The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[DarthFed]

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.

I've never said otherwise. I just think the narrative is laughable at times with certain Rafa and Nole fans propping up Roger's play...when he loses. It's kind of funny that fans with an obvious vested interest in Roger failing like to act as experts on Fed's play in a given match. Same deal with them trying to tell us Roger had great seasons in weak as hell years such as 2014, 2015, and even 2011.

As for Wimbledon 2008 it's hard to reconcile the idea that Roger is the greatest grass court player ever and then turn around and say he played well for his standards in what was almost a blowout 3 set loss and then what was almost a fairly easy 4 set loss. If that match was him playing well then he ain't so great.

 

[Moxie]

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.

I realize you haven't. That bit was for GSM, who still has questions about it. I don't know about a "ton" of errors by Roger in the 5th, but I was surprised he didn't take his momentum into the 5th. Watching the match live, I thought it was over when he won the 4th set TB. I thought it would be a rerun of 2007. Like Broken, I thought Roger played well in the 5th. Even after Rafa broke him. It was a competitive 5th set.

 

[DarthFed]

I realize you haven't. That bit was for GSM, who still has questions about it. I don't know about a "ton" of errors by Roger in the 5th, but I was surprised he didn't take his momentum into the 5th. Watching the match live, I thought it was over when he won the 4th set TB. I thought it would be a rerun of 2007. Like Broken, I thought Roger played well in the 5th. Even after Rafa broke him. It was a competitive 5th set.

Yeah he played so well to hold serve 7 out of 8 games and only threatened Rafa's mediocre serve in one game. The reward was an embarrassing loss and an ugly dinner plate. Well we won't agree on anything, that's for sure.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah he played so well to hold serve 7 out of 8 games and only threatened Rafa's mediocre serve in one game. The reward was an embarrassing loss and an ugly dinner plate. Well we won't agree on anything, that's for sure.

Why should that change now? At least you've deigned to recognize that the rest of the world thinks that was a great match. It's unfair to expect more.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I realize you haven't. That bit was for GSM, who still has questions about it. I don't know about a "ton" of errors by Roger in the 5th, but I was surprised he didn't take his momentum into the 5th. Watching the match live, I thought it was over when he won the 4th set TB. I thought it would be a rerun of 2007. Like Broken, I thought Roger played well in the 5th. Even after Rafa broke him. It was a competitive 5th set.

The new doc on that match will be released on TTC. I won't have a chance to watch it as I don't have TTC. But, without knowing anything about the doc, I bet that there will be a mention that at the end of the match it was pitch dark. If they think it was just dark and the same for both players, they would not even bother to mention it. This is what I mean when I say there will always be a lingering dissatisfaction in the way that match was conducted.

However, it is not Rafa's fault that the match was played in darkness and also it is not Rafa's fault that Fed sucked for considerable parts (especially early on). So, Rafa fully deserves the victory, even though I am personally unhappy that such an important match ended up with players playing in suboptimal conditions.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is what Brad Gilbert says about the match. It is verbatim taken from tennis.com's hype building exercise for the new documentary.
The emphasis are mine though.

"I was slightly leaning toward Fed to win, but was just hoping for a good match. Then Rafa comes out and wins the first two sets, and I’m thinking this is going to be over in a hurry. I think it was the third-set tiebreaker where Fed ripped off a couple of winners, the crowd erupted, and I had this feeling, “Strap in.” From there it was a great match.

It’s hard to play a high-level match on grass because it’s a tricky surface. But both Fed and Rafa slugged back and forth with huge swings, and got to so many balls that no one else would have come close to. In that small arena, where the ball echoes, the match had a heavyweight-fight feel. It might not have been their best match, quality-wise, but it was about 50 times better than any match on grass I’d seen.

But this one was about the drama. There were rain delays, which we don’t have on Centre Court anymore; it was the last year without the roof. It got to be 7:30, 8:30 p.m., getting darker, and I’m saying, “Are they going to get this in? Are they going to restart this so late?” It was sweaty-palm time."

This is exactly what I had been saying too. The match was a classic because of the drama, importance, momentum changes etc. Not because of the actual quality of play. He says it was a great match from the third set TB onwards. In other words, about 60% of the match was not great. Further, he clearly says it is probably not their best match in terms of quality. Also, he admits it is all about drama.

A match is a classic when both players play well simultaneously for the most part even though one of them has to win eventually.
This match is certainly not a classic in terms of quality.

 

[Moxie]

The new doc on that match will be released on TTC. I won't have a chance to watch it as I don't have TTC. But, without knowing anything about the doc, I bet that there will be a mention that at the end of the match it was pitch dark. If they think it was just dark and the same for both players, they would not even bother to mention it. This is what I mean when I say there will always be a lingering dissatisfaction in the way that match was conducted.

However, it is not Rafa's fault that the match was played in darkness and also it is not Rafa's fault that Fed sucked for considerable parts (especially early on). So, Rafa fully deserves the victory, even though I am personally unhappy that such an important match ended up with players playing in suboptimal conditions.

I hear your point and I can see why it's fair. What you're saying is not just "level playing field," but normal level playing field. And so now I see why you made the comparison to the RG final in '12, when it was raining. (There it did seem to go on a bit too long in the rain. I was OK with seeing out the set, but into the next I thought that was too much.) I've always just argued for the match as it was played. And it was pretty tight on the edge of darkness. (I don't think you'll get satisfaction with "pitch dark," though.) But Federberg is the guy who lives there, and he said it was too dark. I have said that when it became too dark for Hawkeye to work, maybe they should have stopped. However, at 7-7, according to Wertheim's book, (yes, I have it,) the tournament directors decided that only 2 more games would be played. He refers to it as "progressing dusk," and notes that camera operators and stills photographers changed lenses to accommodate "fading light." The next game was long. It took Nadal 4 break points to get the job done. Obviously the tournament directors were on the edge of what they'd bargained for (a finish on Sunday,) but when Rafa broke, then had to let it play out. Wertheim also says that it was during the trophy ceremony when "dusk morphed into full-on darkness."

Obviously, if they'd quit at 7-7 and come back the next day, anything could have happened. The tournament directors rolled the dice. As far as they're concerned, I'm sure, they came up aces. But I do, to some extent, hear your argument.

 

[Moxie]

Here is what Brad Gilbert says about the match. It is verbatim taken from tennis.com's hype building exercise for the new documentary.
The emphasis are mine though.

"I was slightly leaning toward Fed to win, but was just hoping for a good match. Then Rafa comes out and wins the first two sets, and I’m thinking this is going to be over in a hurry. I think it was the third-set tiebreaker where Fed ripped off a couple of winners, the crowd erupted, and I had this feeling, “Strap in.” From there it was a great match.

It’s hard to play a high-level match on grass because it’s a tricky surface. But both Fed and Rafa slugged back and forth with huge swings, and got to so many balls that no one else would have come close to. In that small arena, where the ball echoes, the match had a heavyweight-fight feel. It might not have been their best match, quality-wise, but it was about 50 times better than any match on grass I’d seen.

But this one was about the drama. There were rain delays, which we don’t have on Centre Court anymore; it was the last year without the roof. It got to be 7:30, 8:30 p.m., getting darker, and I’m saying, “Are they going to get this in? Are they going to restart this so late?” It was sweaty-palm time."

This is exactly what I had been saying too. The match was a classic because of the drama, importance, momentum changes etc. Not because of the actual quality of play. He says it was a great match from the third set TB onwards. In other words, about 60% of the match was not great. Further, he clearly says it is probably not their best match in terms of quality. Also, he admits it is all about drama.

A match is a classic when both players play well simultaneously for the most part even though one of them has to win eventually.
This match is certainly not a classic in terms of quality.

He also said, "it was about 50 times better than any match on grass I'd seen." When he said "Strap in," is about where we all did. The first two sets weren't terrible, but we knew that Roger wasn't top drawer. Everyone who matters has said that. I went for a short run during the first rain delay, and did a quick forage for provisions. Then I thought, "This could almost be over," so I rushed home. And that's when the match really turned into a classic. But it wasn't a dud before. It's nearly impossible that a long 5-set match will be brilliance on both sides for every point. But this one was pretty closely contested and the highlight reel nearly surpasses the length of whole matches. The 1980 final, previously considered the greatest match went 6-1 in the first to McEnroe. I thought that was a thrilling match. You might prefer Safin d Federer for sustained intensity (AO SF 2005,) but even that wasn't without its lulls, Safin being Safin. But for sure the '08 Wimbledon had the best dramatic set-up.

 

[Federberg]

I agree that the quality of the tennis in the 5th set wasn't terrible. Roger played fine, I just don't think he was able to cope with the dark as well as Rafa. And in a way that's not surprising given the spin Rafa puts on the ball. I've always been of the belief that one of the main ingredients that made this match so great is the fact that a seemingly dominant champion was finally chased down by his greatest rival

 

[Front242]

The number of pages in this thread is now almost the same as Roger's number of unforced errors in that 2008 Wimbledon final. 52 unforced errors for Federer v 27 for Nadal. Hard to play a great match when you make 52 unforced errors and roughly double your opponent. That should really be the giveaway when people try and describe that performance as great. It wasn't.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The number of pages in this thread is now almost the same as Roger's number of unforced errors in that 2008 Wimbledon final. 52 unforced errors for Federer v 27 for Nadal. Hard to play a great match when you make 52 unforced errors and roughly double your opponent. That should really be the giveaway when people try and describe that performance as great. It wasn't.

While I agree that start to finish, it wasn't a particularly clean match from Roger (the firs two sets in particular) this is a misleading stat devoid of context. First of all, everyone is going to make far fewer unforced errors than Nadal. So comparing their respective numbers in that regard is silly, as Roger has to go for far more than Rafa does due to the nature of the match-up, especially at the time. Secondly, it's convenient you didn't mention Roger's winners count, which is typically how unforced errors are assessed (winners to UE ratio). For the record, he had 89 winners. That's +37, which is higher than Nadal's +33 (not that Rafa relies on flat out winners as much).

Also, I agree that the performance couldn't be qualified as great. I've said this a hundred times: When the absolute elite play "great" they win. Period. A Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic playing great literally cannot be beaten, because when they're playing great, they're stopping the other guy from playing great. There might be exceptions here and there but those are soooooooo rare. More common is two players playing very well at the same time for patches in a match, making it a classic. I think for example, the 4th set tie-break of that Wimbledon final could be qualified as such, as well as some games in the fifth. But overall, probably not. Doesn't make it any less of a classic since that match was never strictly about tennis quality from a technical aspect.

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, Roger served at 65% for the match, had 25 aces, won 73% of his first serve points, and 57% of his second serve points, with only 2 double faults. So I have no idea where this sub-par serving nonsense came from. He served very well. It's what kept him in the match.

 

[DarthFed]

By the way, Roger served at 65% for the match, had 25 aces, won 73% of his first serve points, and 57% of his second serve points, with only 2 double faults. So I have no idea where this sub-par serving nonsense came from. He served very well. It's what kept him in the match.

73% winning on first serve points is very poor. 65% in is usually his average on grass and 25 aces with that many service points (close to 200) is pretty ordinary. He served average for his standards. I don't think anyone has said his serve was bad that match but judging by his standards which is all we are doing, it was an average day. Some may say slightly disappointing since he was broken a shit ton but I think that's more about how badly he was beaten from the baseline. A great service performance in a loss was 2014.

 

[monfed]

I think the reason why Fed lost Wimbledon 08 is because the tide had turned. In 07, Fed still looked like the favourite even though it was close in the end. In 08 by the time Wimbledon came around, the complexion of the state of tennis if you will had changed specially after that RG 08 loss when the gap had widened.

I still maintain that Wim 08 was a mental loss for Fed. No way a normal playing Fed without mental baggage goes down 2 sets specially when he was up a break in the 2nd set.

Fed is the king of useless comebacks. So many of them, Wim 08,14, AO 09, USO etc. He is also the king of blowing matches he should never lose like USO 09. To me USO 09 is the WORST defeat of his career. He was completely in the driver's seat and he served at 39% in that 2nd set. What a total gift of a slam specially when he played amazing till the SF.

In the overall scheme, I feel Fed has let Nadal off the hook way too much more than the other way around. Last year is a perfect example of this. He had ALL the momentum after Wimbledon and having beaten Nadal all year, but his drive was shocking. He made the statement that winning 3 slams in the year would be too much. That to me says you don't have the ambition that Nadal has to chase down his record and that cost him USO. It was a major disaster and one that we hope doesn't cost him his all important record because Nadal is never going to relent specially when he sees he's only 3 behind with RG a virtual lock for another couple of years if not more.

 

[DarthFed]

08 was part mental after the RG beatdown and the fact he had done jackshit all year. It was a crisis of confidence and it showed in that match. He manned up by the middle of the third set but it ended up being too late and is certainly one of the most costly performances of his career. It is a performance that has aged very poorly as well. I mean look at Nadal on grass by the age of 26, yes he was better back then especially his movement but still, common denominator is that the cupcakes who have beaten him just take the game to him start to finish and Fed played soft for much of 2008. And look at some of Fed's performances in his early to mid 30's at Wimbledon. Bad loss on paper to say the least.

 

[monfed]

08 was part mental after the RG beatdown and the fact he had done jackshit all year. It was a crisis of confidence and it showed in that match. He manned up by the middle of the third set but it ended up being too late and is certainly one of the most costly performances of his career. It is a performance that has aged very poorly as well. I mean look at Nadal on grass by the age of 26, yes he was better back then especially his movement but still, common denominator is that the cupcakes who have beaten him just take the game to him start to finish and Fed played soft for much of 2008. And look at some of Fed's performances in his early to mid 30's at Wimbledon. Bad loss on paper to say the least.

I just wish he had kept it close. Going down 2 sets to love against Nadal on high bouncing grass of the 2nd week made it almost impossible for a comeback and even then he nearly did.

 

[Moxie]

I agree that the quality of the tennis in the 5th set wasn't terrible. Roger played fine, I just don't think he was able to cope with the dark as well as Rafa. And in a way that's not surprising given the spin Rafa puts on the ball. I've always been of the belief that one of the main ingredients that made this match so great is the fact that a seemingly dominant champion was finally chased down by his greatest rival

I don't think that either player was able to see better in the dark, but your point that Rafa's greater margin, with the spin, is well-taken. As to the upset, this is a point that has been made since the match was played. And it's not unfair to ask the question: would it have been as dramatic a match if Roger had won? In a word, no. Would it have been as great? I think yes. Would that AO SF of Fed v. Safin have been less thrilling if Roger had won? No, and I realize that the stakes weren't there. But would Borg v McEnroe have been more thrilling if Johnny Mac had pulled off the upset? It was pretty exciting, as it was. It was called the greatest match of all time before the '08 Wimbledon, and the favorite won.

 

[Moxie]

I just wish he had kept it close. Going down 2 sets to love against Nadal on high bouncing grass of the 2nd week made it almost impossible for a comeback and even then he nearly did.

Clearly he did keep it close. This is the latest installment from tennis.com.
At the end of the 4th set, they were tied at 151-151 points won. At 4-4 in the fifth, they were tied at 177-177 points won. It was a close match.

 

[monfed]

Clearly he did keep it close. This is the latest installment from tennis.com.
At the end of the 4th set, they were tied at 151-151 points won. At 4-4 in the fifth, they were tied at 177-177 points won. It was a close match.

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Going down 2 sets to love on grass is keeping it close? Man seriously does this cult have any brains?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Clearly he did keep it close. This is the latest installment from tennis.com.
At the end of the 4th set, they were tied at 151-151 points won. At 4-4 in the fifth, they were tied at 177-177 points won. It was a close match.

.......... and then they played two games in darkness which determined the winner.