The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[GameSetAndMath]

Over the years, I saw it as complete stubbornness to continue going into the spider's den on clay losing final after final to Rafa! Back in the day, top players who knew better, just skipped the clay season altogether; maybe play the Italian and do some shopping like Vitas Geru.! Roger had the ability to beat Rafa on clay, but when it really counted in Paris, he rarely was even in the match! Sampras tried his hardest, but even beating past FO Champs. like Courier and Bruguera in his path, he never played a final! Sometimes it just isn't in the cards, but Roger was blessed with a Robin Soderling! :whistle:

If he took your advice and didn't go there from long time ago, he would not have completed the career slam. Also, I don't know how many times, I have to remind folks. Roger does not have a clay problem. Roger does not have a Rafa problem either. Roger has the problem of Rafa on Clay and that's it. Comparison to Sampras is totally meaningless.

 

[Moxie]

Roger had the ability to beat Rafa on clay, but when it really counted in Paris, he rarely was even in the match!

When did Roger have the ability to beat Rafa on clay? In Hamburg, way back, to snap a long streak, and in Madrid in '09. I think you're overstating your position.

If he took your advice and didn't go there from long time ago, he would not have completed the career slam. Also, I don't know how many times, I have to remind folks. Roger does not have a clay problem. Roger does not have a Rafa problem either. Roger has the problem of Rafa on Clay and that's it. Comparison to Sampras is totally meaningless.

Surely Roger has had a Rafa problem, and not just Rafa on clay. Success in 2017 is nice (for you,) but not cause for amnesia.

 

[Fiero425]

When did Roger have the ability to beat Rafa on clay? In Hamburg, way back, to snap a long streak, and in Madrid in '09. I think you're overstating your position.



Surely Roger has had a Rafa problem, and not just Rafa on clay. Success in 2017 is nice (for you,) but not cause for amnesia.

I thought I was going nuts and was living in an alternate universe! Even after Roger's streak this past season, he'll need another lifetime to catch up in the H2H; esp. on clay! That was a strange reply I got; like history was different! I missed a lot of FO's knowing the result; Roger just as blind to it each time! :whistle:

 

[Federberg]

When did Roger have the ability to beat Rafa on clay?
.

I think Roger has always had the ability to beat Rafa on clay. It's one thing to be capable and quite another to do it

 

[Federberg]

Surely Roger has had a Rafa problem, and not just Rafa on clay.

There is simply no question that Roger has had a Rafa problem. I don't think anyone can argue with that. And us Fed fans have been infuriated by it for years. This simply cannot be argued. The fact that he's had the turn around he's had this year is what has made this year even more sweet for us. I won't lie!

 

[Carol]

I think Roger has always had the ability to beat Rafa on clay. It's one thing to be capable and quite another to do it

Really? and you call me crazy because I said that Rafa is as good as Federer in HC?

 

[DarthFed]

Not surprising you don't understand the difference between someone saying Roger has the ability to beat Rafa on clay and someone saying Roger is better than Rafa on clay or should beat Rafa more on clay than he loses. There's nothing wrong with saying Roger has the ability to beat Rafa on clay as he has done it twice even if it is twice in fifteen matches. Rafa has the ability to beat Roger indoors and on grass too even though he too will lose the vast majority.

 

[Carol]

Not surprising either you don't understand the difference if someone says that Nadal is so good as Federer in HC and someone saying Roger has the ability to beat Rafa on clay because he has done it twice. Hey, anyone has the ability to beat anyone in any surface even players with a poor ranking as we have seen many times but it doesn't mean anything

 

[Federberg]

Really? and you call me crazy because I said that Rafa is as good as Federer in HC?

Oh good grief! Get a clue would you

 

[Federberg]

Moxie please do us all a favour and set her straight. She is really tiresome

 

[Carol]

There is simply no question that Roger has had a Rafa problem. I don't think anyone can argue with that. And us Fed fans have been infuriated by it for years. This simply cannot be argued. The fact that he's had the turn around he's had this year is what has made this year even more sweet for us. I won't lie!

So after the surprising AO 2017 it seems it's now Rafa has had a Roger problem but it doesn't mean he won't have the tour around , he will

 

[Carol]

Moxie please do us all a favour and set her straight. She is really tiresome

And don't you think you are really tiresome for some of us? I don't think you need the Moxie help like you always ask for il when someone responds your comments, it sounds really silly

 

[Federberg]

So after the surprising AO 2017 it seems it's now Rafa has had a Roger problem but it doesn't mean he won't have the tour around , he will

Did I say he couldn’t turn it around? What’s your problem? Can you read?

 

[Federberg]

And don't you think you are really tiresome for some of us? I don't think you need the Moxie help like you always ask for il when someone responds your comments, it sounds really silly

Lol! I’m asking Moxie to help you! You dolt!

 

[Carol]

Lol! I’m asking Moxie to help you! You dolt!

But you are the one who needs help! You dolt!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roger does not have a Rafa problem either. Roger has the problem of Rafa on Clay and that's it. Comparison to Sampras is totally meaningless.

Starting 2008 and prior to this year, Nadal led Federer 8-4 outside of clay, and won all 4 of their non-clay grand slam meetings. You don't call that a problem? Now, we can debate the reasons for that problem and whether Roger could and should have done better (he definitely should have), but Nadal was winning 2 out of 3 matches, and the record becomes far worse when you look at their outdoors meetings (7-1).

Let's not be too wild with the revisionist history here. We all remember when most Fed fans here would dread a potential Fedal meeting more or less anywhere because "it's just not that interesting and the result isn't in doubt." Hell, almost all of them didn't give him much of a chance at the AO this year. Even @DarthFed can back this up.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie please do us all a favour and set her straight. She is really tiresome

I'm not going to totally take after Miss Carol. She pushes things a bit, but note GSM's comment (and my response, and Broken's just above.) Both sides have those who take it a bit to the extreme. Anyway, others are trying hard enough to set Carol straight, so it doesn't take me. (And it also doesn't take calling her a "dolt.) But I do appreciate your taking after the more revisionist opinion from the Fed camp, as well.

 

[Busted]

I should make a thread so people can list their "point of a tennis era!" That one with Fed taunting Nadal and goading him into hitting that BH to his FH to unleash! ALL TIME great stuff! Mines goes back to '95 IW when they experimented with prime time tennis on Monday! Agassi and Sampras got into one of those ball thumping rallies until Pete broke the point open with one of his running FH's making Andre scramble! Andre was so far off the court, all Pete had to do was "fluff a shot" into the open court! It didn't help Agassi psyche that Sampras actually hit 3 winners on broken strings driving him more insane! Andre had acquired the #1 ranking by winning '94 USO and beating Pete in AO final in '95! This was a great set up for their rivalry that really didn't exist! Pete owned Andre before, during, and after their primes! Heaven knows Sampras got a gift of his "pigeon" being in that last major USO final in '02!

Poor Andre. He spent a lot of time watching Pete's running forehands go by him. It still chafes his ass to this day that Sampras had his number...

 

[Busted]

Completely disagree with most of this.

I'll start with the second paragraph, Nadal's serve was the least of his worries in Shanghai vs. Roger. He actually held serve quite comfortably for most of his service games. If you compare it to previous Fedal meetings on all surfaces, Federer used to be able to get into Nadal's service games much more often, but he had awful break point conversion ratio and most of the big points went Nadal's way. In Shanghai, Nadal was holding comfortably but all Roger needed was to get into one of his service games and he played the big points better, much more aggressively, and more relaxed than in the past, which makes all the difference.

As for the first paragraph, and I really don't want to sound like a jerk here, but it's mostly irrelevant. Novak's tactics against Roger don't matter because the lefty dynamic with Nadal changes the whole match-up, for better or worse. Novak will hit most of his forehands cross court to Roger's forehand because that's just how tennis rallies work (mostly cross court exchanges). This is the usual pattern of play, coupled of course with backhand to backhand exchanges in which Novak's threat of firing the backhand up the line is something Roger has to watch out for. This has nothing to do with the Nadal match-up.

Also, you bring up Djokovic's tactics with such dismissal that you'd think Roger has been whipping him all these years. He hasn't.

To be clear, I think Roger will continue to get the better of Nadal but somehow bringing up the Novak match-up coupled with dismissing how difficult it would be for players to deal with Nadal firing the inside out and DTL forehand early in the rallies is silly. Of course, for Nadal to actually do that, he'll have to deal with Roger so expertly taking time away from him and stepping up the court. THAT will be the challenge. But the notion that he'll have to think 2-3 shots ahead if he hits an inside out forehand is ridiculous. This isn't chess and that's not how tennis works.

I didn't "dismss" Nole's tactics - and unless you've been sleeping through Roger's wins over Nole - he's had his share. More so than any other player in the last 3 years - including Nadal (who was 2-9 vs Djokovic since the start of 2014).. Nole lost 6 matches in 2015 - 3 of them Roger. Roger's 6-9 vs. Djokovic since 2014. Sure, Nole won all the biggest matches, but don't act like Roger was a sitting duck for him. I have always maintained that those big matches are one's that Nole SHOULD be winning because HE is\was the guy in his prime - not Roger Roger IS 6 years older than Nole after all.

Secondly, my point about Nole playing to DTL to Federer's FH is that it would be no surprise to Roger if Nadal started doing it, too. That in no way negates how well it's worked for Nole in his matchup against Roger. Leaving aside Nadal's lefty spin - the theory of playing wide to the FH is the same and therefore the element of surprise you suggest is minimal at best. It's not like Roger hasn't been dealing with Nadal's lefty spin for 13 years already. It wouldn't be his first rodeo.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Starting 2008 and prior to this year, Nadal led Federer 8-4 outside of clay, and won all 4 of their non-clay grand slam meetings. You don't call that a problem? Now, we can debate the reasons for that problem and whether Roger could and should have done better (he definitely should have), but Nadal was winning 2 out of 3 matches, and the record becomes far worse when you look at their outdoors meetings (7-1).

Let's not be too wild with the revisionist history here. We all remember when most Fed fans here would dread a potential Fedal meeting more or less anywhere because "it's just not that interesting and the result isn't in doubt." Hell, almost all of them didn't give him much of a chance at the AO this year. Even @DarthFed can back this up.

See bolded phrase. Don't you think you are conveniently selecting the period from the point when Roger went out of prime time.
If you look at their non-clay H2H before 2008, it is 5-1. If Roger had a general Rafa problem (as opposed to Rafa on clay problem),
their non-clay H2H before 2008 could not be so one sided.

I do agree that starting in 2008 Rafa had upper hand over Roger even on non-clay surfaces. That was partly because Roger went
out of prime and partly because Rafa started living in his head after several clay losses, beginning to affect his form even on non-clay
surfaces.

One would not say Roger had a Rafa problem on non-clay surfaces given that H2H was actually one sided the other way at the
beginning. To make such a statement, the problem should be a consistent problem over different periods of time. That was not
the case.