The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Federberg]

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.

That's a fair criticism. Not all Rafa fans said that, but a fair few did. Point well taken

 

[Federberg]

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.

Let's stipulate that it's reasonable to assume Rafa's knees always hurt. I can live with that. But if we're relegating this debate to if player A is 100% fit he never loses then we might as well be in kindergarten

 

[Federberg]

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.

You've never said that? Then why do you folks always bring up his injuries?

 

[Federberg]

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.

what contrary evidence? The fact he missed Wimbledon? So what? It's entirely possible to be injured after RG09. As you've pointed out he also had family issues to deal with. Who knows? I reject any attempt to assert that he was injured in that match. I repeat I've watched that match many times and his movement was not impaired. The idea that he was chasing down some balls is meaningless to me. Soderling was crushing it. Sometimes the ball goes past you too fast. The fact we'd never seen that before at RG is besides the point. We'd never seen someone hit like that against Rafa there! The fact that Novak and Roger weren't able to do that to him is quite besides the point. Tennis is about match ups. This is one of the reasons why the whole H2H argument is so silly to me. Sports aren't linear. The fact that A beats B and B beats C doesn't mean that C can't beat A. It really doesn't work like that

 

[Federberg]

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.

I have no problem addressing that. I have never taken the comments coaches make as definitive statements of fact. They have their own agendas, not least bolstering the confidence of their players after losses. I have my own eyes, I watched that match and I saw no evidence of Rafa being impaired. If I had I would say, I actually have no problem admitting something like that. I just have to push back when I feel excuses are being made for losses. You might not want to hear it, but this is the price you pay when your guy tries to play virtually every clay court event possible. You didn't see me crying that Roger didn't win the US Open because he got injured. I thought he deserved what he got for his utter stupidity. I didn't see it as unfair or bad luck, it was a colossal mis judgement on his part. Bottom line, Rafa's knees have almost certainly been a problem for him for a long time. Despite that he's been able to win big matches. He probably takes pain medication or cortisone or whatever, that's fine, it's sports, I'm sure he's not alone. But to try to elevate his losses because of his physical limitations, or to start bringing up scenarios to put his losses into a favourable context? It just starts to sound like excuse making to me. This is sports, these guys are professionals. If he had managed his schedule better he might not have found himself in that situation, but on the flip side his rankings might have been impacted. You might not like me saying it but... it's the price he's paid to achieve what he's achieved. I'm happy to celebrate him for that, but I simply can't stomach the what ifs... sorry

 

[DarthFed]

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

Yeah, it's just faulty at best to make an argument on a certain match given events before and after. Yes Rafa won 9 out of 10 RG's and is insanely dominant on clay but that doesn't mean he can't lose a match when healthy even in his prime.

And it is a difference of opinion but I do think Rafa was hurt to some degree but not nearly as much as BS and other Rafa fans like to argue. And we know conditions are huge, and I take Moxie at her memory that it was cooler and damp. Anyone remember if 2010 was sunny?

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

No no no. Hold on. I am not saying Rafa was injured in 2009 because he won easily in 2010. I specifically brought that up to make a very specific point about how seemingly little things, such as a guy moving marginally better, can make a lot of difference in tennis when guys are evenly matched. Matches hinge on the tiniest of details. I am NOT saying everything was the same in 2010 except Nadal moved better. Of course not. It's a different match, under different circumstances, played a whole year later.

I am saying that Soderling, who was in great form in 2010 (and it's not debatable because A) He played out of his mind vs. Roger. Let's not play revisionist history. Yes, Roger wasn't the same, but how does that change the way Soderling played? and B) Guys like him don't reach major finals without playing great. He's no Federer, Nadal or Djokovic who can sleepwalk to a final), got beat in straights in the final, in part because Nadal moved much better. Nadal moving much better means getting to the ball sooner, hitting with more depth, dictating more, defending better, etc... Of course, it doesn't necessarily directly affect how well Soderling serves or how cleanly he hits the ball (although it can have some effect on the latter)... It's just meant to highlight a key difference in Nadal's form over the two matches, rather than imply that Soderling played exactly the same way.

 

[brokenshoelace]

PS: Note to @DarthFed, if I use your faulty Wimbledon 2008 logic (ie Federer should never lose to Nadal on grass because he's much better), then Nadal should NEVER lose to Soderling at RG (or anyone else really), and the fact that he proceeded to clobber him in straight sets in both the 2010 final and the 2011 quarter finals shows that he played like trash in 2009. Of course, to quote you, that's not how tennis works.

 

[DarthFed]

My logic is that when you are by far the best at something then every loss is a weak one. Roger losing on grass was weak but these are humans and upsets happen or in the case of 2008, only a mini-upset due to Roger's huge drop in form (not to open a separate can of worms). Of course Rafa should have never lost to Sod at RG, that was a 1/100 type of event.

 

[Federberg]

My logic is that when you are by far the best at something then every loss is a weak one. Roger losing on grass was weak but these are humans and upsets happen or in the case of 2008, only a mini-upset due to Roger's huge drop in form (not to open a separate can of worms). Of course Rafa should have never lost to Sod at RG, that was a 1/100 type of event.

I think Roger has already answered this. He's admitted that the shellacking he got at RG08 left him with very low confidence against Rafa. This fits with what we saw, he was very passive against Nadal in the first two sets and only when the whole thing was running away from him did he just relax and play. On that basis, one could interpret the loss as a weak one... I don't. To me it was a very human loss. I still say after about 3 all in the 5th that match should have been stopped. If you were driving your car on the adjacent street at that time you would have been required by law to have your lights on

 

[DarthFed]

Yes but at the end of the day they both played in the darker conditions. Rafa to his credit handled it better. The parallel between 2008 and 2014 is Roger didn't step it up at all early in the fifth sets when he should've had a mountain of momentum. Very tame play helped settle Rafa and Nole in and then he simply blinked first. But oh well, 8 Wimby's is still great. Not as great as 9 shall be

 

[Moxie]

If you were driving your car on the adjacent street at that time you would have been required by law to have your lights on

It's less dangerous to play tennis without lights at twilight, though.

 

[Federberg]

It's less dangerous to play tennis without lights at twilight, though.

Lol! You get my point I'm sure. At the time I live a few hundred yards away behind the courts. In fact it was always weird watching matches at home because I would hear the noise after a point about 15 seconds before on tv. So much for the speed of light and all that... there's a small delay built into these live matches. My point is that it was super dark, tv gave a false impression. No one would play under those conditions!

 

[El Dude]

Let's stipulate that it's reasonable to assume Rafa's knees always hurt. I can live with that. But if we're relegating this debate to if player A is 100% fit he never loses then we might as well be in kindergarten

Well exactly, I agree. But part of my point is that many/most/all fans at least subconsciously believe this to be true of their guy - or at least fans of Rafa, Roger, and Novak, if only because they have a somewhat reasonable argument to think that's the case (with apologies to Andy and his fanbase). I've heard it from all three groups.

If Rafa is 100% healthy, he never loses. If Roger doesn't brain fart, he cannot lose. If Novak is focused, he doesn't lose. Etc.

The fact of the matter is, no one wins all of the time. No player has ever gone a whole year without losing (that said, it may happen someday!). John McEnroe's 1984 season remains the highest winning percentage of the Open Era, and he still lost 3 matches (82-3, 96.47%). Roger's had two seasons at ~95% and one at 93%; Novak's best year was 93%; even the great Rafa only has one season above 90%.

Bjorn Borg still has the highest career win % at 83%, meaning he still lost 17% of his matches - which means he lost about 1 in 6 of his professional matches.

The point: Great players lose, even when they're at the peak of their powers. The reasons are many, and differ in each match. Each great has their own variations on why they don't win every single match, but I just think it silly to think "my guy" only loses because of factors that are somehow more significant or out of his control than "your guy."

It really is just the adult version of "My dad would have whipped your dad's ass, if only [insert excuse]." I see it as the unfortunate result of a cultural over-emphasis on competition and egotism. But that's another discussion...

 

[Front242]

PS: Note to @DarthFed, if I use your faulty Wimbledon 2008 logic (ie Federer should never lose to Nadal on grass because he's much better), then Nadal should NEVER lose to Soderling at RG (or anyone else really), and the fact that he proceeded to clobber him in straight sets in both the 2010 final and the 2011 quarter finals shows that he played like trash in 2009. Of course, to quote you, that's not how tennis works.

Clobber? Is that the Nadal definition of 2 sets won with a single break in each and score of 6-4 in 2010 lol? In 2011 Nadal won 6-4 6-1 7-6(3). Apart from set 2 that's about as far away from a clobbering as you could get. What is the world coming to ? A 6-4 set and a TB is now a clobbering?! I distinctly remember it like it was yesterday and the bookies and tipster sites had it like this: if the conditions were again cold and damp like 2009 then Soderling was quite possibly the favourite as they saw it as no fluke he won in 2009. The "clobbering" you've described was (A) not a clobbering as pointed out because, besides the 2nd set in 2010 which was 6-2 to Nadal, the other 2 were a very close 6-4 each and (B) had A LOT to do with the weather. It was very hot and sunny in the 2010 final, hence the "much better movement" all of you (including Magnus Norman) keep harping on about. Fact: Nadal's topspin is a sitting duck in cold, damp conditions and that's why guys like Daniel Brands and Martin Kilizan made a mockery of him in 2013 as anyone who hits hard and flat can hit through the court when his loopy topspin can't hurt them. It's not able to bounce miles into the air when the conditions are damp. Midway through both those matches the weather cleared up and guess who made a comeback? Strange coincidence, right? Not really. If the weather stayed damp and cold he was in trouble.

He's laughing his ass off when he's playing guys in blazing sunshine at RG 'cos he knows that having to take balls at shoulder height makes the opponents' lives, MUCH more difficult. That's what it was like for the 2010 and 2011 matches against Soderling and it wasn't any miraculous "healing" of his apparently wonky knees, it was the much sunnier weather that made the world of difference. Of course he's way more confident when he knows his trademark loopy forehand to backhand boring routine will work on just about everyone, and hence the perceived "better movement". Now, it may also actually have been better since it's obviously easier for most people to run when it's dry rather than wet. Not really rocket science really and not trying to be an a$$hole here, just keeping things real. The weather has a massive impact on anyone's play, but none more so than Nadal at RG and past matches he's been in a losing position in (Klizan and Brands as mentioned) or shock horror, lost, have mostly been in damp conditions. He was beating Djokovic pretty routinely in the 2013 final till the rain came and I'll be the first to admit it was ridiculous the set Novak won that they even played on as it was pouring at one stage, but guess why he lost the set? You got it: the rain, the cold air, his topspin was no longer penetrating the court, his balls were sitting ducks and just asking to be blasted back with interest just as with the other cold, damp matches mentioned. I think even the hardcore Nadal fans can surely see the pattern: Nadal plays much better on clay in sunny and hot conditions and gets in trouble in cold, damp conditions. Murray was also beating him in Rome on a cold, damp day and the weather improved in the 3rd set and guess who won? And guess why? Mostly the weather...again.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Clobber? Is that the Nadal definition of 2 sets won with a single break in each and score of 6-4 in 2010 lol? In 2011 Nadal won 6-4 6-1 7-6(3). Apart from set 2 that's about as far away from a clobbering as you could get. What is the world coming to ? A 6-4 set and a TB is now a clobbering?! I distinctly remember it like it was yesterday and the bookies and tipster sites had it like this: if the conditions were again cold and damp like 2009 then Soderling was quite possibly the favourite as they saw it as no fluke he won in 2009. The "clobbering" you've described was (A) not a clobbering as pointed out because, besides the 2nd set in 2010 which was 6-2 to Nadal, the other 2 were a very close 6-4 each and (B) had A LOT to do with the weather. It was very hot and sunny in the 2010 final, hence the "much better movement" all of you (including Magnus Norman) keep harping on about. Fact: Nadal's topspin is a sitting duck in cold, damp conditions and that's why guys like Daniel Brands and Martin Kilizan made a mockery of him in 2013 as anyone who hits hard and flat can hit through the court when his loopy topspin can't hurt them. It's not able to bounce miles into the air when the conditions are damp. Midway through both those matches the weather cleared up and guess who made a comeback? Strange coincidence, right? Not really. If the weather stayed damp and cold he was in trouble.

LOL, for a Federer fan, those sure are some low standards when it comes to expectations (only when it suits you, of course). They played 6 consecutive sets... Nadal won all of them. What more do you really want? The 2010 final wasn't all that competitive. And LOL, this is why Fed fans should not throw stones... A 6-4 set is "very close"? Like, you don't ACTUALLY believe that, right? As in, there is literally no way that you, a smart person, who's been watching tennis for presumably a decade (likely more), actually believes that a 6-4 set is "very close."

Just for fun, I'll actually look at the play by play as we speak...

First set: Nadal breaks at 2-2... holds his serve throughout and wins the set. Soderling only had one break back point.
Second set: Nadal wins 6-2. Not much to say there.
Third set: Nadal breaks IN THE FIRST GAME OF THE SET. Soderling has one break back point in the subsequent game, which Nadal erases with a service winner...and Nadal holds his serve throughout.

Yeah, those seemed like very close sets indeed. What a titanic battle.
See this is the thing: you could have just let a comment like this go. Instead, you respond to it with a big condescending paragraph trying to take me to task only to be proven wrong. Like, is the need to be right that big? Just spew out nonsense, treat it as facts, just to hammer the point home? But yeah man, those Nadal fans...they're so biased.

As far as the cold conditions stuff... Uh, how many matches has Nadal lost at Roland Garros exactly? I seem to remember two, and one of which doesn't say anything since he was in the worst form of his life playing against the best player in the world and the only guy who ever gave him trouble on the surface. So either A) Paris is a super hot city late May/early June and/or Nadal is just lucky to play in hot conditions or, far more likely, B) Nadal does just fine in cold conditions.

It''s obviously undeniable that Nadal prefers hot conditions where he's practically unbeatable on clay... But the way you described his top spin in cold conditions is truly odd considering he won it 10 times there and the amount of matches in which he's ever had trouble in are literally like...five: The Mathieu match in 2006 (epic 4 setter), the Soderling match in 2009 (obviously), the Isner match from 2011, the Novak match from 2013, and the Novak match from 2015. That's five matches. I guess it's just always sunny in Paris.

Now, it may also actually have been better since it's obviously easier for most people to run when it's dry rather than wet. Not really rocket science really and not trying to be an a$$hole here, just keeping things real..

I know I responded to the weather nonsense but this is way too good not to quote. This has to be one of the most ridiculous takes I've ever read by a poster who isn't a troll/insane. Nadal struggled with movement because the conditions were cold?

 

[Ricardo]

A 6-4 set is "very close"?

a 6-4 set is by default not 'clobbering' though it may not be 'very close', regardless of your take. If a player can hold serve 4 times in a set, he is not being clobbered. And you certainly don't clobber someone by winning in a tiebreaker.

 

[Front242]

LOL, for a Federer fan, those sure are some low standards when it comes to expectations (only when it suits you, of course). They played 6 consecutive sets... Nadal won all of them. What more do you really want? The 2010 final wasn't all that competitive. And LOL, this is why Fed fans should not throw stones... A 6-4 set is "very close"? Like, you don't ACTUALLY believe that, right? As in, there is literally no way that you, a smart person, who's been watching tennis for presumably a decade (likely more), actually believes that a 6-4 set is "very close."

Just for fun, I'll actually look at the play by play as we speak...

First set: Nadal breaks at 2-2... holds his serve throughout and wins the set. Soderling only had one break back point.
Second set: Nadal wins 6-2. Not much to say there.
Third set: Nadal breaks IN THE FIRST GAME OF THE SET. Soderling has one break back point in the subsequent game, which Nadal erases with a service winner...and Nadal holds his serve throughout.

Yeah, those seemed like very close sets indeed. What a titanic battle.
See this is the thing: you could have just let a comment like this go. Instead, you respond to it with a big condescending paragraph trying to take me to task only to be proven wrong. Like, is the need to be right that big? Just spew out nonsense, treat it as facts, just to hammer the point home? But yeah man, those Nadal fans...they're so biased.

As far as the cold conditions stuff... Uh, how many matches has Nadal lost at Roland Garros exactly? I seem to remember two, and one of which doesn't say anything since he was in the worst form of his life playing against the best player in the world and the only guy who ever gave him trouble on the surface. So either A) Paris is a super hot city late May/early June and/or Nadal is just lucky to play in hot conditions or, far more likely, B) Nadal does just fine in cold conditions.

It''s obviously undeniable that Nadal prefers hot conditions where he's practically unbeatable on clay... But the way you described his top spin in cold conditions is truly odd considering he won it 10 times there and the amount of matches in which he's ever had trouble in are literally like...five: The Mathieu match in 2006 (epic 4 setter), the Soderling match in 2009 (obviously), the Isner match from 2011, the Novak match from 2013, and the Novak match from 2015. That's five matches. I guess it's just always sunny in Paris.



I know I responded to the weather nonsense but this is way too good not to quote. This has to be one of the most ridiculous takes I've ever read by a poster who isn't a troll/insane. Nadal struggled with movement because the conditions were cold?

I still maintain 1 break of serve per set is pretty damn far from clobbered. You can post a play by play commentary but it's still one measly break of serve. Hardly clobbered. Funnily enough I can't recall too many matches at RG besides the aforementioned ones where it's been really cold (for May/early June and damp). With the global weather changes we're having in recent years it seems 14C and cold, rainy days are more commonplace now in Paris than they were 1 or 2 decades ago but it's still more likely to be sunny for the most part and that's why he has his best part of the season on clay. High bouncing balls and sunny weather are his bread and butter.

Everyone knows Federer's back acts up in cold conditions so it's hardly a stretch to say it's the same for others. Also, newsflash, I said cold and damp, not just cold. And yes, of course it affects movement. Would you be more cautious or slower running on wet roads in cold weather and able to run as quickly as you would on a sunny, hot day? I think not. Same applies to running and moving on a tennis court funnily enough. Think before typing nonsense replies please because your posts normally show more logic.

 

[Moxie]

Personally, I think "clobbered" is an exaggeration. Soderling made a more respectable showing in that final than he did in the one the previous year v. Fed, but it was straights and the outcome was not in doubt not fairly early into that match. In any case, we all indulge in a bit of hyperbole around here, and I don't think the use of "clobbered" needs to get overly massaged. However, @Front242, I will pile on a bit with Broken's rebut of your notion that weather had a lot to do with Nadal's success at RG. Not to be an a$$hole, but to win 10 RGs, you win 70 matches, and I don't think he did that by being lucky with the weather. He did it by being better than everyone else. And on clay he's better by a lot. On a given day, against the right opponent, cold, damp weather could hurt him. Sure, he likes it hot and sunny. But he also has (still, I think) the highest winning percentage outdoors, which means that he deals with the elements better than most players, including drizzle and cold and wind.

 

[brokenshoelace]

a 6-4 set is by default not 'clobbering' though it may not be 'very close', regardless of your take. If a player can hold serve 4 times in a set, he is not being clobbered. And you certainly don't clobber someone by winning in a tiebreaker.

A 6-4 set is not clobbering. 6-4 6-2 6-4 match is. I don't see what's so difficult about that. Over 3 sets, you've won eight more games than your opponent, who never broke you once, and never won over 4 games a set. At that level, in a major final, it is.