The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Fiero425]

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).

I don't like either option, but we needed Roger to get those FO & Wimbledon titles in '09 to save us from the reign of Nadal as #1! As I like to think, it all balances out with Karrna giving Del Po the will & ability to blitz Nadal in the SF and come back from the dead in the Final against Roger at the '09 USO stopping his run of 5 straight titles! The balance restored vicariously through fate! :whistle: o_O

 

[Moxie]

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.

Surely you don't have to praise Nadal, but I'm still not convinced by your observation of the match. I don't think there were only "small portions" when both played well, but that's your opinion, even though the wider world saw it differently. As to "no excuses," you did throw in darkness in the 5th. Whatever arguments there might be as to when the match should have been stopped, (and @Federberg seems to have a lot,) I don't see how that affected Federer more than Nadal. Even Federer said, "It was dark on both sides of the net."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Surely you don't have to praise Nadal, but I'm still not convinced by your observation of the match. I don't think there were only "small portions" when both played well, but that's your opinion, even though the wider world saw it differently. As to "no excuses," you did throw in darkness in the 5th. Whatever arguments there might be as to when the match should have been stopped, (and @Federberg seems to have a lot,) I don't see how that affected Federer more than Nadal. Even Federer said, "It was dark on both sides of the net."

Sure, darkness affected both players. If players X and Y, play one match in darkness and X wins and if most of the time, the same two players when there is light, if Y wins, would you say all is fine because both X and Y had dark conditions in the aforesaid first match.

Perhaps, we should start playing in rain too saying that hey it rains on both sides of the net.

 

[DarthFed]

Surely you don't have to praise Nadal, but I'm still not convinced by your observation of the match. I don't think there were only "small portions" when both played well, but that's your opinion, even though the wider world saw it differently. As to "no excuses," you did throw in darkness in the 5th. Whatever arguments there might be as to when the match should have been stopped, (and @Federberg seems to have a lot,) I don't see how that affected Federer more than Nadal. Even Federer said, "It was dark on both sides of the net."

See, anytime a Fed fan or someone else talks about it not being some incredible high-quality match you get all defensive about it. Who is the "wider world" you speak of? Rafa fans like you, writers who are Rafa fans like Tignor.

 

[Moxie]

Sure, darkness affected both players. If players X and Y, play one match in darkness and X wins and if most of the time, the same two players when there is light, if Y wins, would you say all is fine because both X and Y had dark conditions in the aforesaid first match.

Perhaps, we should start playing in rain too saying that hey it rains on both sides of the net.

Sorry, you're saying that because Roger won mostly on grass that the darkness was a variable. I don't think this formula works. You have no control for darkness. They've never played another match in those conditions. It was a variable, but there were many. Including the fact that Rafa broke late in the 5th.

 

[Moxie]

See, anytime a Fed fan or someone else talks about it not being some incredible high-quality match you get all defensive about it. Who is the "wider world" you speak of? Rafa fans like you, writers who are Rafa fans like Tignor.

I'm not defensive. Frankly, you are. Rafa fans have nothing to defend, since he won that match, other than that Federer fans keep trying to play it down as a dud, in the face of the opinion of the rest of the world. The wider world that calls that the greatest match of all time, besides Tignor, would be: Wertheim, who got a book and now a doc out of it. The NYTimes, that put it on the front page of the paper, the day after the match. The BBC. This from The Guardian, which you really should read. I could go on, but it really isn't just Rafa fans that claim it. McEnroe, who played the other best one, said it when they were walking off of the court. We didn't make it up. I'm sorry, but Federer fans try to demean it because you think it looks bad on Roger. If it pisses off Rafa fans that you lot are forever playing it down, then this would be the reason: because you down-play that match in the face of otherwise objective assessment, and you do it because you can't believe that Roger lost to Rafa on grass, particularly in his prime. It's really as simple as that.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Sorry, you're saying that because Roger won mostly on grass that the darkness was a variable. I don't think this formula works. You have no control for darkness. They've never played another match in those conditions. It was a variable, but there were many. Including the fact that Rafa broke late in the 5th.

You are saying that their H2H in grass when dark is 0-0 and so no one can say who would have won in that condition. There is a reason as to why there is no control for darkness. As you say they have not played another match in those conditions and the reason is that tennis is not supposed to be played under those conditions.

In 2012 RG final, Novak was up a break in fourth and then it rained and they stopped the match. The next day under good weather Rafa did not even let Novak win the fourth, let alone the match. If they had continued to play in the rain and Novak had won, would you say look it was raining on both sides of the court and so there is no issue here. You would certainly say, Novak had never won against Rafa at RG and so it must be the rain that was the primary factor for Rafa's loss. You would not be saying there is no control for rain.

 

[Moxie]

You are saying that their H2H in grass when dark is 0-0 and so no one can say who would have won in that condition. There is a reason as to why there is no control for darkness. As you say they have not played another match in those conditions and the reason is that tennis is not supposed to be played under those conditions.

In 2012 RG final, Novak was up a break in fourth and then it rained and they stopped the match. The next day under good weather Rafa did not even let Novak win the fourth, let alone the match. If they had continued to play in the rain and Novak had won, would you say look it was raining on both sides of the court and so there is no issue here. You would certainly say, Novak had never won against Rafa at RG and so it must be the rain that was the primary factor for Rafa's loss. You would not be saying there is no control for rain.

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water, as it were. You were trying to flash around some X & Y, which didn't really work. So now you're deflecting to rain. Which really isn't the same thing. Go back to your original: Just because Y has won so much on grass, and he played X into darkness doesn't prove that darkness was the n-factor that tilted the match. It's flawed logic. They still both played into the same glooming and it's not what tilted a 5-hour match.

As to the rain in that RG match: it was raining lightly to increasingly heavily for the whole of the 3rd set, and into the 4th, when they stopped. Because it was raining too hard. This would be comparable to if it had actually been too dark to play at the Wimbledon one. The Wimbledon match was a couple of possible games from finishing, in the closing darkness. But otherwise the conditions were fine, and that match was close to the end. This isn't even comparable to a match in the increasing rain that was far from done. That said, light rain on clay, and changing light conditions, including impending darkness are conditions that tennis players are asked to endure. And both players suffer from the same conditions.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm not defensive. Frankly, you are. Rafa fans have nothing to defend, since he won that match, other than that Federer fans keep trying to play it down as a dud, in the face of the opinion of the rest of the world. The wider world that calls that the greatest match of all time, besides Tignor, would be: Wertheim, who got a book and now a doc out of it. The NYTimes, that put it on the front page of the paper, the day after the match. The BBC. This from The Guardian, which you really should read. I could go on, but it really isn't just Rafa fans that claim it. McEnroe, who played the other best one, said it when they were walking off of the court. We didn't make it up. I'm sorry, but Federer fans try to demean it because you think it looks bad on Roger. If it pisses off Rafa fans that you lot are forever playing it down, then this would be the reason: because you down-play that match in the face of otherwise objective assessment, and you do it because you can't believe that Roger lost to Rafa on grass, particularly in his prime. It's really as simple as that.

Yes it is the greatest match of all time and that means Federer wasn't a big disappointment? Sorry but it can be both. I think it's telling that Roger in his early to mid 30's can still routinely play better than he did that day. The 2014 final was not as great yet had far higher quality. Fed may have been in his prime in 2008 but we all know what a dreadful year it was from the beginning.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Sure, darkness affected both players. If players X and Y, play one match in darkness and X wins and if most of the time, the same two players when there is light, if Y wins, would you say all is fine because both X and Y had dark conditions in the aforesaid first match.

Perhaps, we should start playing in rain too saying that hey it rains on both sides of the net.

Maybe Rafa had the moonlight following behind him towards the later stages of the match than it was for Roger.. How preposterous does that sound! The conditions were the same for both players.

 

[Front242]

Maybe Rafa had the moonlight following behind him towards the later stages of the match than it was for Roger.. How preposterous does that sound! The conditions were the same for both players.

Not true. Conditions are not the same on both sides all the time. There are many times when we can clearly see the shadow is on just one side of the court or, likewise, in daytime matches, there's often one side where it's much harder to serve when you're looking straight into the sun on the ball toss. I've seen many matches where the player who normally would want to serve first for an advantage opted not to 'cos the sunny side was making things much worse.

 

[Moxie]

Not true. Conditions are not the same on both sides all the time. There are many times when we can clearly see the shadow is on just one side of the court or, likewise, in daytime matches, there's often one side where it's much harder to serve when you're looking straight into the sun on the ball toss. I've seen many matches where the player who normally would want to serve first for an advantage opted not to 'cos the sunny side was making things much worse.

Of course, but we were only talking about the darkness in that particular match. In that case, the conditions were the same on both sides of the net.

 

[Front242]

Of course, but we were only talking about the darkness in that particular match. In that case, the conditions were the same on both sides of the net.

Either way it was too dark to play a tennis match. If it ever happens again they need stadium lights 'cos it's much darker in real life than it appeared on tv at that hour, especially when it comes to hitting lines.

 

[Moxie]

Yes it is the greatest match of all time and that means Federer wasn't a big disappointment? Sorry but it can be both. I think it's telling that Roger in his early to mid 30's can still routinely play better than he did that day. The 2014 final was not as great yet had far higher quality. Fed may have been in his prime in 2008 but we all know what a dreadful year it was from the beginning.

I've always argued that we can hold two things in our minds at the same time. And naturally was Roger was a big disappointment to you and the others of his fans in that match. I'd have to go back to see if I thought the 2014 was a higher quality from Roger. But if you're willing to understand that most saw it as the greatest, or at least one of the greatest matches they've ever watched, then I'm willing to say that Roger wasn't top drawer thoughout that match.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ahhhhh, so Roger lost because of the dark. I guess Rafa is Bane to Roger's Batman:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water, as it were. You were trying to flash around some X & Y, which didn't really work. So now you're deflecting to rain. Which really isn't the same thing. Go back to your original: Just because Y has won so much on grass, and he played X into darkness doesn't prove that darkness was the n-factor that tilted the match. It's flawed logic. They still both played into the same glooming and it's not what tilted a 5-hour match.

As to the rain in that RG match: it was raining lightly to increasingly heavily for the whole of the 3rd set, and into the 4th, when they stopped. Because it was raining too hard. This would be comparable to if it had actually been too dark to play at the Wimbledon one. The Wimbledon match was a couple of possible games from finishing, in the closing darkness. But otherwise the conditions were fine, and that match was close to the end. This isn't even comparable to a match in the increasing rain that was far from done. That said, light rain on clay, and changing light conditions, including impending darkness are conditions that tennis players are asked to endure. And both players suffer from the same conditions.

It does not matter whether a match is far from done or close to finish. A match should not be played under bad conditions. You may say that there was darkness only in the last two games and so it is not a big deal. But, you should realize that the score then was 7-7 in the 5th and they are all even. Those two games played in darkness decided the match independent of what happened before in that match and how much Roger sucked early.

The trouble is that it was a subjective decision made by the referees taking into consideration various other extraneous things. I hope they use some sort of a photometer which gives a reading of the visibility level and then stop the match when it falls below a threshold (determined apriori) in all matches. Then we don't have to complain about subjective decisions. Also, we would not see the scenario of the players debating with the referee about the conditions (one wanting to play and other not) and wasting valuable time.

Even better, I would prefer that they actually install lights in both Wimbledon and RG. Come on, all the local clubs have lighted courts. What is wrong if Wimbledon puts some lights on? Surely, putting up lights should not affect their prissiness as much as putting up a roof, which they did.

 

[Moxie]

It does not matter whether a match is far from done or close to finish. A match should not be played under bad conditions. You may say that there was darkness only in the last two games and so it is not a big deal. But, you should realize that the score then was 7-7 in the 5th and they are all even. Those two games played in darkness decided the match independent of what happened before in that match and how much Roger sucked early.

The trouble is that it was a subjective decision made by the referees taking into consideration various other extraneous things. I hope they use some sort of a photometer which gives a reading of the visibility level and then stop the match when it falls below a threshold (determined apriori) in all matches. Then we don't have to complain about subjective decisions. Also, we would not see the scenario of the players debating with the referee about the conditions (one wanting to play and other not) and wasting valuable time.

Even better, I would prefer that they actually install lights in both Wimbledon and RG. Come on, all the local clubs have lighted courts. What is wrong if Wimbledon puts some lights on? Surely, putting up lights should not affect their prissiness as much as putting up a roof, which they did.

I'm totally with you in that Wimbledon and RG should have lights. What I don't understand is how you might say that the darkness favored Nadal. What I will say is that not stopping play "favored" him after he broke Roger's serve. But they couldn't possibly have stopped the match then. That really would have been unfair, especially as he was serving 2nd in the set. I have looked up the sunset on that day. It was at the time the match finished. They were pressing as long as they could for a finish, and they got one. If Roger had broken at 7-7, and then won, would you still be crying about how dark it was? It would have been only one game shorter. I think not. You'd be telling us Nadal fans that we were making excuses, as usual, and the right man won. Federer didn't lose because it got dark. He had 5 sets and 5+ hours to make it different. He didn't.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm totally with you in that Wimbledon and RG should have lights. What I don't understand is how you might say that the darkness favored Nadal. What I will say is that not stopping play "favored" him after he broke Roger's serve. But they couldn't possibly have stopped the match then. That really would have been unfair, especially as he was serving 2nd in the set. I have looked up the sunset on that day. It was at the time the match finished. They were pressing as long as they could for a finish, and they got one. If Roger had broken at 7-7, and then won, would you still be crying about how dark it was? It would have been only one game shorter. I think not. You'd be telling us Nadal fans that we were making excuses, as usual, and the right man won. Federer didn't lose because it got dark. He had 5 sets and 5+ hours to make it different. He didn't.

Darkness does not favor anybody in particular. Darkness favors whoever gets lucky, when they take a wild swing without knowing where the ball is exactly.

I am not arguing that they should have stopped play after Rafa broke. They should have stopped play even before that. It is a shame that such a historically important match finally finished in pitch dark conditions, leading to eternally lingering dissatisfaction.

 

[Moxie]

Darkness does not favor anybody in particular. Darkness favors whoever gets lucky, when they take a wild swing without knowing where the ball is exactly.

I am not arguing that they should have stopped play after Rafa broke. They should have stopped play even before that. It is a shame that such a historically important match finally finished in pitch dark conditions, leading to eternally lingering dissatisfaction.

It wasn't pitch darkness. The match ended at sunset. With whatever likely cloud cover, I understand that it was darkening. I also understand your frustration if you feel that it was finished in less than optimal conditions. As long as you don't say that Rafa won because it was dark. One can just as easily say that he won despite the fact that it was dark. Based on their play, it didn't seem that they were flailing at the ball blindly. They still seemed to be able to produce decent tennis.

 

[DarthFed]

I never latched onto the darkness excuse. They both played under it. Roger had his own play to lament over for most of the 4 hours before darkness hit. He was a disaster for the first two sets and failed to do much of anything in set 5, aside from a ton of pathetic errors, despite having all the momentum.