The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Moxie]

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.

Firstly, don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to still say that Roger went out of his prime in 2008? That's mostly a cheap trope that gets used because Nadal came into his own in 2008, so you lot like to think it must be at least partly because Roger was sinking. I'm not sure how that explains the career that Roger has had in the intervening 9 years, being so far out of his prime. Let's be real.

Secondly, prior to 2008, they were 5-2 on HCs (you forgot Dubai in '06, and you also don't want to mention that Nadal was within points in a TB from straight-setting Roger in Miami in the '05 final. Had that match been played two years later, after the rules changed for finals in MS, Rafa would have won it in straights.)

The H2H was not that one-sided off-clay in the beginning as you try to play it. Roger admitted the first time he played Rafa that his game left him confused. The second time they played, Rafa still nearly skunked him, but Roger was more experienced and had the advantage of the 3 of 5 in that Miami final. (It was Nadal's first MS final.) The first time they played on grass, Rafa was a bit of a deer in the headlights, but the next year, Rafa basically beat himself out of that final. He could have won that final at W in '07. On HCs and grass, Rafa was getting well into Roger's game and head in many opportunities, going into 2008. From '08 until this year, Nadal was well and truly in Roger's head. But it started before '08.

 

[DarthFed]

Firstly, don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to still say that Roger went out of his prime in 2008? That's mostly a cheap trope that gets used because Nadal came into his own in 2008, so you lot like to think it must be at least partly because Roger was sinking. I'm not sure how that explains the career that Roger has had in the intervening 9 years, being so far out of his prime. Let's be real.

Secondly, prior to 2008, they were 5-2 on HCs (you forgot Dubai in '06, and you also don't want to mention that Nadal was within points in a TB from straight-setting Roger in Miami in the '05 final. Had that match been played two years later, after the rules changed for finals in MS, Rafa would have won it in straights.)

The H2H was not that one-sided off-clay in the beginning as you try to play it. Roger admitted the first time he played Rafa that his game left him confused. The second time they played, Rafa still nearly skunked him, but Roger was more experienced and had the advantage of the 3 of 5 in that Miami final. (It was Nadal's first MS final.) The first time they played on grass, Rafa was a bit of a deer in the headlights, but the next year, Rafa basically beat himself out of that final. He could have won that final at W in '07. On HCs and grass, Rafa was getting well into Roger's game and head in many opportunities, going into 2008. From '08 until this year, Nadal was well and truly in Roger's head. But it started before '08.

Speaking of revisionist history...it was pretty clear that 2008 was a huge drop off in play for Roger from 04-07. And it wasn't just due to the underwhelming/ugly Wimbledon final, he was getting clobbered by a ton of people that year. And Rafa was not in his head before the clay court season that year. Roger had won 5 of 7 including four in a row off clay. The clay season, especially RG, scarred him greatly and that led to the weak Wimbledon loss to a guy who was pretty much still a one trick pony.

If we are talking about "almost" we'd point to Rome 2006 when Roger choked away multiple leads and match points. Roger was never trailing the 07 Wimbledon final. If Rafa beat himself that year then Roger certainly beat himself in 2008. And Roger's 9 years since 08, (actually 10 seasons) has only yielded 7 slams. The four years before 2008 was 11 slams, bit of a difference no?

 

[Carol]

Nadal is not so mentally strong like many people think, not anymore after his injuries in the most epic times. I mean losing that AO final 2014 playing with a back injury affected him very badly. After a bad patch mentally and almost recovered then he got a wrist injury and right after the appendicitis surgery, then after awhile and feeling much better mentally and physically (2016) playing in Roma he started with the wrist issue again having to retired in RG and coming back for the Olympics with a very poor preparation but even that getting the Golden Medal in doubles but later doing a bad HC season because he still wasn't at 100% whereby he decided to take a good care with the wrist until beginning of 2017 playing an excellent AO including the final but losing that match in the fifth set, incredible but true. Of course that loss obviously affected him pretty bad too (I don't blame him) and later playing horrible in IW and no so bad in Miami but not even close of his best and losing to Federer again. In one word I do think after those losses Nadal has Roger in his head at least temporary and until the day (hope soon but unfortunately I don’t think this year because his knee and I don’t expect he is going to play in London) they will play against and Rafa gets his confidence back which would have been a good opportunity in Shanghai but his knee gave him a bad turn and not because this or the other stroke or the forehand or the backhand including the serve which Rafa has improved a lot

 

[Moxie]

Speaking of revisionist history...it was pretty clear that 2008 was a huge drop off in play for Roger from 04-07. And it wasn't just due to the underwhelming/ugly Wimbledon final, he was getting clobbered by a ton of people that year. And Rafa was not in his head before the clay court season that year. Roger had won 5 of 7 including four in a row off clay. The clay season, especially RG, scarred him greatly and that led to the weak Wimbledon loss to a guy who was pretty much still a one trick pony.

If we are talking about "almost" we'd point to Rome 2006 when Roger choked away multiple leads and match points. Roger was never trailing the 07 Wimbledon final. If Rafa beat himself that year then Roger certainly beat himself in 2008. And Roger's 9 years since 08, (actually 10 seasons) has only yielded 7 slams. The four years before 2008 was 11 slams, bit of a difference no?

The only person that makes one question Roger's 2008 is his loss to Fish. Nadal, Murray, Blake, Karlovic, Simon, Stepanek...why not? They're all creditable opponents, and have proven to be players that can catch you on a given day.

You can tell me how many matches Roger beat Rafa in a row off of clay, but we both know that, until this year, he never beat Rafa more than 3 times in a row, match-to-match. That's a harsh toke. And you say the clay season in '08 (?) scarred him greatly. Or maybe you mean multiple clay seasons. But you really can't call Nadal a one-trick pony. He has the career Slam, and is closer to the double career-Slam than Roger is. And your point that Roger has "only" won 7 Slams since '08 makes your very point laughable. 7 Slams is better than a career for most every player in the history of tennis. So I'm not buying that he fell off in '08.

 

[Moxie]

Roger was never trailing the 07 Wimbledon final.

Oh, yes, Roger was trailing in the 3rd set of that 07 Wimbledon.

 

[Federberg]

Oh, yes, Roger was trailing in the 3rd set of that 07 Wimbledon.

hmmm... are you sure? I was actually there. And I recall a conversation with one of my buddies as I walked home, about how it was only after Roger won that I realised that he was never trailing in the match. It felt like he was trailing, but he never was.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I am not conveniently selecting a period. It's the period where Rafa became relevant on other surfaces and peaked. Plus, why would anyone even bring up anything prior to 2008 with regards to Roger, considering he hardly lost a match before that? We know he completely dominated his generation between 2004 and 2007, and yes, his only problem was Nadal on clay. Keep in mind, this period I selected is not a very small sample. From 2008 to 2016 is a very very long time.

It's no different to looking at the various periods in which Nadal had a Djokovic problem.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Oh, yes, Roger was trailing in the 3rd set of that 07 Wimbledon.

If he was trailing, it's probably because Nadal was serving first (I'm not sure if he was). Nadal never broke him in that set.

 

[mrzz]

If you see that post that you simply CANNOT let it pass and it is about something off topic on the given thread, this is for you:

How to stop thread hijacking in four easy steps:

1) Press the "Reply" button (the one within the post box you want to reply to) as you normally would;

2) Copy the text quoting the message you need to respond to. Delete so it doesn't show next time you open this thread again;

3) Go to the "right" thread (in 99% of the cases it means "Fedal wars" thread);

4) Paste the text and answer the post. Show no mercy!

 

[DarthFed]

Oh, yes, Roger was trailing in the 3rd set of that 07 Wimbledon.

Seriously?? You're going to count Nadal serving first as Roger "trailing". Well first of all, that's just not how it works, a player is leading if he is up a set or a break and second, (I bet you know where I'm going here) if we use your definition than Rafa was trailing in the fifth set of 2008.

 

[DarthFed]

The only person that makes one question Roger's 2008 is his loss to Fish. Nadal, Murray, Blake, Karlovic, Simon, Stepanek...why not? They're all creditable opponents, and have proven to be players that can catch you on a given day.

You can tell me how many matches Roger beat Rafa in a row off of clay, but we both know that, until this year, he never beat Rafa more than 3 times in a row, match-to-match. That's a harsh toke. And you say the clay season in '08 (?) scarred him greatly. Or maybe you mean multiple clay seasons. But you really can't call Nadal a one-trick pony. He has the career Slam, and is closer to the double career-Slam than Roger is. And your point that Roger has "only" won 7 Slams since '08 makes your very point laughable. 7 Slams is better than a career for most every player in the history of tennis. So I'm not buying that he fell off in '08.

You also forgot he lost to Roddick and a straight set blowout loss to Novak at AO. Roger lost more matches that season than nearly the prior 3 years combined, and no, Fed losing to Blake, Simon (twice), Stepanek, Fish, Roddick, Karlovic, and Murray 3 times was far from understandable. For some of those players that was the only year they ever beat Federer. He had also won 65 straight on grass before losing to a guy with a mediocre serve who was allergic to net and could barely hit a flat forehand to save his life.

A big part of the reason Fed never had a 3 match win steak back then is that 10 of their first 18 matches came on clay. Bottom line is that until 2008 Fed only had a serious issue with Rafa on clay.

And how good are you at math? I think you know the difference between 11 slams in 4 years and 7 in 10 years. Of course winning 7 in that span is better than most careers but it is Roger we are talking about...

 

[DarthFed]

If you see that post that you simply CANNOT let it pass and it is about something off topic on the given thread, this is for you:

How to stop thread hijacking in four easy steps:

1) Press the "Reply" button (the one within the post box you want to reply to) as you normally would;

2) Copy the text quoting the message you need to respond to. Delete so it doesn't show next time you open this thread again;

3) Go to the "right" thread (in 99% of the cases it means "Fedal wars" thread);

4) Paste the text and answer the post. Show no mercy!

Apologies my friend, way too early in the morning for multi-step program

 

[Moxie]

You also forgot he lost to Roddick and a straight set blowout loss to Novak at AO. Roger lost more matches that season than nearly the prior 3 years combined, and no, Fed losing to Blake, Simon (twice), Stepanek, Fish, Roddick, Karlovic, and Murray 3 times was far from understandable. For some of those players that was the only year they ever beat Federer. He had also won 65 straight on grass before losing to a guy with a mediocre serve who was allergic to net and could barely hit a flat forehand to save his life.

A big part of the reason Fed never had a 3 match win steak back then is that 10 of their first 18 matches came on clay. Bottom line is that until 2008 Fed only had a serious issue with Rafa on clay.

And how good are you at math? I think you know the difference between 11 slams in 4 years and 7 in 10 years. Of course winning 7 in that span is better than most careers but it is Roger we are talking about...

I started this line of argument with GSM, who was insisting (as gets done too often) that Roger's prime ended in 2008. My contention is that that's ridiculous. Perhaps his absolute peak was over, but his "prime years" were pretty long, and probably ended more like 2012. Sure, he had a drop in 2008, due in part to Nadal's reaching his own peak, but also due, I thought you have argued, to mono. But he bounced back pretty well in 2009, at least given a window due to Nadal's injuries. You also have to count the rise of Djokovic in there. Federer didn't become a has-been in 2008. He just started facing more complicated competition, combined with turning 26. (Yikes! 26.)

I know that you believe that Roger is a touched-by-God tennis miracle, (per your bolded above,) but he's actually a human being, albeit with a lot of tennis talent and commitment to his sport. But he's not immune to loss, and not all of it is on his racquet, whether you choose to believe that or not. I would also say that your characterization of Nadal as "a guy with a mediocre serve who was allergic to net and could barely hit a flat forehand to save his life" puts you rather firmly in the category of blinkered fanboy. Refusing to cop to Nadal's own talents is a source of your unhappiness. If you could embrace the fact that 2 absolute greats are playing at the same time, you'd be a lot more sanguine and far less disgruntled about Federer's stellar record. :heart:

 

[DarthFed]

I started this line of argument with GSM, who was insisting (as gets done too often) that Roger's prime ended in 2008. My contention is that that's ridiculous. Perhaps his absolute peak was over, but his "prime years" were pretty long, and probably ended more like 2012. Sure, he had a drop in 2008, due in part to Nadal's reaching his own peak, but also due, I thought you have argued, to mono. But he bounced back pretty well in 2009, at least given a window due to Nadal's injuries. You also have to count the rise of Djokovic in there. Federer didn't become a has-been in 2008. He just started facing more complicated competition, combined with turning 26. (Yikes! 26.)

I know that you believe that Roger is a touched-by-God tennis miracle, (per your bolded above,) but he's actually a human being, albeit with a lot of tennis talent and commitment to his sport. But he's not immune to loss, and not all of it is on his racquet, whether you choose to believe that or not. I would also say that your characterization of Nadal as "a guy with a mediocre serve who was allergic to net and could barely hit a flat forehand to save his life" puts you rather firmly in the category of blinkered fanboy. Refusing to cop to Nadal's own talents is a source of your unhappiness. If you could embrace the fact that 2 absolute greats are playing at the same time, you'd be a lot more sanguine and far less disgruntled about Federer's stellar record. :heart:

Now his prime gets stretched out to 2012 even though he didn't win a slam from AO 2010 to Wimbledon 2012... are you also willing to say Rafa's prime stretched to 2017? AO 2010 was 18 out of 19 finals and 23 straight semis and then he started regularly losing before the semis starting at RG 2010. Nole wasn't anything special until 2011 either, there were threads in 2010 on whether he'd ever win another slam because he has regressed from the start of 2008.

And how is my description of Rafa's game wrong in 2008 Wimbledon. Which part don't you agree with? Even on grass back then we are talking a very limited guy but what he did great he did really really really great.

I do think Roger's steep drop in 2008 was due to a lot of factors. Certainly the mono didn't help but at Wimbledon his issue was that Rafa was in his head and Fed was timid and weak most of that match. 2009-2010 AO was a strong recovery but still not the same as 04-07. I'd say Fed's peak was 2004-2007 while his prime maybe stretched to 2010 AO. I never said he was out of his prime in 2008, it was just a very weak season for him no doubt. He didn't even win an MS event, lost badly to Blake at Olympics and didn't even make the semi at YEC. Bad year at slams and a total no show outside of slams.

 

[Moxie]

Now his prime gets stretched out to 2012 even though he didn't win a slam from AO 2010 to Wimbledon 2012... are you also willing to say Rafa's prime stretched to 2017? I do think Roger's steep drop in 2008 was due to a lot of factors. Certainly the mono didn't help but at Wimbledon his issue was that Rafa was in his head and Fed was timid and weak most of that match. 2009-2010 AO was a strong recovery but still not the same as 04-07. I'd say Fed's peak was 2004-2007 while his prime maybe stretched to 2010 AO. I never said he was out of his prime in 2008, it was just a very weak season for him no doubt. He didn't even win an MS event, lost badly to Blake at Olympics and didn't even make the semi at YEC. Bad year at slams and a total no show outside of slams.

I'm perfectly willing to let you argue for his "prime," as long as you don't say it was over in 2008. It was GSM that said that. 2008 was a bad year for Roger, given his previous years, and I get that. Part of the reason was that Rafa was having such a good year, and you do cop to him being in Fed's head. I really do think that the Wimbledon final was key for both of them, emotionally, and big credit to Roger for pulling it back together to win the USO, in what would otherwise have been a dry year for Slams. 2008 was a tough come back to Earth, but he did bounce back, and has kept himself competitive, except perhaps for 2013, which would be his current nadir. But fair enough, right? Even Roger couldn't keep up the rate of wins he had 2004-07. Especially with Rafa, Novak and Andy coming of age.

 

[DarthFed]

Andy is a non-issue and Nole didn't really come into his own until 2011. That left Nadal, sure he got better but still a weak loss at Wimby 08 (I know you disagree) and that also led to AO 09 which was ugly as well. But I think it's less wacky to say Roger's prime ended in 2008 than it is to say it stretched to 2012. I don't know if your memory is bad or your trying to fit some narrative to make him look bad.

 

[El Dude]

So I'm not buying that he fell off in '08.

Moxie, I like some of the points you're making, but this is rather easy to prove statistically that you're wrong about this. Actually, Roger started "falling off" in 2007, when he started losing to lesser players more frequently. He was still able to play his best when it mattered most (Slams), but his overall level was a notch below 2006.

And this continued into 2008. It wasn't just Rafa, or Novak. He was worse against the rest of the field. He was a different beast in 2004-06 than he was after, with 2007 being a kind of "hybrid level" between his absolute peak and his later career plateau (2008 and on).

All of this makes 2017 so interesting. At age 35-36, he really is playing as well, at least in terms of winning percentage, as he was in his peak - when he was 22-25!

I have the numbers somewhere, if you want to see them, but have to make my daughters dinner

 

[Moxie]

Andy is a non-issue and Nole didn't really come into his own until 2011. That left Nadal, sure he got better but still a weak loss at Wimby 08 (I know you disagree) and that also led to AO 09 which was ugly as well. But I think it's less wacky to say Roger's prime ended in 2008 than it is to say it stretched to 2012. I don't know if your memory is bad or your trying to fit some narrative to make him look bad.

I didn't try to stretch his prime to 2012. If you read above, I conceded to your idea of when it ended, as long as you didn't try to make it 2008. And I see that we both agree that his real problem in 2008 was Nadal, including going into the AO '09. We will never agree on how much of W '08- AO '09 was due to weak Roger/strong Rafa, but it is what it is.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I like some of the points you're making, but this is rather easy to prove statistically that you're wrong about this. Actually, Roger started "falling off" in 2007, when he started losing to lesser players more frequently. He was still able to play his best when it mattered most (Slams), but his overall level was a notch below 2006.

And this continued into 2008. It wasn't just Rafa, or Novak. He was worse against the rest of the field. He was a different beast in 2004-06 than he was after, with 2007 being a kind of "hybrid level" between his absolute peak and his later career plateau (2008 and on).

All of this makes 2017 so interesting. At age 35-36, he really is playing as well, at least in terms of winning percentage, as he was in his peak - when he was 22-25!

I have the numbers somewhere, if you want to see them, but have to make my daughters dinner

I contest that you took that quote out of context, based on everything I've written in the recent above. I agree that he fell off, I'm only saying I don't agree that was the end of his "prime years." All of what you say doesn't just make 2017 merely interesting for Federer. His fans have used the words "shocking," and "miraculous." You're a stats guy...tell me what the chances were.

 

[El Dude]

How about these definitions:

Prime is when a player is at or near his best level, and able to reach his "A" game with regularity, but not all the time. The prime includes peaks (best years) and valleys (years within the prime that were marred either by injury, inconsistency, or declined level), as well as plateaus.

Peak is the highest year or years within a player's prime, when a player was at their very best, able to reach their "A game" with great frequency.

Another term:

Plateau is the phase of a player's career after his peak, but still within his prime. It is marked by a new "set-point" below peak level, but not in decline phase. A player in his plateau is still able to reach his best form, but without the consistency of his peak.

So yeah, Roger's peak was 2004-07, his prime maybe 2003 to present. There are fluctuations, of course, and I think 2017 is another peak year, his best since 2007. 2006 was his best year; 2007 was a step down, 2008 another step. I think he plateaued roughly from 2008-2012, had a "valley" in 2013, then another plateau in 2014-16, with a new "peak" in 2017.

Moxie, we agree that his "prime" didn't end in 2007-08. But let's also be clear that he wasn't as good in 2008 as he had been in 2007, and he wasn't as good in 2007 as he was in 2006. It wasn't just the "Rafa Effect" - it is reflected in his performance against the field.