The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[DarthFed]

Just to bring the conversation back to where it belongs:

This is from @GSMSampras:

Federer was sick in that Miami encounter and even considered pulling out.
The reason for that lousy head-to-head is primarily those 5 meetings in 2013-14 when Federer foolishly overplayed despite injuries and never getting an answer for Nadal on clay like Djokovic managed to do since hitting his prime in 2011.

And this from @DarthFed:

I still say the real damage was 2008. That led to the "rivalry" being a joke for a long time and no one is convincing me that Wimbledon 08 and AO 09 weren't total debacles, especially the former. Nadal's been beaten by everyone and their blind grandma there since then. If Roger didn't embarrass himself that match I think the H2H would be a lot closer not to mention how we view the rivalry would be totally different as well.

_____________

You folks keep trying to re-work that H2H. There's a lot of "woulda-coulda-shoulda" in there. IF Roger hadn't played Miami in '04. IF Roger had done better at Wimbledon '08 and AO '09. IF Roger had won Rome '06 (that's one of @mrzz's speculations.) It really just proves how much you know that Rafa affects Roger's legacy. Fact is, it didn't go differently. Stop trying to rewrite it because of a few late-career victories. They are legit, but so is every match that Nadal beat Roger in, prior to those.

How is that talk about re-working the H2H? Rather it's about discussing when and how it became so ugly. Of course losses to Rafa affects his legacy, losses to anyone affects it. The million dollar question is whether he ends up with a great legacy, because it sure as hell isn't if the peasant equals or surpasses the slam total.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Cuntdal fans are the most whiny and obnoxious bunch in any sport, don't kid yourself. Every last one of you enjoys watching him outgrind and outwork his opponents and then cry about bad luck when he gets a wittle boo boo once in awhile. Same self-serving fan base whines about YEC not moving to clay for Mr. Topspin to win it. They are often the ones who lack logic too, as in their world Novak is way behind Rafa yet they want to say Nadal is equal to or greater than Federer...not overly biased at all.

So much butthurt in one post Incredibly sad

 

[DarthFed]

So much butthurt in one post Incredibly sad

That's rich coming from the guy crying about Ralphy's bad luck in all the other threads. Your inferiority complex shines through, even affects your ability to count.

 

[Moxie]

How is that talk about re-working the H2H? Rather it's about discussing when and how it became so ugly. Of course losses to Rafa affects his legacy, losses to anyone affects it. The million dollar question is whether he ends up with a great legacy, because it sure as hell isn't if the peasant equals or surpasses the slam total.

GSMSampras wants to revisit the first match, in Miami, and you, as usual, want to revisit 2008. You're trying to tell us that if not/but for/then else. That's a re-working. Sure, you see it as just massaging over "what-ifs," but you have actually tried to establish that 2017 proves that the rest could have been avoided. I'm just here to remind folks that it's so much palaver and BS.

PS: The million dollar question is already over. Nadal will always be a blot on Federer's legacy, no matter how they end up. B-)

 

[DarthFed]

GSMSampras wants to revisit the first match, in Miami, and you, as usual, want to revisit 2008. You're trying to tell us that if not/but for/then else. That's a re-working. Sure, you see it as just massaging over "what-ifs," but you have actually tried to establish that 2017 proves that the rest could have been avoided. I'm just here to remind folks that it's so much palaver and BS.

PS: The million dollar question is already over. Nadal will always be a blot on Federer's legacy, no matter how they end up. B-)

I won't speak for GSMSampras but I don't think he's saying the rivalry would've turned out a lot differently if Federer won that first match. I also don't agree with making an excuse for Roger losing. You play, you are fit enough. There are clearly times where guys are not 100%, all the top guys and the whole tour in general has those but it doesn't mean they definitely win if they are fit.

I'd say 2008 Wimbledon was a much different story as far as level of importance and the effect that loss had on Roger in future big matches vs Nadal. It's not about what ifs or living a different reality, it's about discussing a key moment in the rivalry.

Nadal as of now is a minor blip and a major threat. He could become a major blip to say the least. Whoever finishes 2nd best of the 3 will be forgotten a lot quicker than whoever finishes 1st.

 

[Moxie]

I won't speak for GSMSampras but I don't think he's saying the rivalry would've turned out a lot differently if Federer won that first match. I also don't agree with making an excuse for Roger losing. You play, you are fit enough. There are clearly times where guys are not 100%, all the top guys and the whole tour in general has those but it doesn't mean they definitely win if they are fit.

I'd say 2008 Wimbledon was a much different story as far as level of importance and the effect that loss had on Roger in future big matches vs Nadal. It's not about what ifs or living a different reality, it's about discussing a key moment in the rivalry.

Nadal as of now is a minor blip and a major threat. He could become a major blip to say the least. Whoever finishes 2nd best of the 3 will be forgotten a lot quicker than whoever finishes 1st.

I think everyone agrees about the importance of the 2008 Wimbledon. That's why it's called the Greatest Match of All Time. I know you hate it, but it was a big turf war. All chips were on the table. Everyone knew it at the time. And Nadal won. It absolutely was the one between them that had to be won. So, sure, it was a key moment in the rivalry. So, everything after that is a "what if," right?

How can Nadal be a "minor blip" AND a "major threat?" That makes no sense. He will always be a factor in Roger's legacy, as Roger will be in his. You're just hoping that Djokovic fits in between, so that it mitigates the damage. No such luck. No one hurt Roger in his salad days like Rafa. That you can't change.

 

[DarthFed]

I think everyone agrees about the importance of the 2008 Wimbledon. That's why it's called the Greatest Match of All Time. I know you hate it, but it was a big turf war. All chips were on the table. Everyone knew it at the time. And Nadal won. It absolutely was the one between them that had to be won. So, sure, it was a key moment in the rivalry. So, everything after that is a "what if," right?

How can Nadal be a "minor blip" AND a "major threat?" That makes no sense. He will always be a factor in Roger's legacy, as Roger will be in his. You're just hoping that Djokovic fits in between, so that it mitigates the damage. No such luck. No one hurt Roger in his salad days like Rafa. That you can't change.

Simple, if Nadal finishes with less slams especially 2-3 less, then ultimately the head to head is a minor blip. Rafa is a major threat to Roger's legacy as he could still catch him in majors and if he does that Roger is what exactly? It's a huge difference. Where Djoker finishes doesn't matter unless it is ahead of Roger.

 

[Moxie]

Simple, if Nadal finishes with less slams especially 2-3 less, then ultimately the head to head is a minor blip. Rafa is a major threat to Roger's legacy as he could still catch him in majors and if he does that Roger is what exactly? It's a huge difference. Where Djoker finishes doesn't matter unless it is ahead of Roger.

Your whole thesis revolves around the notion that Roger is the one and only GOAT. You keep hoping that he holds his own, and that the era that he played in means nothing. This is a fool's errand. His rivalry with Nadal will always matter, as will Djokovic's place in the conversation, no matter how they finish. At this moment, they really are playing against each other. I didn't think it mattered so much to Roger until he played Rotterdam this year. Now I think it's a chess match between the 3.

 

[Moxie]

*BUMP*

 

[King Roger]

Sorry Nadal fans but, your man ain’t getting closer to Federer now.....sorry about that

 

[Nadalfan2013]

He is already close and so is Novak. Federer can’t even enjoy himself and retire because these 2 are on his heels.

 

[King Roger]

N

He is already close and so is Novak. Federer can’t even enjoy himself and retire because these 2 are on his heels.

Nadal will retire with all these runner up trophies haha

 

[Nadalfan2013]

N

Nadal will retire with all these runner up trophies haha

Nadal 17-8 (68%)
Federer 20-10 (66%)
Djokocic 15-9 (62%)

 

[King Roger]

Nadal 17-8 (68%)
Federer 20-10 (66%)
Djokocic 15-9 (62%)

20-17

 

[Nadalfan2013]

20-17

But 5 years older

 

[King Roger]

So you are saying a man who is 5 years older and has won the last 5 matches against Rafa, 4 being demolition jobs is a bad thing? Just makes Nadal look worse

 

[Nadalfan2013]

No it means that Federer had 5 extra years to accumulate only 3 more slams. He should be leading by 10 extra slams. Nadal and Djokovic will dominate for years to come and will both pass him, Federer is done.

 

[King Roger]

The French is the worst slam, the least prestigious. 1 French Open title is the equivalent of 5 AO or 10 Wimbledons, only until Rafa wins 80 RG titles will he be in the GOAT category. In my eyes he’s 20th on the list, behind Andrew Castle and Tomic

 

[Nadalfan2013]

You are embarrassing not only the Federer fan base but also Federer. Congratulations.

 

[King Roger]

You are embarrassing not only the Federer fan base but also Federer. Congratulations.

I don’t know why you comment on my threads as in every single one I have created I shut you down with one post, it’s that simple. I’m sorry you admire a player who only vultures slams on a non existent surface but I guess you have to have something to look forward to