The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[brokenshoelace]

Anyway, I'll put everyone at ease. The 2010 final was not a clobbering, but it was an uncompetitive match.

 

[Moxie]

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

I think we've reached a point where it's the Federer fans who tend to bring up his injuries, and accuse us lot as using them for excuses. He does get injured, you can't say that's not true. There have been a lot of wonky ones, like the back in 2014 and odd wrist and his fecking appendix. But 2015 and 2016 were a lot about loss of form and confidence, and being out-gunned by Djokovic, (and Fabio, and lots of other people.)

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

The contrary evidence is that Nadal's knees were deteriorating well-before 2009 RG. I'm expecting that you believe that he has tendonitis, which is degenerative. After his loss to Soderling he was forced to stop playing for 3 months, due to his knees. I don't know what you think happened between that loss and the grass season if the knees weren't bad. Sure, losing to RS at RG was a shocking loss, and I'm sure he took it hard. And the fact of his parents splitting up hit him hard...he's admitted that. However, I think we're, most of us, about to agree that Nadal's knees were bad by May 2009. I absolutely don't say it's the only reason Nadal lost to Soderling that day. And I'm fine if you think that isn't at all the reason he lost. I just don't know how you can say he didn't have knee problems at that period in time.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think more outrageous than Nadal fans bringing up injuries is a Fed fan, in this very thread, with a straight face, saying it's entirely possible the knee injury occurred AFTER the Soderling match. I mean, it's one thing to say the match probably made it worse, which is fair, but no injury being present and then somehow occurring as Nadal was walking into the press conference would be something.

 

[Front242]

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.

I hardly said he lost 'cos of the weather but it's a major factor along with an aggressive, flat hitting opponent and especially if Nadal is hitting short balls in cold, damp conditions. If this happens as it did in 2009 and the opponent is serving and hitting very well and can maintain it all match long, then he's in trouble. Also though as I pointed out, if an opponent is beating him because of those cold, damp conditions and they change mid match (as I also pointed out), for example, the matches against Brands and Klizan, it's not some miraculous comeback by Nadal, it's because his topspin springs back to life as soon as the courts dry up and the sun comes out. It's not some mad claim as you're all pointing out, it's a fact.

 

[Front242]

I think more outrageous than Nadal fans bringing up injuries is a Fed fan, in this very thread, with a straight face, saying it's entirely possible the knee injury occurred AFTER the Soderling match. I mean, it's one thing to say the match probably made it worse, which is fair, but no injury being present and then somehow occurring as Nadal was walking into the press conference would be something.

100% wrong. Ever lift weights with a slight pain that got progressively much worse a few days later? Same thing. Wear and tear and pain in clay season from running around like a headcase chicken I can accept although I don't think it impacted his movement much at all, but it's a cumulative effect and the effort he puts into the part of the season that earns him the most points and titles clearly leaves him feeling a bit sore afterwards. Yes, afterwards. There is also such a thing as adrenaline, ie. playing through pain. ALL tennis players and athletes have some degree of pain and it's a bit much that Nadal fans make such a big deal out of it. He couldn't play properly, his legs were hanging off, he'd have won otherwise, blah, blah. Embarrassing. I've even read nonsense that his knee "problems" went all the way back to Wimbledon 2008 (which he won!) because of knee strapping. Sorry but he's said himself many times the strapping is to help prevent knee problems and not to help any existing ones. Some fans here even make stuff up because it goes completely against what Nadal himself claims, that is, the strapping is precautionary only.

 

[Moxie]

100% wrong. Ever lift weights with a slight pain that got progressively much worse a few days later? Same thing. Wear and tear and pain in clay season from running around like a headcase chicken I can accept although I don't think it impacted his movement much at all, but it's a cumulative effect and the effort he puts into the part of the season that earns him the most points and titles clearly leaves him feeling a bit sore afterwards. Yes, afterwards. There is also such a thing as adrenaline, ie. playing through pain. ALL tennis players and athletes have some degree of pain and it's a bit much that Nadal fans make such a big deal out of it. He couldn't play properly, his legs were hanging off, he'd have won otherwise, blah, blah. Embarrassing. I've even read nonsense that his knee "problems" went all the way back to Wimbledon 2008 (which he won!) because of knee strapping. Sorry but he's said himself many times the strapping is to help prevent knee problems and not to help any existing ones. Some fans here even make stuff up because it goes completely against what Nadal himself claims, that is, the strapping is precautionary only.

I do agree that adrenaline can help, and a tough guy like Nadal can and has played through pain. Winning helps, too, and sometimes it takes losing to make you stop, even if perhaps injury would have suggested earlier. I'd like to see where you've read that Nadal wore the strapping for precautionary reasons, only. Surely the braces were to support the knees, but that has to suggest that there were problems, otherwise more players would wear them prophylactically. Maybe he just intuited that he was going to have knee issues, and that's why he started wearing strapping. You think? Nah, probably not.

Look, for sure Rafa has worked hard every clay season. It's considered to be the most demanding surface, and he's the guy that's done the most winning on it, so he generally plays the most matches on it. Hey, Roger decided it was too hard on his knee to play on it at all last year. So if you're saying that Rafa's knees were done at the end of 2009 clay season, I think that's what most of us are saying. You can say that Rafa runs around like a "headcase chicken" on clay if it makes you feel better to insult him, but clay demands a lot of movement. It's won him a bunch of titles, all that hard work and running around. Perhaps you think that Roger's titles come with less work? Probably somewhat less, but I don't think he's a slacker. Or where he has been, I think he's paid the price, too. At the high 'altitudes' where they play, it's probably hard to decide how much work and how much rest works best. They've negotiated it differently, but both pretty well, based on results.

 

[Front242]

I do agree that adrenaline can help, and a tough guy like Nadal can and has played through pain. Winning helps, too, and sometimes it takes losing to make you stop, even if perhaps injury would have suggested earlier. I'd like to see where you've read that Nadal wore the strapping for precautionary reasons, only. Surely the braces were to support the knees, but that has to suggest that there were problems, otherwise more players would wear them prophylactically. Maybe he just intuited that he was going to have knee issues, and that's why he started wearing strapping. You think? Nah, probably not.

Look, for sure Rafa has worked hard every clay season. It's considered to be the most demanding surface, and he's the guy that's done the most winning on it, so he generally plays the most matches on it. Hey, Roger decided it was too hard on his knee to play on it at all last year. So if you're saying that Rafa's knees were done at the end of 2009 clay season, I think that's what most of us are saying. You can say that Rafa runs around like a "headcase chicken" on clay if it makes you feel better to insult him, but clay demands a lot of movement. It's won him a bunch of titles, all that hard work and running around. Perhaps you think that Roger's titles come with less work? Probably somewhat less, but I don't think he's a slacker. Or where he has been, I think he's paid the price, too. At the high 'altitudes' where they play, it's probably hard to decide how much work and how much rest works best. They've negotiated it differently, but both pretty well, based on results.

I haven't had the time to respond to many posts here lately and partly couldn't be bothered also as it's boring me to tears but just Google Nadal knee support precautionary and tons of results pop up. People squatting heavy often wear knee braces for support and not because of pain and likewise with wrist supports in the gym and playing sports. They're called supports as that's what they do. They prevent injury.

 

[mrzz]

like a headcase chicken

There is no headcase chicken in tennis. There is just the headless chicken:

But we all know peak headless chicken > peak Murray.

 

[Nekro]

There is no headcase chicken in tennis. There is just the headless chicken:

View attachment 1621


But we all know peak headless chicken > peak Murray.

that was funny

 

[Moxie]

I haven't had the time to respond to many posts here lately and partly couldn't be bothered also as it's boring me to tears but just Google Nadal knee support precautionary and tons of results pop up. People squatting heavy often wear knee braces for support and not because of pain and likewise with wrist supports in the gym and playing sports. They're called supports as that's what they do. They prevent injury.

I googled that. All that comes up are articles about Nadal's injured knees, except for one bit, anonymously written, on yahoo answers from 9 years ago.

 

[Federberg]

I think more outrageous than Nadal fans bringing up injuries is a Fed fan, in this very thread, with a straight face, saying it's entirely possible the knee injury occurred AFTER the Soderling match. I mean, it's one thing to say the match probably made it worse, which is fair, but no injury being present and then somehow occurring as Nadal was walking into the press conference would be something.

Why is that outrageous. I didn't see him limping around or favouring his knee at all. I'm willing to concede that he had a knee problem, but to elevate that to something that it's not is what I have a problem with. I played competitive sports in my youth, rugby, sprinting, tennis, squash and a few others, there were many times where I had a niggle that didn't stop me from competing near or even at my best. Once the match is over and the adrenaline is gone, the pain can be much worse. Particularly when you lose. But I'm not even making that claim here. All I've said is that it's not unreasonable that between RG and Wimbledon he could have found himself genuinely injured to such an extent he was unable to compete. Why this is outrageous I simply can't understand. Once again... I repeat... I saw no sign of impairment in his movement in that match. He lost to a guy having a career day, for the life of me I can't understand the need to diminish what Soderling achieved.

 

[Federberg]

I think we've reached a point where it's the Federer fans who tend to bring up his injuries, and accuse us lot as using them for excuses. He does get injured, you can't say that's not true. There have been a lot of wonky ones, like the back in 2014 and odd wrist and his fecking appendix. But 2015 and 2016 were a lot about loss of form and confidence, and being out-gunned by Djokovic, (and Fabio, and lots of other people.)

The contrary evidence is that Nadal's knees were deteriorating well-before 2009 RG. I'm expecting that you believe that he has tendonitis, which is degenerative. After his loss to Soderling he was forced to stop playing for 3 months, due to his knees. I don't know what you think happened between that loss and the grass season if the knees weren't bad. Sure, losing to RS at RG was a shocking loss, and I'm sure he took it hard. And the fact of his parents splitting up hit him hard...he's admitted that. However, I think we're, most of us, about to agree that Nadal's knees were bad by May 2009. I absolutely don't say it's the only reason Nadal lost to Soderling that day. And I'm fine if you think that isn't at all the reason he lost. I just don't know how you can say he didn't have knee problems at that period in time.

I don't recall ever saying he didn't have knee problems. I have however stated several times, that I saw no signs of impaired movement in that match. The decisive factor for me in that match was his inability to maintain a good length on his rally shots. You accuse the rest of us of constantly bringing up the injury excuse... I feel like this is some sort of twilight zone deal. You keep saying his knees were a factor in his loss, it might make you feel better to think so, frankly if the player I support loses I don't give a flying F why he's lost, so I really don't get the reason you cling to this excuse. But it's really much simpler than this for me. I watched the match... several times. I didn't see Rafa limping around or unable to move as well in one direction or the other (which would be a key observation for me btw), what I saw was Rafa getting punished time and again for hitting short balls in a way I had never seen at RG. It was a once in a blue moon event. Let it go...

 

[Moxie]

I don't recall ever saying he didn't have knee problems. I have however stated several times, that I saw no signs of impaired movement in that match. The decisive factor for me in that match was his inability to maintain a good length on his rally shots. You accuse the rest of us of constantly bringing up the injury excuse... I feel like this is some sort of twilight zone deal. You keep saying his knees were a factor in his loss, it might make you feel better to think so, frankly if the player I support loses I don't give a flying F why he's lost, so I really don't get the reason you cling to this excuse. But it's really much simpler than this for me. I watched the match... several times. I didn't see Rafa limping around or unable to move as well in one direction or the other (which would be a key observation for me btw), what I saw was Rafa getting punished time and again for hitting short balls in a way I had never seen at RG. It was a once in a blue moon event. Let it go...

Ok, your position was that you'll never believe that he was impaired in that match. (Which you managed to say in caps, bolded and in extra large type,) though you're willing to believe that he was carrying the knee injury that sidelined him for 3 months. Fine, if that's what you believe. What I believe is that a lot of things came together to create that loss, and the main one, two and three were how Robin played. I've also said that I did let it go a long time ago. What I have been trying to get folks to admit (and also Broken, I think,) in this particular iteration of the argument is that Rafa was carrying an injury in the knees, and that we're not looking to "excuse" that loss, or put an asterisk on it. I don't. Anyway, I think we've gotten as close as we're going to, and I'm ready to move onto another argument in the Fedal Wars.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why is that outrageous. I didn't see him limping around or favouring his knee at all. I'm willing to concede that he had a knee problem, but to elevate that to something that it's not is what I have a problem with. I played competitive sports in my youth, rugby, sprinting, tennis, squash and a few others, there were many times where I had a niggle that didn't stop me from competing near or even at my best. Once the match is over and the adrenaline is gone, the pain can be much worse. Particularly when you lose. But I'm not even making that claim here. All I've said is that it's not unreasonable that between RG and Wimbledon he could have found himself genuinely injured to such an extent he was unable to compete. Why this is outrageous I simply can't understand. Once again... I repeat... I saw no sign of impairment in his movement in that match. He lost to a guy having a career day, for the life of me I can't understand the need to diminish what Soderling achieved.

Limping? Is that seriously the criterion to someone having an injury? If a tennis player is limping there's almost literally no chance for them to step on the court. I understand why you'd say that though, as some Nadal fans have tended to sensationalize the injury over the years, but if you've read this thread, nobody is seriously suggesting that here. I'm talking about knee discomfort that may have impacted his movement, not a severe injury which kept him limping.

 

[Moxie]

Here's a question for Fedal fans, based on a comment by @El Dude on the Ranking Thread, which I don't want to derail. He said we Fedal fans are lucky, and we are, to still be arguing about them in the present tense, as I had mentioned. My question is: how long has this been going on? It could be a two-parter. When did the rivalry start? When did the Fedal Wars start? May not be the same answer.

 

[atttomole]

It depends on who you are talking to. For the journalists, I remember in late 2004, there was a piece on CNN International in which they were talking about how Nadal exuded confidence, and that he was a juggernaut who was going to give Roger a run for his money. They were dead on.

For the fans, I think it was when Nadal beat Roger in the Italian Open final epic, and then going on to beat him again at RG a few weeks later. At that time, Roger was already being touted as the best player to ever pickup a racket. People were excited because there was someone who could stop him from winning a calendar year grand slam. Someone that could expose a few of Roger's weaknesses, in particular the backhand. I remember people were saying that Roger was going to find countermeasures to deal with Nadal is lefty spin.

 

[Moxie]

Good points, but I think you're on the early side...obviously you were paying attention. I did think about the Italian Open in 2006. Maybe that did fix the rivalry. On the heels of a 5-set MC final. I know @mrzz has wondered how things might have gone differently had Roger won that match in Italy, and he had MPs, I think. That led to the RG final, and the W final, so surely they were fixed as a rivalry by then. I think the Fedal wars began after that Wimbledon. So, coming on 12 years. That's quite a run.

 

[mrzz]

I know you know that, @Moxie, but just to clarify is not that I think that if that attempted winner on match point at Rome had landed in (it was an inch out at most), Federer would go on to dominate Nadal everywhere including clay. Far, far away from that.

I could go on and describe what I really think -- I was doing just that, stopped and deleted, because it is pointless. The world does not need another Federer eulogy, specially a what-if one. Federer is so fortunate in many different ways that a little not-that-good luck in a close match is not exactly a giant cosmic injustice.

 

[Moxie]

You're right. I don't think that match would have changed the dynamic, and it isn't seemly to whine over Roger's losses, anyway. But to topic, I think Rome might be where you peg the rivalry. Anyway, this period of 2006, through Wimbledon.

 

[Moxie]

Well I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "prime." With Roger you have a bunch of career phases:

1998-2000: Up and comer
2001-03: Near elite, moving into prime
2004-07: Peak
2008-12: First post-peak plateau
2013: Struggle year
2014-15: Second plateau
2016: Second struggle year
2017-?: Third plateau/resurgence

Some consider only 2004-07 to be Roger's prime, but I'd just call that his peak whereas his prime probably extends from his first Slam in 2003 to the present. But he's not the same player he was at his peak; he might be as good in a given match or tournament, but not over the course of a whole season.

What remains unclear is how the present resurgence compares to his earlier late prime plateaus...the eyeball test says that he's a better player, but the elephant in the room is the lack of peak Novak. If Novak had been struggling in 2014-15, Roger has 2-3 more Slam titles. A peak Novak in 2017? Not sure Roger takes home two Slams - maybe one, same with Rafa. Also, if you remember, I got a lot of crap for pointing out that Roger's record in 2017-18 is very similar to his non-clay record in 2014-15. I know the eyeball test shows a better player, but I think the lack of clay and peak Novak accentuates Roger's resurgence a bit.

Anyhow, most Fedal fans like to downplay Novak as the distant third in the triumvirate, but at his best (2011, 2015) and for his extended peak (2011-16), he was about as good as Fedal at their respective bests.

I can probably live with his peak being 2004-07, though I have always had a bit of an objection to the fact that his fall from peak coincides with Rafa coming on to peak. It always seems a covert diss to Rafa to say that, when he came into his own it might just be a bit because Roger came down off the mountain. It doesn't allow for the notion that Roger came down off of his peak in part because Rafa was stepping over him.

That said, I don't really understand how we really classify the rest of post-peak. I see your plateaus and whatnot, but your fellow travelers in Fed fandom think nothing of calling Roger "geriatric" when it suits them, in the intervening, what?...11 years? I do get that 2013 was particularly poor, which can happen, as 2015 was for Rafa. Is your notion that Roger is generally lower level than his peak, but can, most years, maintain a still pretty high level, compared to the field?

Also, I do take your point about Djokovic's absence contributing to the re-surgence and success of both Roger and Rafa. I personally will say I don't consider him a "distant third." That's not fair. I would only say that, for reasons we've all gone on about, he's a "third-wheel" in a historic rivalry. That's not his fault. I don't think he'll catch either of them, but he has been amazing in this Golden Era. He's not far behind.