is generally regarded as the greatest grass court player ever. If he had played great the much lesser grass court player, that being Nadal, would've lost.

No need to swing wildly and hyperbolically in the other direction. I have only ever tried to counter your claim that Roger played like crap in that match, as you've said many times. I have also many times said that he did start slowly, and played some tired looking shots even early on. However, he played fine in most of it and great at times. He was outplayed by Nadal, who was overall having the better year. It can happen. You just don't like to believe it.

 

[MartyB]

Here is my fervent wish for this tennis season. As a life long New Yorker who has been going to the US Open for more years than I care to reveal here just please let this be the year that these two great champions finally play each other here. Not sure how many more opportunities there will be for this to happen but damn it would be awesome...I can guarantee that the atmosphere and the ratings would be enormous....and simply great for our sport..

 

[DarthFed]

No need to swing wildly and hyperbolically in the other direction. I have only ever tried to counter your claim that Roger played like crap in that match, as you've said many times. I have also many times said that he did start slowly, and played some tired looking shots even early on. However, he played fine in most of it and great at times. He was outplayed by Nadal, who was overall having the better year. It can happen. You just don't like to believe it.

What hyperbole did I use? I'm not really following. Saying Fed played like crap overall would be a bit too much, maybe I got carried away at times in the past and said that.

But I don't think it's exaggerating it to say he was disappointing that day like much of 2008. I also feel with stats like 1-13 BP's vs an average server and a blown 4-1 lead in a set it is difficult on that basis alone to say someone played well let alone amazing. I do also stand by the thought he was pure crap the first two sets. He just made it a great match with some better play the last few sets. Of note given some of the comparisons on the board lately is that Roger played a much stronger match in 2014 against Djokovic. The level of play in that match was higher than 2008 IMO, but it wasn't as great of a match by any means.