The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[DarthFed]

A compromised Federer straight seated Blake and Berdych? then you admit these two were clowns and weak competition? They must have because not only couldn't they beat a mono weakened Federer, they couldn't even get a set!

You can't have it both ways, you like to at times prop up his 04-07 competition but then when it suits you, make his competition out to be clowns, who couldn't even take a set off a weakened, mono-strike Federer.

the excuses here are pathetic, if he could straight set two of his main competition before facing Djokovic, Federer was playing at a high level, saying otherwise, is just dumb.

Again, that match could've gone either way, Federer served for first set and got broken, this pretty much sealed the deal as he was facing the greatest AO champ in history and after losing first set, he gave Djokovic the confidence and momentum he needed to seal the deal. You are wrong if you think Djokovic's level during 08 AO run was that much lower than what we saw in 2011. During his 08 run, he didn't drop a set in route to finals, crushing everyone.. Tsonga, who had demolished Nadal in semis, was the only one who managed to take a set. I would suggest you go back and watch highlights, Djokovic was in beast mode... In any event, are you arguing Federer should've won that match? Djokovic is arguably GOAT, he WOULD'VE HAD AN ADVANTAGE vs 04-07 Federer at AO... Prime vs Prime, i give Djokovic the edge at AO, FO, Federer the edge at W and a tie at USO... Djokovic is the most complete player ever, thus why he won 4 slams in a row and Federer never could. He's the only player to beat Nadal more than twice on clay (7 times!) and in his prime, has had the game best suited for all 4 surfaces, against any opponent. 04-07 Federer was dominant but look at who he beat on all those finals - Roddick, Hewitt, Ljubicic, baby teen Nadal, Blake. Djokovic was 10 times better than any of these guys, even better than teen nadal. Remember, even a 17 year old Nadal straight setted 04 Federer on hardcourts... Prime Djokovic would've probably beaten 04-07 Federer in all slams except Wimbledon... and who knows.

Absolutely silly. Djokovic historically does not have close to an edge on fast hard courts so no he would not have an edge over Roger at USO unless we are talking the slow as hell courts there the past few years. Roger even as a geezer has beaten Djokovic more than not at tourneys like Dubai, Cincy and Shanghai. Djokovic is 2 points always from being 1-5 at the USO FFS and those 3 wins were against Roger during weak as hell seasons.

I don't prop up the 04-07 competition, I just don't think it's as pathetic as Fed haters like to say. The simple concept is that if Roger was a much worse player those years you'd have a bunch of multi-slam winners looking a lot stronger. No one says Roddick, Hewitt or Safin are as good as Nadal and Djokovic but Roger at age 30 had to deal with those guys in their prime while those guys at age 30 have nobody under 30 who is any good. The competition argument has come full circle and Roger has been at an age disadvantage a lot longer vs those guys than vice versa.

I think your desire to win this argument clouds all common sense. Do you really think top athletes can only play when healthy? Have Djokovic and Nadal never played hurt and/or sick and win? Answer me this, do you think Nadal was 100% at 2009 RG? Keep in mind he won his first 3 matches in straights and absolutely destroyed Hewitt right before losing to Soderling. Going by your logic he was perfectly fine and that tendinitis thing is bullshit.

And how the F is Djokovic arguably GOAT? I hate to break it to you but if you put 2006 Fed in 2015 and 2016 when Rafa was not even strong on clay there is every chance Roger would win a calendar slam. 2015 and 2016 Djoker featured losses at majors to Stan twice and Sam Querrey. Djokovic is so suited to every surface and every opponent that he's mostly made Stan and Murray into big-time players. And let's not kid ourselves, if he retired today he'd go down as just the third best player of this era, only zealots would be calling him GOAT with a mere 15 majors. Obviously he's got time and the guy is awesome, he has a chance but let's not put the cart in front of the horse.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think there's any reason to disbelieve Roger when he said he had mono. The question becomes more about how much did it affect him, and for how long? If he lost a bit more often, and to players that he might otherwise have beaten, there's an argument there, but to Nadal and even Djokovic, it gets to be a stretch. Since he actually did have mono during the AO, it would explain poor results. But I think you make a good point that Novak might have beaten him anyway. The myth that Novak was nothing before 2011 doesn't hold water. And it has ended up being his best Slam. So that upset might have happened anyway.

Another point that you make, which I think is fair, has to do with the controversial notion of Fed having no decent competition before Nadal and Djokovic. If folks like Darth are going to call Blake and Berdy "clowns," to defend his mono issues, then they have to cop to him having not a decent crowd to fight, if those were the opponents on offer. He's also called Safin and Hewitt ridiculous competition, when we talk about the '08 Wimbledon. So really who, then? These are basically his contemporaries and his competition.

One more point: Darth likes to point out that Roger had only won 4 Majors when Rafa won his first. This is a distraction from the larger truth. Rafa was young and unformed, and Djokovic hadn't entered the scene. By the time Rafa won a Major off of clay, and Djokovic won his first, Roger had won 12 Majors, between '03 and '07. In the intervening 11 years, he's won 8 more, which is no joke, but he won a lot before he saw significant competition.

Hewitt and Safin were washed up by 2008 so yes those were not tough matches on paper. Safin in the semis that year was a dream similar to Bjorkman in 2006. Safin probably didn't even make a Wimbledon QF before or after that year, he hated grass.

8 in 11 years does suck if we go by your thinking that Roger has always been in his prime... So we are including Roger as strong competion for Rafa and Novak in 2008 even though he barely was relevant aside from USO but we don't include them as significant competition when Roger beat them a bunch of times before 2008? Wow, how convenient.

 

[Moxie]

Hewitt and Safin were washed up by 2008 so yes those were not tough matches on paper. Safin in the semis that year was a dream similar to Bjorkman in 2006. Safin probably didn't even make a Wimbledon QF before or after that year, he hated grass.

8 in 11 years does suck if we go by your thinking that Roger has always been in his prime... So we are including Roger as strong competion for Rafa and Novak in 2008 even though he barely was relevant aside from USO but we don't include them as significant competition when Roger beat them a bunch of times before 2008? Wow, how convenient.

You're a bit all over the place here. You do admit that some of the competition was a joke, in the early years. You have to admit that buys into MikeOne's theory. Anyway, I don't see how Roger was "barely relevant" in 2008. Seriously? This is too fan boyish. Now funny you should mention not including Federer's wins over Djokovic and Nadal prior to 2008. This is my same complaint with everyone pretending that Djokovic didn't exist until 2011.

Let`s face it: you Fed fans just believe that he's so much more talented than anyone else that it forgives whatever fallow moments. And you have excuses for lots of them. And your excuses aren't the same as the Rafa fan ones, because, well, Roger is just better. This is my favorite bit. Nadal fans make "excuses" when Nadal is actually injured, but Federer fans aren't making excuses when they are perceiving injury or illness, almost despite what we see with our own eyes. And despite outcomes. The back injury is a given, in your parlance but Rafa's knees, not so much. You people are funny.

 

[MikeOne]

And how the F is Djokovic arguably GOAT? I hate to break it to you but if you put 2006 Fed in 2015 and 2016 when Rafa was not even strong on clay there is every chance Roger would win a calendar slam. 2015 and 2016 Djoker featured losses at majors to Stan twice and Sam Querrey. Djokovic is so suited to every surface and every opponent that he's mostly made Stan and Murray into big-time players. And let's not kid ourselves, if he retired today he'd go down as just the third best player of this era, only zealots would be calling him GOAT with a mere 15 majors. Obviously he's got time and the guy is awesome, he has a chance but let's not put the cart in front of the horse.

Fed would win 15-16 FO? even a washed up Guga straight seated Fed in 04... Del potro, Stan, Soderling and Djokovic would've definitely had good chances to stop Federer at FO, without Nadal. Also, if you want to teleport 06 Fed to 15/16 i can also teleport 15/16 Djoker to 04, 05, 06? boy.... all 4 slams every year?

There is an argument to be made that Djokovic is GOAT.

Ontop os his 15 slams and dominance periods:

1. only player amongst top slam winners to win 4 slams in a row
2. Only player amongst top slam winners to win all masters once
3. winning record against Nadal and Federer, even beating them in their best surface, on big occasions.

Plenty of people consider his tennis highest ever achieved:

Nick Bolletieri: "When Novak was at his peak I always felt that he was the best all-round player in the history of our sport."

Nadal: "But it’d be unfair to say that Federer isn’t the best I’ve ever played against because the titles and his track record prove that to be the case. But at a technical level, when Djokovic has been at the top of his game, I have to say that I’ve been up against an invincible player.”
****This is an interesting comment by Nadal, sort of saying Djokovic was better tennis wise but hard not to call Federer best ever due to achievements, but Nadal basically says Djokovic was a better player.***

Nadal: "I played against a player who did everything perfectly. I don't know anybody who's ever played tennis like this. Since I know this sport I've never seen somebody playing at this level. So I just congratulate him and that's it."
***Again, pretty much admitting Federer never reached such heights tennis wise.***

Berdych: "I met somebody in the final who I've never seen before," he told reporters. "I was just swept out from the court. I probably played maybe over, what, 600 matches in my career, and I met guys like Andre [Agassi], Roger [Federer], all those probably in their best times. But I have never, ever experienced anything like that."

Wilander: "Djokovic is the least flashy among all the big champions', Wilander said. 'He possibly plays at the highest possible game level."

Isner: 'I faced them all, but Djokovic at his highest level is unbeatable. For me he was the toughest ones, I won him sometimes and even for my serve he is a tennis player who plays very close and it makes him not giving many points.'

So level-wise, many think he has attained highest level which i know Fed fanboys cringe at as you think 04-07 was some sort of GOD... Nadal himself was able to find weaknesses in Federer's game, he has looked absolutely helpless against a top form Djokovic. You mention Stan, Stan has also defeated Roger and Nadal at slams... he has 3 slams. No-one is unbeatable.... even Djokovic but Novak has a good record vs Stan. If two losses at slams vs Stan is all you have, pretty weak..

There is another rating 'ELO' rating which is used to measure dominance, Djokovic's was 2,460 on April 2016, highest in open era. Federer's highs was 2,406.

Djokovic's stretch around 2015-2016 was the most dominant run in open era, even more dominant that Fed in 05 or 06. His ranking was ridiculous, like 7k points above #2.

So tenniswise, many see his tennis at highest ever, not flashiest, highest.

The only thing Federer has on Novak is longevity... it's a factor but we can't say this is the only factor to consider in labelling someone GOAT. You have to take other achievements, like stuff some could do that others couldn't and H2H is also important.

 

[DarthFed]

Fed would win 15-16 FO? even a washed up Guga straight seated Fed in 04... Del potro, Stan, Soderling and Djokovic would've definitely had good chances to stop Federer at FO, without Nadal. Also, if you want to teleport 06 Fed to 15/16 i can also teleport 15/16 Djoker to 04, 05, 06? boy.... all 4 slams every year?

There is an argument to be made that Djokovic is GOAT.

Ontop os his 15 slams and dominance periods:

1. only player amongst top slam winners to win 4 slams in a row
2. Only player amongst top slam winners to win all masters once
3. winning record against Nadal and Federer, even beating them in their best surface, on big occasions.

Plenty of people consider his tennis highest ever achieved:

Nick Bolletieri: "When Novak was at his peak I always felt that he was the best all-round player in the history of our sport."

Nadal: "But it’d be unfair to say that Federer isn’t the best I’ve ever played against because the titles and his track record prove that to be the case. But at a technical level, when Djokovic has been at the top of his game, I have to say that I’ve been up against an invincible player.”
****This is an interesting comment by Nadal, sort of saying Djokovic was better tennis wise but hard not to call Federer best ever due to achievements, but Nadal basically says Djokovic was a better player.***

Nadal: "I played against a player who did everything perfectly. I don't know anybody who's ever played tennis like this. Since I know this sport I've never seen somebody playing at this level. So I just congratulate him and that's it."
***Again, pretty much admitting Federer never reached such heights tennis wise.***

Berdych: "I met somebody in the final who I've never seen before," he told reporters. "I was just swept out from the court. I probably played maybe over, what, 600 matches in my career, and I met guys like Andre [Agassi], Roger [Federer], all those probably in their best times. But I have never, ever experienced anything like that."

Wilander: "Djokovic is the least flashy among all the big champions', Wilander said. 'He possibly plays at the highest possible game level."

Isner: 'I faced them all, but Djokovic at his highest level is unbeatable. For me he was the toughest ones, I won him sometimes and even for my serve he is a tennis player who plays very close and it makes him not giving many points.'

So level-wise, many think he has attained highest level which i know Fed fanboys cringe at as you think 04-07 was some sort of GOD... Nadal himself was able to find weaknesses in Federer's game, he has looked absolutely helpless against a top form Djokovic. You mention Stan, Stan has also defeated Roger and Nadal at slams... he has 3 slams. No-one is unbeatable.... even Djokovic but Novak has a good record vs Stan. If two losses at slams vs Stan is all you have, pretty weak..

There is another rating 'ELO' rating which is used to measure dominance, Djokovic's was 2,460 on April 2016, highest in open era. Federer's highs was 2,406.

Djokovic's stretch around 2015-2016 was the most dominant run in open era, even more dominant that Fed in 05 or 06. His ranking was ridiculous, like 7k points above #2.

So tenniswise, many see his tennis at highest ever, not flashiest, highest.

The only thing Federer has on Novak is longevity... it's a factor but we can't say this is the only factor to consider in labelling someone GOAT. You have to take other achievements, like stuff some could do that others couldn't and H2H is also important.

Stan beat him in all 3 majors that he won and 3 in a row overall. Djokovic also lost to Murray in 2 major finals. Remember if we are bringing Fed of 05-06 to 15-16 and replacing Novak we are talking about who as the top competition? Awful version of Nadal, Murray, senior citizen Fed and Stan. Any argument where he doesn't win at least 6 of 8 seems laughable. Seeing as how Nadal on clay when he was an absolute monster was the only thing that kept him from a calendar slam I'd say there's a damn good chance Roger would have won a calendar slam one of those two years. He wasn't going to lose at 2 majors to Stan or lose to mighty San Querrey.

I'm sure there have been tons of players including those guys you referenced that have said Roger is GOAT, unbeatable, unplayable at his best, etc. the top dog at a given time is always going to get enormous praise until the next big thing emerges. Djokovic was looking like a total bum a year ago, many thought he was done and his career at that point would've been just a golf clap if he didn't rebound. Now it's like he's been Godly for the past 7 years. People, including yourself, have a very short-term memory but Roger has a lot more than longevity on Djokovic, he is still a lot more accomplished.

You seem to mix greatness with best quite often. Best player 10 years from now will almost certainly be better level-wise than the best guys now. That's the way most sports are.

 

[atttomole]

You're a bit all over the place here. You do admit that some of the competition was a joke, in the early years. You have to admit that buys into MikeOne's theory. Anyway, I don't see how Roger was "barely relevant" in 2008. Seriously? This is too fan boyish. Now funny you should mention not including Federer's wins over Djokovic and Nadal prior to 2008. This is my same complaint with everyone pretending that Djokovic didn't exist until 2011.

Let`s face it: you Fed fans just believe that he's so much more talented than anyone else that it forgives whatever fallow moments. And you have excuses for lots of them. And your excuses aren't the same as the Rafa fan ones, because, well, Roger is just better. This is my favorite bit. Nadal fans make "excuses" when Nadal is actually injured, but Federer fans aren't making excuses when they are perceiving injury or illness, almost despite what we see with our own eyes. And despite outcomes. The back injury is a given, in your parlance but Rafa's knees, not so much. You people are funny.

It is a no-brainer that Roger is the most talented player to ever play the game. We all have eyes to see. However, it is also obvious that Roger has been troubled by players who are able to expose weaknesses in his own game, particularly Rafa. Winning matches is not only about the relative talents of the players, but also about how one player is able to negate the other.

The problem with Rafa fans is that when we say Roger is the most talented or just talented, they think we are trying to diminish or insult Rafa. I think it is a fact that Roger is more talented than Rafa and Djokovic.

 

[DarthFed]

You're a bit all over the place here. You do admit that some of the competition was a joke, in the early years. You have to admit that buys into MikeOne's theory. Anyway, I don't see how Roger was "barely relevant" in 2008. Seriously? This is too fan boyish. Now funny you should mention not including Federer's wins over Djokovic and Nadal prior to 2008. This is my same complaint with everyone pretending that Djokovic didn't exist until 2011.

Let`s face it: you Fed fans just believe that he's so much more talented than anyone else that it forgives whatever fallow moments. And you have excuses for lots of them. And your excuses aren't the same as the Rafa fan ones, because, well, Roger is just better. This is my favorite bit. Nadal fans make "excuses" when Nadal is actually injured, but Federer fans aren't making excuses when they are perceiving injury or illness, almost despite what we see with our own eyes. And despite outcomes. The back injury is a given, in your parlance but Rafa's knees, not so much. You people are funny.

How am I admitting some of the competition was a joke, and where do I ever say the guys back then were on par with Nadal and Djokovic? I'm merely pointing out that athletes play injured and/or ill quite often. And, gasp, sometimes they even win when they are not 100%. This isn't a huge revelation for most people.

You don't see the double standard in your post about how Roger faced no significant competition until 2008? Apparently Rafa was nothing until he won at Wimbledon over Fed so he only counts as real competition when he beat Fed in 2008. Same with Djoker, apparently he was nothing in 2007 but then he beat Roger at Australia and became major competition and then he went away for a couple years and then became major competition again.

Going off this thinking I can say Roger wasn't major completion for Rafa or pretty much anyone in 2008 since he wasn't doing a lot of winning and the AO match was a breeze for Djokovic and Wimbledon wasn't really an impressive feat from Rafa given Roger's awful play for much of it. See the double standard yet?

With Djoker in 2011 of course the matches before then matter but they also need to be put in context. Rafa and Fed beating him before 2011 doesn't really factor in to expectations in future matches. You keep mentioning 6-1 at RG but I think what's more relevant right now is that the last of those matches was 5 years ago. Since then Djokovic beat Nadal at RG, won the tournament a year later and just annihilated him at AO after beating him at Wimbledon while still in an extremely weak state. If they meet at RG this year and you want to take solace in matches from 2006-2014 then go ahead. If Roger plays Djoker at USO I'm not about to like his chances due to 2007-2009. Let's be real.

 

[El Dude]

There is most definitely an argument that Novak is GOAT, or eventual GOAT. Right now? I do think that 5 Slams and 26 titles is enough to keep Roger safely ahead of him, but Novak is closing the gap. He is, at the least, on par with Rafa in terms of career resume: his YECs and weeks at #1 make up for the 2 Slam difference, in my opinion.

Now if Novak does any of the following, I think he gets the edge over Roger:

1)Wins the Calendar Slam this year. Even if he retired at year's end with 18 Slams, I think a CS this year would make him the GOAT.

2) Continues playing at his current level through 2020. That would bring up to around 20 Slams, with a good chance of surpassing Roger's weeks at #1 and within range of his total titles that he could eek out if he wanted to continue playing for a few more years after.

But these things change Slam by Slam. As great as Novak has been playing, Novak at 31-32 is not Novak at 27-28.

 

[Moxie]

How am I admitting some of the competition was a joke, and where do I ever say the guys back then were on par with Nadal and Djokovic? I'm merely pointing out that athletes play injured and/or ill quite often. And, gasp, sometimes they even win when they are not 100%. This isn't a huge revelation for most people.

You don't see the double standard in your post about how Roger faced no significant competition until 2008? Apparently Rafa was nothing until he won at Wimbledon over Fed so he only counts as real competition when he beat Fed in 2008. Same with Djoker, apparently he was nothing in 2007 but then he beat Roger at Australia and became major competition and then he went away for a couple years and then became major competition again.

Going off this thinking I can say Roger wasn't major completion for Rafa or pretty much anyone in 2008 since he wasn't doing a lot of winning and the AO match was a breeze for Djokovic and Wimbledon wasn't really an impressive feat from Rafa given Roger's awful play for much of it. See the double standard yet?

With Djoker in 2011 of course the matches before then matter but they also need to be put in context. Rafa and Fed beating him before 2011 doesn't really factor in to expectations in future matches. You keep mentioning 6-1 at RG but I think what's more relevant right now is that the last of those matches was 5 years ago. Since then Djokovic beat Nadal at RG, won the tournament a year later and just annihilated him at AO after beating him at Wimbledon while still in an extremely weak state. If they meet at RG this year and you want to take solace in matches from 2006-2014 then go ahead. If Roger plays Djoker at USO I'm not about to like his chances due to 2007-2009. Let's be real.

Without going back over it all again, because it's tired, you have called Roger's competition in 2008 Wimbledon, let's say "lesser," and his competition at the '08 AO before he got to Djokovic something similar. It's not that you've said they're on par with Nadal or Djokovic. No one expects that. But either they were decent competition, or they weren't. If you're prepared to say that when Roger was barreling his way through the tennis world in 2003/4-07, he did face decent competition, then you can't use those same players as examples of why beating those players meant nothing, vis-a-vis his mono. I'm sure you understand this.

Your propensity for black and white comparisons is really tiring. Of course Nadal featured before 2008, and Djokovic did a bit, too. But I'm sure you recognize that Nadal had only just turned 22 when he beat Roger at Wimbledon. This is a time when the 5 years between them did mean a lot, in terms of experience, and, for Nadal, moving forward as to all-court. Djokovic would have been 21. They were there, but not fully-formed. Federer, on the other hand, was 26...no one would call that far-past prime years.

I will not be distracted by the rest of your comments until you address mine about excuses for Federer's losses. You try to dance past the points that others make, but you're not that fast of a dancer.

 

[Moxie]

It is a no-brainer that Roger is the most talented player to ever play the game. We all have eyes to see. However, it is also obvious that Roger has been troubled by players who are able to expose weaknesses in his own game, particularly Rafa. Winning matches is not only about the relative talents of the players, but also about how one player is able to negate the other.

The problem with Rafa fans is that when we say Roger is the most talented or just talented, they think we are trying to diminish or insult Rafa. I think it is a fact that Roger is more talented than Rafa and Djokovic.

I don't agree with your assessment of Nadal fans. We think you're trying to diminish or insult Rafa when you actually do, or I do, at least, not just because you chuff up Roger. You have to admit, there's a lot of effort made to diminish, and actually insult Rafa. (Haven't you noticed how often Darth says "Cunt-dal?" I'd call that insulting.) Sure, Roger is incredibly talented and accomplished. Plenty of Rafa fans will cop to that. But, as you point out, he has been troubled by Nadal, and Djokovic. He's not impervious to great tennis competition. What gets tedious is the Fed fan notion that Roger's superiority is a "no-brainer." There have been weaknesses in his game, and they have been exploited. That's why we discuss. It's the arrogance of the Federer fan that puts the rest of us off. Based on your above, you mostly believe there's no discussion on the topic. Try to tell me that's not arrogant.

 

[MikeOne]

Federer fans accuse nadal and djokovic fans of being the worst but none are worst than fed fans.

I can’t even think of one single big win nadal had over fed where fed fans haven’t used excuses.

08 wimbledon? ‘Federer had mono’ ‘federer played AWFUL’ ‘NAdal in his head’

Facts ignored as they make this argument:

1. Nadal had been improving drastically on grass. In 06, he was the only player to take a set of federer in finals, in his first good run at wimbledon. In 07, he took federer to 5 sets, did federer have mono in 07? If nadal had taken federer to 5 sets in final of 07, why is it that improbable that he would defeat federer in 08 final given nadal was clearly better on grass in 08? He won queens and was on a tear?

2. Federer made finals of 08 W without dropping a set!

3. If federer was weakened by mono, how on earth did he seem to get stronger as the match progressed? If anything, he would’ve gotten weaker in last 3 sets but stunningly, a weakened, frail mono stricken federer got stronger in 3rd, 4th and 5th sets!

None of these facfs matter because it is impossible for federer to lose to nadal at wimbledon, just not possible

09 AO. Federer was ‘mentally weak’ and let nadal win.. he went away in 5th set! Played poorly and gave the match to nadal.

What is amazing is thay they don’t apply same standard to when nadal loses. Wasn’t nadal up a break in 5th set in their 16 AO final? So why aren’t fed fans saying nadal was mentally weak and gave match away?

Also, it’s amusing to even suggest federer was mentally weak, no matter how talented you are, you cannot win so much without being strong mentally.

There have been a ton of excused even when federer lost all those FO finals.. mind you nadal has 11 FOs and once won 81 clay matches in a row, doesn’t matter... fed was weak.

Fed fans are the worst ever... never give credit to anyone that defeats roger. They need to finally accept that federer was great but never unbeatable... never.

 

[atttomole]

Federer fans accuse nadal and djokovic fans of being the worst but none are worst than fed fans.

I can’t even think of one single big win nadal had over fed where fed fans haven’t used excuses.

08 wimbledon? ‘Federer had mono’ ‘federer played AWFUL’ ‘NAdal in his head’

Facts ignored as they make this argument:

1. Nadal had been improving drastically on grass. In 06, he was the only player to take a set of federer in finals, in his first good run at wimbledon. In 07, he took federer to 5 sets, did federer have mono in 07? If nadal had taken federer to 5 sets in final of 07, why is it that improbable that he would defeat federer in 08 final given nadal was clearly better on grass in 08? He won queens and was on a tear?

2. Federer made finals of 08 W without dropping a set!

3. If federer was weakened by mono, how on earth did he seem to get stronger as the match progressed? If anything, he would’ve gotten weaker in last 3 sets but stunningly, a weakened, frail mono stricken federer got stronger in 3rd, 4th and 5th sets!

None of these facfs matter because it is impossible for federer to lose to nadal at wimbledon, just not possible

09 AO. Federer was ‘mentally weak’ and let nadal win.. he went away in 5th set! Played poorly and gave the match to nadal.

What is amazing is thay they don’t apply same standard to when nadal loses. Wasn’t nadal up a break in 5th set in their 16 AO final? So why aren’t fed fans saying nadal was mentally weak and gave match away?

Also, it’s amusing to even suggest federer was mentally weak, no matter how talented you are, you cannot win so much without being strong mentally.

There have been a ton of excused even when federer lost all those FO finals.. mind you nadal has 11 FOs and once won 81 clay matches in a row, doesn’t matter... fed was weak.

Fed fans are the worst ever... never give credit to anyone that defeats roger. They need to finally accept that federer was great but never unbeatable... never.

You are generalizing here. I think one of the reasons why Federer lost W 2008 is that he had been routed at RG by Rafa a few weeks earlier, which meant that psychologically they were polar opposites, coming into the 2008 final. It is not difficult to understand that. Fans are not the same. I think you are coveniently making a false statement by suggesting that Fed fans look at Djokovic fans the same way they look at Nadal fans.

Some Nadal fans complained that Nadal lost to Fed at AO 2017 because Nadal played a long match in the semifinals and had less time to rest, even though Nadal has always been physically fitter than Federer.

I don’t understand why you think we assume that Federer is unbeatable. That is a straw man from you.

 

[MikeOne]

You are generalizing here. I think one of the reasons why Federer lost W 2008 is that he had been routed at RG by Rafa a few weeks earlier, which meant that psychologically they were polar opposites, coming into the 2008 final.

this is what i call seeing things your way, rationalizing. Basically, you don't look at facts first, you first make a decision in your mind that Federer lost due to some excuse, THEN you just search for facts to back up your already made up decision. So since you have already made up your mind that there is 'some' excuse as to why Fed couldn't play his best, you then search for the needle in the haystack. I can use the very same facts you point to and look at it in completely opposite way. I can say that that FO final gave Federer motivation, he was extra motivated to defeat Nadal.

How you and darthfed ignore facts and rationalize is a thing of beauty. When i bring up Fed straight setted everyone in route to finals, you guys claim 'He faced clowns'. When i point to the fact that Nadal took Federer to 5 sets in 07 Wimbledon, this is completely ignored as if it never happened, as if Federer had whooped Nadal on grass before and this explains why the 08 loss was an aberration. Also completely ignored is the fact that Nadal clearly had improved on grass, even playing a higher level than what he summoned to take Fed to 5 sets in 07 final. Nadal won queens for first time in 08 and entered Wimbledon in absolute beast mode, Andy Murray couldn't even get a break point on him in quarters or semis. So Nadal took Fed to 5 sets in W final 07 and was playing even better on grass in 08. This combined with fact that Fed made finals crushing opponents, not dropping a set, points mainly to Fed having 0 excuses and all to do with Nadal's level. Fed even dropped sets in 03, 04, 05, 07 wimbledon runs before finals, not in 08.

ALL these powerful facts completely ignored.... since they don't fit the narrative.

It is not difficult to understand that. Fans are not the same. I think you are coveniently making a false statement by suggesting that Fed fans look at Djokovic fans the same way they look at Nadal fans.

As a Nadal fan, i never made excuses when Djokovic started beating him, i simply admitted 'Djokovic had a game suited for Nadal and Nadal just couldn't do much'. If i were like so many fed fans, i would've started making up excuses that Nadal's prime was really 08-09 and was past his best in 11 or that Djokovic was 'in his head' but i don't decide on things w/o analyzing facts first. Nadal won 3 slams in 2010 and entered 11 at his best, Djokovic beat him in 2 major finals and several masters finals!

Later on i became a Djokovic fan and i never made excuses when Stan beat him in FO and USO final. In fact, you cn find posts of me here where i state that everyone throughout their careers is likely to face an opponent who matches up well against them. I never said Djokovic was mentally weak or made any excuses, just than Stan played a type of power baseline tennis that gave Djokovic problems. If i borrowed from Fed fans tactics, i would've first decided there was an excuse and then went on a mission to find the excuse, it's very easy to find excuses, one of the easiest things to do when debating.

Some Nadal fans complained that Nadal lost to Fed at AO 2017 because Nadal played a long match in the semifinals and had less time to rest, even though Nadal has always been physically fitter than Federer.

If Federer would've lost that 5th set after being up a break, Fed fans would've been making a long list of excuses but not when Nadal is up a break and loses, of course not.

Fed fans tend to be more fanatical because they believe Fed was a result of divine intervention, a creation of god. They simply cannot fathom of any player beating Federer at is best. I think Djokovic and Nadal fans are different, they are more realistic (left brained). My theory is that Federer played a more artistic brand of tennis and his fans seem to be more 'right brained' (less logical, less analytical) and more emotionally attached to Federer, he's their mozart..

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Federer fans accuse nadal and djokovic fans of being the worst but none are worst than fed fans.

I can’t even think of one single big win nadal had over fed where fed fans haven’t used excuses.

08 wimbledon? ‘Federer had mono’ ‘federer played AWFUL’ ‘NAdal in his head’

Facts ignored as they make this argument:

1. Nadal had been improving drastically on grass. In 06, he was the only player to take a set of federer in finals, in his first good run at wimbledon. In 07, he took federer to 5 sets, did federer have mono in 07? If nadal had taken federer to 5 sets in final of 07, why is it that improbable that he would defeat federer in 08 final given nadal was clearly better on grass in 08? He won queens and was on a tear?

2. Federer made finals of 08 W without dropping a set!

3. If federer was weakened by mono, how on earth did he seem to get stronger as the match progressed? If anything, he would’ve gotten weaker in last 3 sets but stunningly, a weakened, frail mono stricken federer got stronger in 3rd, 4th and 5th sets!

None of these facfs matter because it is impossible for federer to lose to nadal at wimbledon, just not possible

.

I don't know about other Feddies (actually, I think most of them do give as well), but I give full credit to Ralph for beating Roger in Wimbledon 2008.

I have an idea of how might have got the impression that Feddies are giving excuses.

That 2008 Wimbledon final is often being elevated to greatest match ever played by the media, TV and Journalists. I feel that while it is a great match in view of all the drama and in view of what was at stake and the personalities involved, in terms of actual quality of tennis, it surely was not the greatest match of all time as Roger played poorly in the first two sets. Now, when I say Roger played poorly in the first two sets, it is not an excuse. It is completely Roger's fault that he played poorly. May be you are misinterpreting our remark that Roger played poorly as an excuse. It is not an excuse, but a statement of fact. The only reason that I even bother to state it, is because of the false elevation of that match as the greatest match ever, thanks John Wirthiem who wrote a book with such a title and Tennis Channel for producing a movie with a similar title. A match can be called greatest match in terms of tennis quality if for the most part of the match both players played to the level that they are normally capable of.

Contrary to what you say, both Fed and his fans are most generous in graciously accepting defeat, not only when it happens at the hands of other great players, but even when it happens at the hands of lesser players such as Milkman.

 

[Moxie]

I don't know about other Feddies (actually, I think most of them do give as well), but I give full credit to Ralph for beating Roger in Wimbledon 2008.

I have an idea of how might have got the impression that Feddies are giving excuses.

That 2008 Wimbledon final is often being elevated to greatest match ever played by the media, TV and Journalists. I feel that while it is a great match in view of all the drama and in view of what was at stake and the personalities involved, in terms of actual quality of tennis, it surely was not the greatest match of all time as Roger played poorly in the first two sets. Now, when I say Roger played poorly in the first two sets, it is not an excuse. It is completely Roger's fault that he played poorly. May be you are misinterpreting our remark that Roger played poorly as an excuse. It is not an excuse, but a statement of fact. The only reason that I even bother to state it, is because of the false elevation of that match as the greatest match ever, thanks John Wirthiem who wrote a book with such a title and Tennis Channel for producing a movie with a similar title. A match can be called greatest match in terms of tennis quality if for the most part of the match both players played to the level that they are normally capable of.

Contrary to what you say, both Fed and his fans are most generous in graciously accepting defeat, not only when it happens at the hands of other great players, but even when it happens at the hands of lesser players such as Milkman.

That's nice of you to give "full" credit to Nadal for the 2008 Wimbledon, but I'll be surprised if it has escaped your notice that DarthFed doesn't, for one. I think you are back crediting that match as the "greatest" ever only to Wertheim and TTC's elevation via a documentary. It was considered that by the time they walked off the court. The NYTimes actually put it on the front page the next day. This is not a reinvention of a few journalists, and the Tennis Channel trying to make a buck off of it...this is the way it was perceived the day of and the day after the match.

As to the otherwise graciousness in defeat v. excuse-making of Fed fans, I will offer a few examples, starting with the never-ending mono. I'm sure you were in the pile-on as to Roger's back going out in Montreal 2017. 2013 seemed to have had a lot to do with him not being able to adjust to his new racquet. (That didn't seem to work out until 2017. Seriously?) There were a lot of excuses in between, but they mostly seemed to come from Roger.

 

[MikeOne]

I don't know about other Feddies (actually, I think most of them do give as well), but I give full credit to Ralph for beating Roger in Wimbledon 2008.

I have an idea of how might have got the impression that Feddies are giving excuses.

That 2008 Wimbledon final is often being elevated to greatest match ever played by the media, TV and Journalists. I feel that while it is a great match in view of all the drama and in view of what was at stake and the personalities involved, in terms of actual quality of tennis, it surely was not the greatest match of all time

What i find interesting is that 9/10 of the people that claim this match wasn’t that great are fed fans, coincidence? Must be hard to accept fed lost the match many consider greatest ever.

If we go by quality of tennis, i’m sure we can find many insignificant matches in lower class tournaments of two players playing at a higher level consustently. In my view, it is quite possibly greatest match of all time, for a variety of reasons.

Nadal was inching closer and closer to federer at wimbledon. They had met in previous 2 W finals and nadal had taken fed to 5 sets in 07 final. Nadal was playing even better and the anticipation was at an all time
high, people felt this match was extremely important. For years, nadal single handedly prevented fed from making a mockery of tennis and many believed it was fed who would beat rafa at french. Rafa, to many people’s amazement, turned the tables and made a bold statement - forget french, i’m coming after you in YOUR house. Having crushed fed at FO final, the tennis world was preparing for a seismic shift.. the end of Federer’s stranglehold on tennis.. nadal had come so close in 07 so everyone felt he could get it done in 08.

The match itself was full of drama - fed went down 2 sets to love, an amazing turn of events after he had dominated w for so long. People were glued in, watching history in the making. Fed staged a mighty comback against a raging confident nadal, playing a very high level. The last 3 sets was super high quaity tennis, that breaker where they traded the best passing shots of the whole tournament was out of this world. The rain delays came and went, a true test of nerves for two tennis greats. It went down to the wire, the sun light was dwindling and before match was suspended, nadal pulled it out.

I have never been so glued to a match, never have experienced such drama, such a big big match with so much at stake. For the first time ever, people that never spoke of tennis told me at wotk how they were even glued to the TV.

Fed fans know this is prob greatest match of all time but they try and diminish it, only pointing to first two sets..

Lastly, the reason federer didn’t look amazing in first two sets was nadal.. remember, rafa had taken fed to 5 sets in 07 final and rafa was playing even better! I think fed was a bit surprised by nadal’s level and had to dig very deep to summon a higher gear in last 3 sets. Had you put roddick or hewitt in that final, i bet fed would’ve annihialed them. [/quote]

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As to the otherwise graciousness in defeat v. excuse-making of Fed fans, I will offer a few examples, starting with the never-ending mono. I'm sure you were in the pile-on as to Roger's back going out in Montreal 2017.

Roger's back was surely a factor in his USO performance. When something is a factor, to deny is violating the facts. But, a factor cannot be an excuse. A factor becomes an excuse only if someone claims he would have won otherwise. Fact of the matter is no one would know what would have happened otherwise (as we cannot recreate a non-existing alternate reality).

You are confusing a factor and an excuse.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

What i find interesting is that 9/10 of the people that claim this match wasn’t that great are fed fans, coincidence? Must be hard to accept fed lost the match many consider greatest ever.

If we go by quality of tennis, i’m sure we can find many insignificant matches in lower class tournaments of two players playing at a higher level consustently. In my view, it is quite possibly greatest match of all time, for a variety of reasons.

Nadal was inching closer and closer to federer at wimbledon. They had met in previous 2 W finals and nadal had taken fed to 5 sets in 07 final. Nadal was playing even better and the anticipation was at an all time
high, people felt this match was extremely important. For years, nadal single handedly prevented fed from making a mockery of tennis and many believed it was fed who would beat rafa at french. Rafa, to many people’s amazement, turned the tables and made a bold statement - forget french, i’m coming after you in YOUR house. Having crushed fed at FO final, the tennis world was preparing for a seismic shift.. the end of Federer’s stranglehold on tennis.. nadal had come so close in 07 so everyone felt he could get it done in 08.

The match itself was full of drama - fed went down 2 sets to love, an amazing turn of events after he had dominated w for so long. People were glued in, watching history in the making. Fed staged a mighty comback against a raging confident nadal, playing a very high level. The last 3 sets was super high quaity tennis, that breaker where they traded the best passing shots of the whole tournament was out of this world. The rain delays came and went, a true test of nerves for two tennis greats. It went down to the wire, the sun light was dwindling and before match was suspended, nadal pulled it out.

I have never been so glued to a match, never have experienced such drama, such a big big match with so much at stake. For the first time ever, people that never spoke of tennis told me at wotk how they were even glued to the TV.

Fed fans know this is prob greatest match of all time but they try and diminish it, only pointing to first two sets..

Lastly, the reason federer didn’t look amazing in first two sets was nadal.. remember, rafa had taken fed to 5 sets in 07 final and rafa was playing even better! I think fed was a bit surprised by nadal’s level and had to dig very deep to summon a higher gear in last 3 sets. Had you put roddick or hewitt in that final, i bet fed would’ve annihialed them.

I already agreed that in terms of drama created by the history etc (and the comparison made before the match about JMac and Borg etc), it was the greatest match (at least among those I had the opportunity to see in my lifetime). However, as I said it is not greatest match due to quality of play. Now, you say may be there is a high school tennis match where both players played at their best. Nobody is asking to go to that low level. I can mention several other ATP or Grandslam matches in which both played really well.

Finally, I am not saying it is not a great match just because Roger lost it. Roger also lost 2005 AO Semifinal to Safin. But, I belive both players played really well in that match. It would never be called the greatest match by the media as there is not much of drama or rivalry history out there about these two and also because it is "just a semifinal".

 

[Moxie]

Roger's back was surely a factor in his USO performance. When something is a factor, to deny is violating the facts. But, a factor cannot be an excuse. A factor becomes an excuse only if someone claims he would have won otherwise. Fact of the matter is no one would know what would have happened otherwise (as we cannot recreate a non-existing alternate reality).

You are confusing a factor and an excuse.

OMG, you just described the whole argument that Nadal fans have been having with you wankers all these years. Such a relief to know you've finally figured out the difference. Thanks!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

OMG, you just described the whole argument that Nadal fans have been having with you wankers all these years. Such a relief to know you've finally figured out the difference. Thanks!

No, Nadalites always come up with a factor for almost every match he loses. As a result, when they mention a factor, it needs careful examination and cannot be taken at face value.