The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Moxie]

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.

It's arguable that Roger was at his best, but it was his best Major. And Roger was close enough to make it a good match.

 

[DarthFed]

See what I mean? Nadal fans overstate the play in that match by a ton. Roger's stats were atrocious in most ways. His serve was average for its standards and he hit his forehand well for a couple sets. Also hit an astronomical number of UE's, 1-13 on BP's, was awful at net, etc. You guys can sell the narrative that Nadal was some grass court God, but it's simply not the case.

 

[the AntiPusher]

See what I mean? Nadal fans overstate the play in that match by a ton. Roger's stats were atrocious in most ways. His serve was average for its standards and he hit his forehand well for a couple sets. Also hit an astronomical number of UE's, 1-13 on BP's, was awful at net, etc. You guys can sell the narrative that Nadal was some grass court God, but it's simply not the case.

No one said Rafa was the 2nd coming or Sampras or even Borg. However, young Nadal tailor his game to defeat the mighty Fed.

 

[Moxie]

See what I mean? Nadal fans overstate the play in that match by a ton. Roger's stats were atrocious in most ways. His serve was average for its standards and he hit his forehand well for a couple sets. Also hit an astronomical number of UE's, 1-13 on BP's, was awful at net, etc. You guys can sell the narrative that Nadal was some grass court God, but it's simply not the case.

See what I mean? No one is saying that Nadal was a grass court God? You have to see it as completely black or white. And since you've never re-watched the match, you've only looked at the stats. We all know they don't tell the whole story. Try watching the match again.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

See what I mean? Nadal fans overstate the play in that match by a ton. Roger's stats were atrocious in most ways. His serve was average for its standards and he hit his forehand well for a couple sets. Also hit an astronomical number of UE's, 1-13 on BP's, was awful at net, etc. You guys can sell the narrative that Nadal was some grass court God, but it's simply not the case.

Roger might not have played well, especially in the first two sets. So what? It is his job to play well, especially in the final and especially when his arch-enemy is across the net. He failed. Let us leave it there.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The one thing I remember about the events surrounding the match. There was a pundit on ESPN who went on and on about how tennis is so boring and how they should change various rules to make the game interesting. I forgot his name.

But, then this match became such a big drama, the next day he had to come on air and do a mea culpa.

 

[Moxie]

Roger might not have played well, especially in the first two sets. So what? It is his job to play well, especially in the final and especially when his arch-enemy is across the net. He failed. Let us leave it there.

Leave it there because the Great One failed? What about Nadal's triumph? It's not fair of you lot to just say, "look away," as if you've actually conceded something. It was a hard fought contest and Rafa won it. He deserves his props.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Leave it there because the Great One failed? What about Nadal's triumph? It's not fair of you lot to just say, "look away," as if you've actually conceded something. It was a hard fought contest and Rafa won it. He deserves his props.

Now, you are asking for too much. As I said before, the match is both classic and not-classic. It is classic in terms of the drama, what is riding on the match, the changes in momentum etc. But, in only very small portions both played well and so it is not a classic in terms of actual play. The first two sets are definitely lost by Fed than won by Rafa. But, I might concede that the fifth set was won by a coalition of darkness and Rafa.

p.s. What I meant by my post is that I am offering no excuses for the loss of Federer.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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?

Ah, so he played two poor points in a 9-7 sets. Very underwhelming. I didn't say he was phenomenal, so easy there Donald, don't put words in my mouth. But I'm sure you understand there's a lot of adjectives that can fit between underwhelming and phenomenal.

 

[Fiero425]

Not sure, but maybe it all balances out! Roger was able to literally steal a Wimbledon title in '09! He said later that he had counted himself out, down a set and multiple set pts against him in the 2nd! But for the shakiest TB loss ever by Andy Roddick who literally donated the match that was his for the taking! He had at least 4 cons. set pts with a high BH volley at the net to close it out! Even after blowing a bunch of other chances, he was still in it until the last; not losing service until the final game in the 5th (14-16)! :cuckoo:

 

[Federberg]

Not sure, but maybe it all balances out! Roger was able to literally steal a Wimbledon title in '09! He said later that he had counted himself out, down a set and multiple set pts against him in the 2nd! But for the shakiest TB loss ever by Andy Roddick who literally donated the match that was his for the taking! He had at least 4 cons. set pts with a high BH volley at the net to close it out! Even after blowing a bunch of other chances, he was still in it until the last; not losing service until the final game in the 5th (14-16)! :cuckoo:

I always felt that way. Poor Andy. Roger really mugged him off with that one

 

[DarthFed]

Ah, so he played two poor points in a 9-7 sets. Very underwhelming. I didn't say he was phenomenal, so easy there Donald, don't put words in my mouth. But I'm sure you understand there's a lot of adjectives that can fit between underwhelming and phenomenal.

There are also a bunch of adjectives between underwhelming and how Roger played in the first two sets. But don't beat around the bush, describe Roger's performance in the 5th set. Just because it was a 9-7 set (hardly rare for grass) doesn't mean both played great.

 

[DarthFed]

I always felt that way. Poor Andy. Roger really mugged him off with that one

I thought Roger was terrible in 2009, also really bad performance in 2015 and 2004 (for his standards). That's why I bring up the fact he has often not brought a good level to Wimbledon finals for whatever reason.

 

[Federberg]

I thought Roger was terrible in 2009, also really bad performance in 2015 and 2004 (for his standards). That's why I bring up the fact he has often not brought a good level to Wimbledon finals for whatever reason.

Yes he wasn't his best in those finals. But we're so spoilt though. We get to pick amongst the whole portfolio. It's inevitable that some performances would be better than others. I don't actually think he was great in 2007 and I was there live. My abiding memory was that it felt that he was hanging on. What was different about him that year was that he was an assassin. In the 5th he did what he had to do at the key moment and then it was over. We have to accept the fact that Rafa beat him like a dog at RG in 08 and that was enough to mess with Roger's confidence to the extent that he virtually sported Rafa a 2 set lead. The fact that he almost came back to win it is a mark of what a champion he is.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There are also a bunch of adjectives between underwhelming and how Roger played in the first two sets. But don't beat around the bush, describe Roger's performance in the 5th set. Just because it was a 9-7 set (hardly rare for grass) doesn't mean both played great.

Looooooool @ Hardly rare. Please name me how many matches do you see on grass, especially between top players, get to 9-7 in the fifth. I'll wait. You have a full decade to look at.

And I didn't say Roger was underwhelming in the first two sets. I said sub-par. As far as the fifth set, he played well. That's how I would describe it, that's how HE described it, and that's how everyone who isn't you or Front would describe it. Well. Which is hardly a superlative.

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[DarthFed]

Looooooool @ Hardly rare. Please name me how many matches do you see on grass, especially between top players, get to 9-7 in the fifth. I'll wait. You have a full decade to look at.

And I didn't say Roger was underwhelming in the first two sets. I said sub-par. As far as the fifth set, he played well. That's how I would describe it, that's how HE described it, and that's how everyone who isn't you or Front would describe it. Well. Which is hardly a superlative.

This is getting ridiculous.

I'm not going to look through the last 10 Wimbledon's but for matches that got to a 5th I'd be surprised if at least 10% didn't make it to 9-7. It's not as rare as you're making it out to be. Hell the year after was 16-14 and again I don't think Roger was even decent for his standards. You seem to be implying that they both had to have played well since it was 9-7. And Roger also called the match a disaster after he was done. How bad would he have looked if he criticized his own play after that match?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm not going to look through the last 10 Wimbledon's but for matches that got to a 5th I'd be surprised if at least 10% didn't make it to 9-7. It's not as rare as you're making it out to be. Hell the year after was 16-14 and again I don't think Roger was even decent for his standards. You seem to be implying that they both had to have played well since it was 9-7. And Roger also called the match a disaster after he was done. How bad would he have looked if he criticized his own play after that match?

I'm implying Roger played well because of an observation. Has nothing to do with the score. I brought up the score because you mentioned 2 poor points. I'm saying it's a 9-7 set. Making it a LONG set. Two points in a set, no matter how crucial, cannot possibly dictate how someone played for the entirety of the set.

PS: Roger obviously was referring to the result as a disaster and you know it.
,

 

[DarthFed]

I'm implying Roger played well because of an observation. Has nothing to do with the score. I brought up the score because you mentioned 2 poor points. I'm saying it's a 9-7 set. Making it a LONG set. Two points in a set, no matter how crucial, cannot possibly dictate how someone played for the entirety of the set.

PS: Roger obviously was referring to the result as a disaster and you know it.
,

It's fine that you're saying that based on observation. But this may come as a shock to some but I'm basing what I saw on observation as well. And while stats are not everything of course, they point to a pretty poor performance in many key areas for Roger.

But the issue with Rafa fans is how defensive they get with differing views on the match. I remember Moxie having a go at it with Momo when he said Roger wasn't all that good in that match and as we know Momo wasn't a Federer fan. I also think GSM worded it a lot nicer than I did and she still jumped all over him for that. And guys like AP, Kieran and MikeOne wanted to pretend that was the best match Roger ever played

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Not sure, but maybe it all balances out! Roger was able to literally steal a Wimbledon title in '09! He said later that he had counted himself out, down a set and multiple set pts against him in the 2nd! But for the shakiest TB loss ever by Andy Roddick who literally donated the match that was his for the taking! He had at least 4 cons. set pts with a high BH volley at the net to close it out! Even after blowing a bunch of other chances, he was still in it until the last; not losing service until the final game in the 5th (14-16)! :cuckoo:

Ya, you are right. Except that I would prefer the balance coming the other way (i.e., Roger winning in 2008 and losing in 2009).

 

[the AntiPusher]

Ya, you are right. Except that I would prefer the balance coming the other way (i.e., Roger winning in 2008 and losing in 2009).

Negative GSM..things happen for a reason..