The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Federberg]

Yes, Wawrinka outplayed him and yes we can't claim that Nadal would have found a way to win, but we do know that the injury pretty much killed off any chance he had of actually winning the match. And yet, somehow, it was a taboo to even say that.

I can agree with this. But let's not revise history too much. At the time Rafa fans weren't saying that so much as saying that if it wasn't for the injury Rafa would definitely have won. Obviously we all have knowledge of Stan now that we didn't at the time. I can live with your current view, I could never accept what was being argued at the time

 

[Federberg]

The 2009 Soderling match has been covered in great detail already but it's the most compelling issue to discuss. From a bias standpoint, it's really easy to understand why it triggers the most extreme reactions among the two fanbases. For Nadal fans, Nadal was unbeatable at the French Open. It was almost literally unimaginable that he could lose, let alone lose to a "nobody" (Soderling was nothing special at that point). After all, there is a reason the loss is widely regarded as one of the biggest shocks in tennis history (to me, it's the biggest by a mile and nothing else is particularly close). So obviously, when it was revealed that Nadal would be pulling out of Queens with an injury and that his Wimbledon participation is in question, from a Nadal fan's perspective, the injury angle just made too much sense. When Nadal took 3 months off, it made even more sense. It was the perfect excuse. Of course they'd want to believe the injury caused the loss.

A number of things here...

Soderling was not a nobody. Even at that time he was known as a nearly man who on his day could beat anyone. If you're specifically referring to clay, then perhaps I can give a bit more leeway, I think we had all assumed hard courts were his strongest surface.

I can understand why Rafa fans found the whole "Rafa couldn't play Wimbledon because of injury" such a compelling explanation for his loss at RG. But I have a major problem with that. I will never... let me capitalise that...NEVER!!! concede that Rafa was impaired in that match. I have watched the match several times (one thing Rafa fans don't consider is the fact that we Fed fans watch this match a lot, if you're like us, you don't go back to watch your guys losses, so I wager we've actually watched the match more than you!) and I maintain that Rafa's movement was fine. What was different was that he was hitting short balls against a guy who was punishing him. Soderling was able to hit through the courts like no one I can remember. It wasn't quite as cold and damp as the next year when he crushed Roger, but the ingredients were all there. You might want to console yourself that there was an injury. You might want to console yourself that his skipping Wimbledon due to injury confirmed that. But that makes no sense whatsoever. A few years ago Roger injured himself bathing his child. It wasn't anything to do with tennis, these things happen. In summary I do not accept the linkage of his missing Wimbledon with his loss to Soderling, that's circumstantial at best, and frankly fails the eye test of the match itself.

 

[Fiero425]

...

The 2011 AO match with Ferrer is the least controversial. Nadal injured his hamstring in the third game of the match, took a long medical timeout right away, was visibly affected throughout and lost in straights. This is one of those "shit happens" injuries. It happened early on in the season, early on in a match, against a guy he'd normally beat, etc... it's also the least controversial because simply put, non-Nadal fans don't have much respect for Ferrer so they don't have a problem when Nadal fans claim he lost that match due to injury (this is where the different biases come into play). This injury though, has nothing to do with wear and tear and playing style. Sometimes athletes just hurt a hamstring with one sudden movement. It happened to Nadal, and it was unfortunate.

The 2009 Soderling match has been covered in great detail already, but it's the most compelling issue to discuss. From a bias standpoint, it's really easy to understand why it triggers the most extreme reactions among the two fanbases. For Nadal fans, Nadal was unbeatable at the French Open. It was almost literally unimaginable that he could lose, let alone lose to a "nobody" (Soderling was nothing special at that point). After all, there is a reason the loss is widely regarded as one of the biggest shocks in tennis history (to me, it's the biggest by a mile and nothing else is particularly close). So obviously, when it was revealed that Nadal would be pulling out of Queens with an injury and that his Wimbledon participation is in question, from a Nadal fan's perspective, the injury angle just made too much sense. When Nadal took 3 months off, it made even more sense. It was the perfect excuse. Of course they'd want to believe the injury caused the loss.

...

The reason I write this long-winded post is to highlight how consumed we get in our own biases and how oblivious we get, while calling out other people on their bullshit. I still think Nadal fans are major excuse-makers by the way.

That was one long arse manifesto; only scanned though! I definitely can agree with a lot of it; Nadal and his fanbase don't take losses well and will always have an excuse! Soderling gets little to no credit for beating Nadal in Paris back in '09, but people forget he caught him again later at the YEC where Nadal lost all 3 of his RR matches! If he was hurt, why play? If it's not an injury, it was the breakup of his family! Everyone has a story as they say and few want to cry crocodile tears for a rich fame HO! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

A number of things here...

Soderling was not a nobody. Even at that time he was known as a nearly man who on his day could beat anyone. If you're specifically referring to clay, then perhaps I can give a bit more leeway, I think we had all assumed hard courts were his strongest surface.

I can understand why Rafa fans found the whole "Rafa couldn't play Wimbledon because of injury" such a compelling explanation for his loss at RG. But I have a major problem with that. I will never... let me capitalise that...NEVER!!! concede that Rafa was impaired in that match. I have watched the match several times (one thing Rafa fans don't consider is the fact that we Fed fans watch this match a lot, if you're like us, you don't go back to watch your guys losses, so I wager we've actually watched the match more than you!) and I maintain that Rafa's movement was fine. What was different was that he was hitting short balls against a guy who was punishing him. Soderling was able to hit through the courts like no one I can remember. It wasn't quite as cold and damp as the next year when he crushed Roger, but the ingredients were all there. You might want to console yourself that there was an injury. You might want to console yourself that his skipping Wimbledon due to injury confirmed that. But that makes no sense whatsoever. A few years ago Roger injured himself bathing his child. It wasn't anything to do with tennis, these things happen. In summary I do not accept the linkage of his missing Wimbledon with his loss to Soderling, that's circumstantial at best, and frankly fails the eye test of the match itself.

I'm frankly shocked at how hard-headed you're willing to be that Nadal was not at all injured during RG 2009, given evidence to the contrary. I've taken note that you've called me an excuse-maker for Nadal, (for which I take more than a bit of umbrage,) but I'll risk it again with a response. But first I'll say, again, that any reasonable tennis fan has acknowledged that Soderling played exceptionally well that day, and had a strategy for Nadal that worked. (One note: Roger and Novak had more than a few chances to do the same and couldn't manage it, until 2015, when Rafa was having a very bad year. Surely they're better than Soderling. If the key to beating Nadal at RG had been found, why didn't they employ it? And why couldn't Soderling do it again in the final a year later? I would think that would give you some pause.) Also, I don't see how you don't make any connection between Rafa being injured during RG, and skipping Queens and Wimbledon (both of which he was defending.) He didn't get injured bathing his child or fishing in Mallorca. When do you think he got so injured that he couldn't defend his whole grass season? Or maybe you do think that he just slipped on his boat.

I did watch the highlights reel that someone (El Dude?) posted, and even there you can see Rafa giving up on points that he never would have before. Also, he was not hitting nearly as short as in his nadir year of 2015. Again I'll say that Soderling was stellar, but Rafa was off a step, at times. And take @brokenshoelace's analysis of it into account. I think it's valuable.

For the reasonable observer, there was a march towards the end of Nadal's knees that had begun the year before. You saw his knees strapped even at Wimbledon '08. He skipped the 2008 DC final v. Argentina due to left knee. You also know how his last 2 rounds at the 2009 AO went. And 2 weeks later he played Rotterdam (which I'm still angry about, in the same way of Fed fans mad at him for playing Montreal this year,) where he had a knee issue in the final v. Murray. The SF in Madrid v. Djokovic did him no favors, and he talked about how the knee(s) were giving out, and he was losing some advantage and confidence, since Monte Carlo. (It's in Spanish, but you can google-translate.)

You can say that Robin Soderling won that match outright, and he did, but I don't know how you can deny that Nadal's knees weren't troubling him, at least. Even Darth admits that, and he's way more of a fan boy than you. Tendonitis is progressive. Do you think that Nadal doesn't have it?

And to your point about Soderling being a "nobody." I'll defend @brokenshoelace's saying that, in the sense that he was surely an underachiever, at that point. Only Bjorn Borg (fellow Swede) was pushing for his chances. Beating Rafa at RG was absolutely his break-through.

 

[Moxie]

I can agree with this. But let's not revise history too much. At the time Rafa fans weren't saying that so much as saying that if it wasn't for the injury Rafa would definitely have won. Obviously we all have knowledge of Stan now that we didn't at the time. I can live with your current view, I could never accept what was being argued at the time

You are holding too much bile over what you remember Nadal fans saying in other forums. I have personally never said that Rafa would have won a match that he didn't win. That one, however, is one that I'm sad that he couldn't have competed for, effectively. But it is water under the bridge.

 

[Moxie]

The narrative from non-Nadal fans in regards to 2014 AO final is that it is ridiculous to say Rafa would've won if he didn't get injured. You didn't see any of us say Stan for sure would've held on to win that match but to say Rafa for sure would've rallied is ridiculous. Stan had already turned a big corner by beating Djokovic in the QF. Can't assume he was going to just mentally cave and hand Nads the win.

As for the Soderling narrative again you act like Sod in 2010 can easily be compared to Sod of 2009 and your reason is that he beat Fed in the QF? Need I remind you how awful Fed was after Australia that year? From AO through USO he barely resembled a top 5 player. Comparing apples and oranges. Sod had a career day by far vs Nadal and Moxie even mentioned the conditions were more cool and damp (just quoting her as I didn't notice the weather that day).

I think we're losing ourselves between a 2017 conversation on Tennis Prose, and going over old conversations, across 2-3 forums that we've been on together. Not for nothing, but there were a LOT of non-Nadal fans that gave Stan that crown, injury or no as far as to Nadal, and it was quite the forum scrap, as I remember it. Point being: I think we should stop grinding over old stories of what people used to say on old forums. We're accusing people of opinions in another era, and we're accusing people of opinions that weren't even their own, back in the day, i.e, on other forums. Who knows who all of that came from?

As to Soderling beating Roger in 2010 at RG: Most would say it was one of Robbie's greatest career performances. If you're going to negate it by saying that Fed was in an awful stage, then you are risking doing what Nadal fans are being accused of: saying that it wasn't Soderling, it was his opponent's own failures. You decide.

 

[Fiero425]

I think we're losing ourselves between a 2017 conversation on Tennis Prose, and going over old conversations, across 2-3 forums that we've been on together. Not for nothing, but there were a LOT of non-Nadal fans that gave Stan that crown, injury or no as far as to Nadal, and it was quite the forum scrap, as I remember it. Point being: I think we should stop grinding over old stories of what people used to say on old forums. We're accusing people of opinions in another era, and we're accusing people of opinions that weren't even their own, back in the day, i.e, on other forums. Who knows who all of that came from?

As to Soderling beating Roger in 2010 at RG: Most would say it was one of Robbie's greatest career performances. If you're going to negate it by saying that Fed was in an awful stage, then you are risking doing what Nadal fans are being accused of: saying that it wasn't Soderling, it was his opponent's own failures. You decide.

I think Soderling solidified his position as a "giant killer" by getting into back to back FO's finals going through Fedal; without a doubt! Getting to the YEC and overcoming the "Big 4" and making SF showed he was more than the avg. "also-ran!" :whistle:

 

[El Dude]

Does anyone disagree with any of these statements?

1. Soderling played a truly inspired match at RG 2009 vs Nadal
2. Nadal's knees were hurting to some degree or another
3. Nadal is a greater player than Soderling
4. Sometimes lesser players beat greater players, even if the greater player is not injured, and even that greater player is on his best turf

If everyone can agree with those four points, then it becomes only a matter of degree to which points 1 and 2 were true and determined the outcome.

But I'm not sure we all agree on those four points. Some seem to think that Nadal's knees weren't hurting. Others seem to think, if only subconsciously, that there is no way a healthy Nadal could have lost to anyone at RG, at least in 2009.

So let's go back to Broken's dissertation. Of course we are all biased, but let's put the emphasis on all. Pointing out that bias is at play among tennis fans doesn't exempt one from subconscious bias (and I'm including myself, of course). In fact, I think the most important aspect of minimizing personal bias is not to point out how others are biased, but to recognize that I too am biased, and the nature of bias is that it is very hard to be aware of it when its happening.

Maybe we can ask the Novak or Andy fans of the world to come in and moderate, and tell us what is what. But even they may have subtle biases that impact their view.

So to add to Broken's dissertation, I would argue that it is impossible for a human being to be truly objective. Why? Because we are subjects - we always view through subjectivity. We can work towards minimizing our bias, but that's all we can do.

So here's my best attempt at minimizing my own bias: I think Soderling played a great match - the highlights show a Stanimal-like showing from him. As for Rafa, I don't see signs of impairment but I see no reason to disagree with those more knowledgeable fans who do. But I'm not prepared to make a judgement on to what degree; the only thing we know for certain, that it was enough to lose to a peaking Soderling.

But here's the thing: We don't know for certain how much Rafa's knees impacted the match, and we don't know who would have won if Rafa was 100% healthy. I'm guessing that the Rafa fans, to a person, would say "Rafa, of course." And I'm guessing that the vast majority of Fedfans would say "Soderling, probably." There are a few of us, probably a small minority, who will say "I have no idea."

To be honest, I think if a person has a really strong opinion one way or the other, there is almost certainly some degree of bias at play. It may even be that the strength of certainty directly correlates with the strength of bias.

 

[Moxie]

I think Soderling solidified his position as a "giant killer" by getting into back to back FO's finals going through Fedal; without a doubt! Getting to the YEC and overcoming the "Big 4" and making SF showed he was more than the avg. "also-ran!" :whistle:

Indeed. I've always given him his props for capitalizing on a big upset, as opposed to all of those who drop a cap and then fade. He took that win over Nadal into #4 in the world, and that big win over Fed, too. Two times in a final of a Major is more than most get.

 

[Moxie]

But here's the thing: We don't know who would have won if Rafa was 100% healthy. I'm guessing that the Rafa fans, to a person, would say "Rafa, of course." And I'm guessing that the vast majority of Fedfans would say "Soderling, probably." There are a few of us, probably a small minority, who will say "I have no idea."

So there's your bias, Broken.

I appreciate your breakdown, Dude, and I think you've summed it up. To your last: As a Rafa fan I have tried to add this, and no one has given it credence. Even discounting Nadal's knees, Soderling was specifically set up to want to beat Nadal, and he was exactly the one that Rafa didn't want to lose to. I absolutely believe that this was a grudge match, after their Rome QF, of a few weeks prior. Soderling had something to prove, and Rafa didn't want to lose to him, of anyone, at that moment. With Soderling playing the match of his career, and Rafa feeling the pressure of the one guy he didn't want to lose to, you could call it a perfect storm, even if not for Rafa's knees. Call this a concession, if you like, but I've always argued that this was a way that Soderling won the battle psychologically, too. So he could have beaten Rafa that day, healthy or not. Anyway, he did.

 

[Fiero425]

Indeed. I've always given him his props for capitalizing on a big upset, as opposed to all of those who drop a cap and then fade. He took that win over Nadal into #4 in the world, and that big win over Fed, too. Two times in a final of a Major is more than most get.

OTTH, the only thing comparable that exceeded this accomplishment out of the blue in a "back to back" situation I still SMH over; Pat Rafter winning USO in '97 & '98! What happened? He was the 13th seed the 1st time and took out Sampras in a 5 set SF thriller as #3 in '98! Pete would have had another patsy in the final; Philippoussis! :whistle:

 

[brokenshoelace]

I can agree with this. But let's not revise history too much. At the time Rafa fans weren't saying that so much as saying that if it wasn't for the injury Rafa would definitely have won. Obviously we all have knowledge of Stan now that we didn't at the time. I can live with your current view, I could never accept what was being argued at the time

Don't you think there's a bit of a lack of self-awareness in this post? This is exactly why I have so many issues with Fed fans just throwing random statements about other fanbases as though they are facts.

A) Who said that?

and much more importantly,

B) Aren't you here policing every post which utters the term "Fed fans" and claim that you take issue with lumping all Fed fans together? You're sort of doing the same thing.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The narrative from non-Nadal fans in regards to 2014 AO final is that it is ridiculous to say Rafa would've won if he didn't get injured. You didn't see any of us say Stan for sure would've held on to win that match but to say Rafa for sure would've rallied is ridiculous. Stan had already turned a big corner by beating Djokovic in the QF. Can't assume he was going to just mentally cave and hand Nads the win.

As for the Soderling narrative again you act like Sod in 2010 can easily be compared to Sod of 2009 and your reason is that he beat Fed in the QF? Need I remind you how awful Fed was after Australia that year? From AO through USO he barely resembled a top 5 player. Comparing apples and oranges. Sod had a career day by far vs Nadal and Moxie even mentioned the conditions were more cool and damp (just quoting her as I didn't notice the weather that day).

Soderling was playing PHENOMENAL at RG in 2010. What are you talking about? Obviously beating Nadal at RG is a much bigger deal than beating Federer, but go back and watch highlights of how well Soderling was hitting the ball against Roger.

 

[brokenshoelace]

A number of things here...

Soderling was not a nobody. Even at that time he was known as a nearly man who on his day could beat anyone.

Based on what? What was his best win up until that point and who the fuck had he beaten? His h2h vs. Federer was abysmal and he had never beaten him ever. He had never beaten Nadal, and I'm pretty sure he had never beaten Djokovic. So who's this "anyone"? Notice I intentionally put quotation marks around "nobody" in my initial post and specified that I meant he was nothing special (explicitly laid it out so that nobody wastes time by debating semantics...to no avail).

The rest of the post is literally someone saying "I refuse all arguments here and won't bother to even respond to them, nor do I accept logical deductions, so I'll stay here and be biased."

But let me ask you this AGAIN:

Since Soderling's own coach admitted Nadal was moving "much better" (his own words) in the 2010 final, do you think a year older Nadal coming off tendinitis found a way to move better than ever or was his movement not as good in 2009 (I'm sure unrelated to the knee injury)?

Just a logical question... that you still won't address, naturally.

 

[DarthFed]

Soderling was playing PHENOMENAL at RG in 2010. What are you talking about? Obviously beating Nadal at RG is a much bigger deal than beating Federer, but go back and watch highlights of how well Soderling was hitting the ball against Roger.

I was clearly talking in comparison to the matches he played vs. Nadal in 2009 and 2010. It's like you're saying it's a given that his level was the exact same in both matches. And anyone and everyone was beating Roger in 2010, Berdych routed him at Wimbledon worse than Sod did at RG. That was the year I was calling him "Vanilla Fed" because his passive baseline play was making everyone look good.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I was clearly talking in comparison to the matches he played vs. Nadal in 2009 and 2010. It's like you're saying it's a given that his level was the exact same in both matches. .

Please show me anything I said that implies that. ANYTHING.

 

[brokenshoelace]

@DarthFed Just to save us both the time of a needless argument, here's what I said:

"Yes, Soderling was not as sharp in the 2010 final as he was in the 2009 QF, that's for sure"

That's pretty much explicitly laying it out that Soderling played better in 2009 than he did in 2010... hoping to avoid anyone debating semantics...to no avail. I'm sensing a pattern with Fed fans. Oops, I mean SOME Fed fans. SOME. Don't quote me @Federberg

 

[mrzz]

Since Soderling's own coach admitted Nadal was moving "much better" (his own words) in the 2010 final, do you think a year older Nadal coming off tendinitis found a way to move better than ever or was his movement not as good in 2009 (I'm sure unrelated to the knee injury)?

I will answer this because it is part of my "argument" a few pages back:

Yes, Nadal could also have moved better in 2010 because he had every reason to train harder in 2010. In 2009 he just had accomplished something he was looking for ages... in 2010 he just had lost something he probably took for granted. It is more than logical that he was better prepared in 2010.

I am not denying your arguments, I am only pointing out that Nadal moving better in 2010 does not necessarily mean "injury". Course, as El Dude use to say, it does not need to be just one thing or the other.

 

[DarthFed]

@DarthFed Just to save us both the time of a needless argument, here's what I said:

"Yes, Soderling was not as sharp in the 2010 final as he was in the 2009 QF, that's for sure"

That's pretty much explicitly laying it out that Soderling played better in 2009 than he did in 2010... hoping to avoid anyone debating semantics...to no avail. I'm sensing a pattern with Fed fans. Oops, I mean SOME Fed fans. SOME. Don't quote me @Federberg

Yes and I had seen you mention that...once. The problem is you're also basing a part of your argument on the fact that Nadal easily won the rematch in 2010. You can talk about the eye test and Norman's comments and those are valid arguments, but when you are using the argument that he would've won 2009 when he was healthy because he easily won in 2010...it doesn't work like that.

 

[Federberg]

Yes and I had seen you mention that...once. The problem is you're also basing a part of your argument on the fact that Nadal easily won the rematch in 2010. You can talk about the eye test and Norman's comments and those are valid arguments, but when you are using the argument that he would've won 2009 when he was healthy because he easily won in 2010...it doesn't work like that.

I wish tennis worked like that! Roger wouldn't have had to show up against Goffin