The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[brokenshoelace]

Not sure anyone has to be insecure about the popularity & marketability of Nole in comparison to Fedal! He's never been in the discussion, even when he was owning it like no other for a couple seasons! Like Navratilova before him as a reigning #1, the advertising dollars and adoration went somewhere else; mostly to Evert! There was no mistaking it and few had any illusions of why it was happening! Fedal was coined making it easier to bring in fans who didn't play the game; putting them up on a pedestal before they actually earned it as well! Their rivalry was supposed to be the talk of legend even though Roger was scratching to even beat Rafa on grass! I got caught up in it too; actually helping to make excuses for Roger not winning a match! Rafa made for an easy target with a hideously ugly game, gaming his opponents since he was a kid, made the world play at his speed, and to this day probably feels no shame in matches he may have actually stolen one way or another!

Funny Djokovic has a winning record over Fedal IIRC and got them in their prime when they owned the tour! Nole, like Lendl before him had to overcome the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, & Wilander, and never got or will get the love! He's more settled and happy more than likely, so that hunger may have left him for the time being! He also has had his physical issues to overcome he finally exploded in 2011, winning just about everything! That wasn't enough, his 2015 season was even better taking 3 majors, 6 Masters (reached 8 of 8 finals), and capped it with a YEC! Owning the Nole-Slam sets him apart even though he'll probably wind up short in MAJORS! I can't imagine why I'd have an inferiority complex as evidenced by Homage to the Serb listed in the signature! I'm quite proud of him and will help to keep him in the discussion if only vicariously close to the inevitable GOATS! End RANT! o_O :sleep:

Djokovic got Federer in his prime? He didn't turn the h2h around until very recently, when Roger was way past 30.

Also the irony in wondering why someone would be insecure about Novak's legacy before making some of the claims you just did is amazing.

 

[Moxie]

Not sure anyone has to be insecure about the popularity & marketability of Nole in comparison to Fedal! He's never been in the discussion, even when he was owning it like no other for a couple seasons! Like Navratilova before him as a reigning #1, the advertising dollars and adoration went somewhere else; mostly to Evert! There was no mistaking it and few had any illusions of why it was happening! Fedal was coined making it easier to bring in fans who didn't play the game; putting them up on a pedestal before they actually earned it as well! Their rivalry was supposed to be the talk of legend even though Roger was scratching to even beat Rafa on grass! I got caught up in it too; actually helping to make excuses for Roger not winning a match! Rafa made for an easy target with a hideously ugly game, gaming his opponents since he was a kid, made the world play at his speed, and to this day probably feels no shame in matches he may have actually stolen one way or another!

Funny Djokovic has a winning record over Fedal IIRC and got them in their prime when they owned the tour! Nole, like Lendl before him had to overcome the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, & Wilander, and never got or will get the love! He's more settled and happy more than likely, so that hunger may have left him for the time being! He also has had his physical issues to overcome he finally exploded in 2011, winning just about everything! That wasn't enough, his 2015 season was even better taking 3 majors, 6 Masters (reached 8 of 8 finals), and capped it with a YEC! Owning the Nole-Slam sets him apart even though he'll probably wind up short in MAJORS! I can't imagine why I'd have an inferiority complex as evidenced by Homage to the Serb listed in the signature! I'm quite proud of him and will help to keep him in the discussion if only vicariously close to the inevitable GOATS! End RANT! o_O :sleep:

The notion that Fedal didn't earn it is ridiculous. It's a great rivalry and they fought each other hard for it. Your opinion that Nadal's game is ugly is yours, or that he ever 'stole' anything. You pretend to be a long-time fan of tennis, but you cannot, for whatever reason, appreciate one of its greatest champions. That's you, fine, but I can't respect it.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger isn’t much more talented Rafa..I would compare it to MJ and Kobe..there’s not a damn thing MJ could do on the basketball court than Kobe..as a matter of fact , Kobe was able to perfect MJ’s turn around fade back jumper to the right..However Kobe took it to another level, Kobe perfected to the left side for his fade away..Getting back to Fedal, Roger has a better serve , that’s a no brained..Rafa is a better mover and can cover more court areas. Roger has a very excellent net game and Rafa has improved to one of the best volleyers in the game. I don’t give any credence to monied because he is limited in his tennis strategic knowledge but Darth you know better,.you don’t get a pass.,Darth, the reason you hate uncle Toni because he was the Architect of the masterplan that defeated Roger where he was deemed untouchable, the grass..That’s pure bullshit saying Rafa isn’t as talented, it takes talent to defeat Roger in his prime at Wimbledon. Rafa did it even before he reached his prime and it’s about damn time you and others acknowledge it.,Ask El Dude, he may not have Nadal as his preferred champion but he is brutally honest and fair, it’s an admirable trait my friend.

Kobe did everything MJ did and he was either way worse or slightly worse at them all aside from 3 point shooting. He was always MJ-lite.

Rafa is basically a mini-LeBron of tennis. Their physicality inherently gives them a huge leg up over the competition. I don't even need to go into Bron but with Rafa it's not just the otherworldly spin, it's the fact he can play the way he does for hours on end, day after day and mostly year after year.

I'd end the comparison between LeBron and Rafa there as far as talent goes, Rafa for much of his career was just spin and wheels and unrelenting intensity. Now even my hater-ass has to admit he's improved in a lot of areas and he's more of a great all around tennis player, not just a superior athlete.

But the Wimbledon 08 talk is silly. Rafa fans like you want to act like Roger was lights out that match or even for most of it. It's a joke, the guy won 65 straight on grass coming in. Here's a news flash, he was probably subpar in many of them. Subpar for Roger on grass was still way too much for 99% to handle back then. There is very little Roger did right that match, but it was a brilliant match. Roger at his best on grass simply beats any Rafa on grass. The reverse on clay of course and easier in Rafa's favor

 

[brokenshoelace]

But the Wimbledon 08 talk is silly. Rafa fans like you want to act like Roger was lights out that match or even for most of it.

Who claims that? None of these guys ever lose when they're lights out, let alone Roger on grass.

 

[Moxie]

Who claims that? None of these guys ever lose when they're lights out, let alone Roger on grass.

I'd ask the same. I've said that Roger started slow in that match.

 

[DarthFed]

I've heard both of you talk about how great Roger was that match and AP, Kieran, MikeOne and others were worse.

 

[Moxie]

Rafa for much of his career was just spin and wheels and unrelenting intensity. Now even my hater-ass has to admit he's improved in a lot of areas and he's more of a great all around tennis player, not just a superior athlete.

But the Wimbledon 08 talk is silly. Rafa fans like you want to act like Roger was lights out that match or even for most of it. It's a joke, the guy won 65 straight on grass coming in. Here's a news flash, he was probably subpar in many of them. Subpar for Roger on grass was still way too much for 99% to handle back then. There is very little Roger did right that match, but it was a brilliant match. Roger at his best on grass simply beats any Rafa on grass. The reverse on clay of course and easier in Rafa's favor

While I appreciate your magnanimity on Nadal's improvements, I don't think he was just "spin and wheels and unrelenting intensity" for much of his career. You've always sold him short, but OK.

I've heard both of you talk about how great Roger was that match and AP, Kieran, MikeOne and others were worse.

Roger was, in many ways, great in that match. Lights out, no. But he didn't play crap. Far from it. Your problem is that you believe whole-heartedly that Roger on grass should beat Nadal on grass. You therefore think that Roger must have been poor, or else how could Rafa have won? That's a very narrow way of looking at that match, and we both know that you've never watched it again. It was a long and complicated match. To think that Roger didn't play brilliantly at many points would be to have it wrong. Obviously, Rafa played the key ones better, but it was a tight match. I know you'll never believe that Roger played well in that match, but the rest of the world saw a thriller, with many brilliant points from both.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think Roger was pretty sub-par for the first two sets at that final in 2008, but then kicked it up a few gears and his forehand and serve were really clicking in the final 3 sets (the backhand much less so). This is purely from a technical aspect. The greatness of the match itself though, is a different issue. The drama, the stakes, the big moments, the shot-making on key points...all of this is undeniable.

This seems like a reasonable take. My friend Darth would probably still disagree but I guess 10 years is not enough for us to find common grounds on this one.

 

[Moxie]

I've always said that Roger was a bit listless in the first two sets, even if, point-to-point, there were good ones. As a match, it never lagged.

 

[DarthFed]

He was more than sub par in the first two sets, he was an abomination and the sets ended up being a walk in the park for Nadal. Roger played a great tiebreak in the 3rd and then took advantage of Nadal choking in the 4th set TB after he had been awful in falling down 5-2. And if the match ended there as it should've we'd be talking about a very forgettable 4 set match. But Roger hit a couple nice shots to save the match, then played a very underwhelming 5th set and people act like he was incredible. It was a match with 400+ points so of course there was brilliance. But much like the rest of 2008 Roger was inconsistent and at times unrecognizable. With the difference in serve it's easy to see just how badly Rafa manhandled him from the baseline in that match.

 

[monfed]

There wouldn't be a "war" if Nadal fans simply accepted Fed as their GOAT and saviour and recognized that Federer is simply the better tennis player.

The real "war" is between Fed and Laver, always has been.

 

[Horsa]

There wouldn't be a "war" if Nadal fans simply accepted Fed as their GOAT and saviour and recognized that Federer is simply the better tennis player.

The real "war" is between Fed and Laver, always has been.

There wouldn't be a war if both sides accepted the others to have a different opinion & agreed to disagree either. Aristotle said "you can entertain a thought without accepting it".

 

[brokenshoelace]

He was more than sub par in the first two sets, he was an abomination and the sets ended up being a walk in the park for Nadal..

This is legit Donald Trump talk. What you said is literally false. In fact, Nadal was down 1-4 in the second set at one point, so while you will surely claim that this means Fed "was an abomination" (how else would Rafa break twice to win it), the sets were both anything but a walk in the park. Federer was sub par. An abomination would have gotten him his ass handed to him worse, even on grass.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Omg, just realized Darth said Roger played an underwhelming fifth set. Yeah, OK, so about my point re: the arrogance of Roger fans... exhibit A.

 

[mrzz]

I just could stop bu after a long while and this is the first and only thread I could take a look. All I say is that I never ever ever saw nobody make half a decent point buy making an analogy to a different sport. All you can do is to diverse the topic.

And god forbid I ever take a look at the football thread. I can only wonder the sort of attrocities you guys must be saying.

 

[DarthFed]

This is legit Donald Trump talk. What you said is literally false. In fact, Nadal was down 1-4 in the second set at one point, so while you will surely claim that this means Fed "was an abomination" (how else would Rafa break twice to win it), the sets were both anything but a walk in the park. Federer was sub par. An abomination would have gotten him his ass handed to him worse, even on grass.

I'm well aware he was down 4-1 and then he easily ripped off 5 games. Both are 6-4 sets, hardly difficult on grass and Fed was broken left and right the first 2 sets. It was shockingly easy.

As for set 5...LOL. Did you see Fed's supposedly amazing forehand go missing when it was critical. Did you see the point he was broken on and the match point he lost. Let me guess, he was phenomenal and it was the best set ever played?

 

[Fiero425]

I'm well aware he was down 4-1 and then he easily ripped off 5 games. Both are 6-4 sets, hardly difficult on grass and Fed was broken left and right the first 2 sets. It was shockingly easy.

As for set 5...LOL. Did you see Fed's supposedly amazing forehand go missing when it was critical. Did you see the point he was broken on and the match point he lost. Let me guess, he was phenomenal and it was the best set ever played?

That FH can be wild at times! Roger had more than a few wayward forehands today under little or no pressure! Paire really stretched him and had a couple MP's when he had never taken a set off Federer before today! I see Roger as being a little vulnerable at Wimbledon although favored! I have little faith about him being able to sustain that level of play from last season; hence my early prediction that he wouldn't repeat at the earliest Masters in March! He almost made a liar out of me making final in IW before Del Po won it! Roger has time to get it together, but his play today won't beat big servers OTTH like Kyrgios, Isner, or Querrey! :whistle:

 

[Front242]

That FH can be wild at times! Roger had more than a few wayward forehands today under little or no pressure! Paire really stretched him and had a couple MP's when he had never taken a set off Federer before today! I see Roger as being a little vulnerable at Wimbledon although favored! I have little faith about him being able to sustain that level of play from last season; hence my early prediction that he wouldn't repeat at the earliest Masters in March! He almost made a liar out of me making final in IW before Del Po won it! Roger has time to get it together, but his play today won't beat big servers OTTH like Kyrgios, Isner, or Querrey! :whistle:

Good thing then I guess that the chances of any of those 3 making it far enough to meet him are close to zero.

 

[Moxie]

I'm well aware he was down 4-1 and then he easily ripped off 5 games. Both are 6-4 sets, hardly difficult on grass and Fed was broken left and right the first 2 sets. It was shockingly easy.

As for set 5...LOL. Did you see Fed's supposedly amazing forehand go missing when it was critical. Did you see the point he was broken on and the match point he lost. Let me guess, he was phenomenal and it was the best set ever played?

Darth, you are completely bi-polar when it comes to discussing Roger's losses. It's either abominable, or Broken must be saying that Roger was sterling and got beat anyway. Broken is right that your approach to that match, and much of Roger's play, is arrogant: no way that Rafa could have done so well if Roger wasn't dreck. That he won the first two sets "easily." And, hey, I thought you'd never re-watched that match. Don't tell me you have a good memory...it was a long and complicated match, plus it was 10 years ago. Late in the 5th, Rafa had broken down Roger's shoulder, I can tell you that. It explains the tired shot into the net on MP. It also explains the giant ice bag on Fed's shoulder while he was waiting for the trophy ceremony. (Something that doesn't seem to make it onto any highlights or videos, probably out of deference.) As I have mentioned before, the entire world thinks that was a great match, and that they both played well enough to make it so. Roger wasn't his best at every moment, and Rafa got tentative in the 4th set TB. Momentum will shift, but the level was never low on either side. There was no 6-1 set. Even you just above conceded that there was some brilliance, which was new from you. If you could take off your Fed goggles long enough, you could see that it was a well-played and compelling match. But you won't. If Roger lost to Nadal on grass, he must have sucked. Your brain (or, more likely, ego) won't admit any other possibility. However, that's not the match that everyone else watched.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Darth, you are completely bi-polar when it comes to discussing Roger's losses. It's either abominable, or Broken must be saying that Roger was sterling and got beat anyway. Broken is right that your approach to that match, and much of Roger's play, is arrogant: no way that Rafa could have done so well if Roger wasn't dreck. That he won the first two sets "easily." And, hey, I thought you'd never re-watched that match. Don't tell me you have a good memory...it was a long and complicated match, plus it was 10 years ago. Late in the 5th, Rafa had broken down Roger's shoulder, I can tell you that. It explains the tired shot into the net on MP. It also explains the giant ice bag on Fed's shoulder while he was waiting for the trophy ceremony. (Something that doesn't seem to make it onto any highlights or videos, probably out of deference.) As I have mentioned before, the entire world thinks that was a great match, and that they both played well enough to make it so. Roger wasn't his best at every moment, and Rafa got tentative in the 4th set TB. Momentum will shift, but the level was never low on either side. There was no 6-1 set. Even you just above conceded that there was some brilliance, which was new from you. If you could take off your Fed goggles long enough, you could see that it was a well-played and compelling match. But you won't. If Roger lost to Nadal on grass, he must have sucked. Your brain (or, more likely, ego) won't admit any other possibility. However, that's not the match that everyone else watched.

if Saint Peter told Darth the only way to get inside pearly gates of Heaven is that he has to admit Rafa outplayed Roger's at his best especially breaking down Roger's bh, Darth would tell him to F off.