The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Moxie]

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.

That is absolutely not true. Leaving off trolls, I'll challenge you to a case-by-case, versus Fed fans claims of extenuating circumstances. Let's see how we do.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

I actually never did call the 08 Wimbledon competition weak, that's just Mike doing his normal move where I say something and then he later adds an extreme to it. I did say the 06 draw was harder, something that he flipped out on, and I'm right on that score. Federer had Gasquet in the first round of 06 and Mike of course thinks Ancic of 06 = Ancic of 08. Im sure in his mind he also thinks Safin was some amazing grass court player so that was a really tough semifinal. And of course Hewitt of 08 is suddenly equated to Hewitt before injury. I remember the boards and commentators in general agreed that Roger's draw was brutal before 06 Wimbledon. It didn't change his status as overwhelming favorite but it gave people a bit more hope that he could stumble.

And I also said it doesn't really matter the difference in draw, even though Roger got to the final without dropping a set in 2008 he didn't look like a world beater all year and had recently been embarrassed by Nadal at RG. I knew Nadal had a decent shot, and more "balanced" Fed fans like Haelfix thought it as well based on Roger not looking good from the baseline. 2008 Wimbledon his serve was pretty dominant but he never looked good.

It's like Fed fans admit Rafa was in Roger's head and give credit to Nadal for it and that somehow comes off as an excuse. I don't think I've ever made an excuse for 2008. Roger was easily outplayed and never really impressed that day. Mike talks about Roger improving the last 3 sets. Well Christ, I wonder why that is? Could he have done worse than the first 2 which were pathetic? The margins on grass are small and he won a couple TB's and then despite momentum he blinked fairly easily in the 5th. 9-7 isn't some incredibly long set at Wimbledon and the defining moments of the match (BP and MP lost) were atrocious unforced forehand errors. In the Fed hater world all this equates to him playing the best match of his career. That's where you get the pushback.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

Pleas people, point where I have ever made an excuse for Wimbledon 2008? If I lament Roger's play or talk poorly of certain parts that is an excuse?

As for the rest of this post it is way off. Nadal fans are more the excuse makers. Do you remember Huntingyou back in the day when Nadal lost any match? How about 09 RG? I've heard you make injury excuse many times for that. Or how about your fatigue excuse after Fed beat Nadal at AO?

Roger didn't use the new racket until 2014 aside from 1-2 tournaments in 2013 before he switched back. I seriously doubt any Fed fans used that as an excuse for 2013.

 

[MikeOne]

I actually never did call the 08 Wimbledon competition weak, that's just Mike doing his normal move where I say something and then he later adds an extreme to it.

your comments were pretty extreme.. you didn't just say 06 draw was stronger, but much stronger, which is absolute BS. You then went on to explain why Safin in 08 was weak, why ancic was past his best, hewitt old.. etc... It was pretty extreme. no backpedalling now... and you went back and made every opponent in 06 to be formidable,... i already destroyed this argument by looking ay each opponent in 06 vs 08. You just cannot and WILL NOT accept that Nadal could defeat Federer at wimbledon.

questions Darth:

1. Did Nadal not take Federer to 5 sets in 07 final?
2. Was Nadal not playing at a higher level in 08 vs 07 on grass? Don't even try and argue no...
3. Given Rafa had taken Fed to 5 in 07 final and was even better in 08, any reason to believe he couldn't have defeated Federer, even Fed at his best? You just will never accept this was possible...


This match hurt, it hurt a lot and Fed fans have been scarred ever since. Fed fans used to argue Fed was gonna get Nadal at French Open, he just needed to stop being such a mental midget. They never even in their wildest dreams envision Nadal could challenge him at Wimbledon. Nadal then came in, made 06 finals and was only player to take a set off Fed that year, a baby Nadal (19?), just learning to play on grass. Fed fans thought it was a fluke, then 07 comes along... 5 sets! At this point Fed fans were beginning to panic? WHAT? how can this be? grinder Nadal challenging Fed at Wimbledon? he may just beat Fed at W before Fed beats him at French! 'OH F!!!' This was unimaginable, unthinkable back in 05... Then 08 comes along and not only does Nadal beat him, he beats in a match many regard greatest ever...

This was too much to handle for Fed fans... and we get all these excuses and rationalizing... to make Fed fans feel somewhat better.

You guys are the worst... have you ever made me made excuses when Djokovic or Nadal has been beaten by Fed? never.. or when Djoker beat Nadal in 11? or when Stan beat Djoker? never..

but Fed fans.... worst of the bunch.

 

[MikeOne]

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".

Safin vs Fed match was high level but Fed fans did make some excuses back then, i remember. Having said this, today, Fed fans like to point to this match as 'really high level' when comparing it to 08 final. You are not the first to do this btw. The reason, i believe, is that they prefer to take that loss like men as Safin was a player many considered talented and someone that never really presented a challenge to Federer, outside of that match. Safin was never a threat to Fed's greatness, Fed owned him in H2H and Safin couldn't keep up his level for too long. Funny, if were to wear Fed fan hat for a second, i would claim something like 'Safin was a clown, who in 05 barely won matches, was washed up by 05 and beat federer?' Look up Safin's 05 record, a joke... but i know better, Safin, even though ended with a mediocre at best 05 record, played incredibly well during AO 05.

Nadal is different, Nadal from the beginning presented a severe threat to Federer's supremacy, even beating him as a 17 year old first time they met. Nadal started beating up on Fed on clay in 05, preventing Fed from making a mockery of this sport. It became personal, Fed fans hated Nadal.. this tenacious bull with sleeveless shirts, long hair, they dubbed him 'a grinder' who was just mentally strong and fit. Nadal then started beating Fed in other surfaces, became #2 and started challenging him even at Wimbledon! Fed fans viewed Nadal as a real threat, unlike how they viewed Safin. This is why they can talk up Safin and that 05 match... but have a hard time accepting 08 result.

from a neutral standpoint, Safin vs Fed was higher quality over 5 sets but NOT higher quality if you take the last 3 sets of 08 final. Safin vs Fed DID NOT have higher quality than last 3 sets in 08, BS! The only difference was the first two sets where Fed seemed out of sorts but at least Nadal was playing a really high level..it wasn't two playing poorly. Then Fed summoned his best in last 3 sets but at that point Nadal was too confident and refused to let 07 occur again, lose another 5 setter. Those last 3 sets were extremely high quality and the first two sets, in my opinion, added spice to the match as it was very dramatic to see Roger Federer, the Wimbledon KING, be down 2 sets for first time ever... overall, taking into consideration the occasion, quality, drama... no question 08 final > 05 semis.

 

[atttomole]

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.

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.

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..

I noticed that you have rarely posted on these boards the last few years and I am guessing you have not been reading other people’s posts either. Most Federer fans accept that Nadal has been the most difficult player for Federer. Most of us were not keen to watch any matches between the two because we thought the outcome would be obvious. Even with a huge lead, we always expected Rafa to win the match vs Roger, which was a clear sign of how much we accepted Rafa’s superiority. A few posts ago, I even mentioned that too and many other Fed fans have said the same, but clearly you read what you want and then create strawman arguments.

Your problem is that you think when we say Rafa was in Roger’s head, we are trying to make excuses for Roger’s losses. I don’t see how that makes it an excuse.

As a Nadal fan, you are saying that you never made excuses for his losses to Djokovic. It was clear to us Fed fans as well, but the other thing that was not clear to some Nadal fans is that Djokovic was in Nadal’s head, a situation which is not very different from Federer/Nadal. You are trying so hard to show that you are not biased by saying that you don’t give excuses when your favorite Rafa loses to Djokovic, but you are always trying to remind us that Federer lost to Nadal without having previously dropped a set. There is nothing scandalous about losing a final that you reached without dropping a set because top players are usually separated based on rankings and they meet later in the tournament. It happened to Nadal this year at the AO, and I am sure you have no excuses for that, even though Rafa steamrolled everyone on his way to the final.

As a Nadal fan, when did you become a Djokovic fan?

 

[DarthFed]

I noticed that you have rarely posted on these boards the last few years and I am guessing you have not been reading other people’s posts either. Most Federer fans accept that Nadal has been the most difficult player for Federer. Most of us were not keen to watch any matches between the two because we thought the outcome would be obvious. Even with a huge lead, we always expected Rafa to win the match vs Roger, which was a clear sign of how much we accepted Rafa’s superiority. A few posts ago, I even mentioned that too and many other Fed fans have said the same, but clearly you read what you want and then create strawman arguments.

Your problem is that you think when we say Rafa was in Roger’s head, we are trying to make excuses for Roger’s losses. I don’t see how that makes it an excuse.

As a Nadal fan, you are saying that you never made excuses for his losses to Djokovic. It was clear to us Fed fans as well, but the other thing that was not clear to some Nadal fans is that Djokovic was in Nadal’s head, a situation which is not very different from Federer/Nadal. You are trying so hard to show that you are not biased by saying that you don’t give excuses when your favorite Rafa loses to Djokovic, but you are always trying to remind us that Federer lost to Nadal without having previously dropped a set. There is nothing scandalous about losing a final that you reached without dropping a set because top players are usually separated based on rankings and they meet later in the tournament. It happened to Nadal this year at the AO, and I am sure you have no excuses for that, even though Rafa steamrolled everyone on his way to the final.

As a Nadal fan, when did you become a Djokovic fan?

I will answer the last question for you, he became a Djokovic fan after Fed passed up Sampras by a lot. Mike is a huge Sampras fan that became a "Nadal fan" out of necessity.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Safin vs Fed match was high level but Fed fans did make some excuses back then, i remember. Having said this, today, Fed fans like to point to this match as 'really high level' when comparing it to 08 final. You are not the first to do this btw. The reason, i believe, is that they prefer to take that loss like men as Safin was a player many considered talented and someone that never really presented a challenge to Federer, outside of that match. Safin was never a threat to Fed's greatness, Fed owned him in H2H and Safin couldn't keep up his level for too long. Funny, if were to wear Fed fan hat for a second, i would claim something like 'Safin was a clown, who in 05 barely won matches, was washed up by 05 and beat federer?' Look up Safin's 05 record, a joke... but i know better, Safin, even though ended with a mediocre at best 05 record, played incredibly well during AO 05.

Nadal is different, Nadal from the beginning presented a severe threat to Federer's supremacy, even beating him as a 17 year old first time they met. Nadal started beating up on Fed on clay in 05, preventing Fed from making a mockery of this sport. It became personal, Fed fans hated Nadal.. this tenacious bull with sleeveless shirts, long hair, they dubbed him 'a grinder' who was just mentally strong and fit. Nadal then started beating Fed in other surfaces, became #2 and started challenging him even at Wimbledon! Fed fans viewed Nadal as a real threat, unlike how they viewed Safin. This is why they can talk up Safin and that 05 match... but have a hard time accepting 08 result.

from a neutral standpoint, Safin vs Fed was higher quality over 5 sets but NOT higher quality if you take the last 3 sets of 08 final. Safin vs Fed DID NOT have higher quality than last 3 sets in 08, BS! The only difference was the first two sets where Fed seemed out of sorts but at least Nadal was playing a really high level..it wasn't two playing poorly. Then Fed summoned his best in last 3 sets but at that point Nadal was too confident and refused to let 07 occur again, lose another 5 setter. Those last 3 sets were extremely high quality and the first two sets, in my opinion, added spice to the match as it was very dramatic to see Roger Federer, the Wimbledon KING, be down 2 sets for first time ever... overall, taking into consideration the occasion, quality, drama... no question 08 final > 05 semis.

No one has hard time accepting the 08 result. I have already said explicitly that full credit goes to Nadal. Only thing, I had objection to was that match being called the best match ever. When I said there are much better matches, you wanted to talk about high school tennis. That is why I gave you a concrete example which is at the SF level of a GS. Further you accused that we don't want to call a match in which Fed lost as a great match. I refuted that also with the same example.

You only see what you want to see. It is very clear that you yourself (even if grudgingly) accept that 2005 AO SF was a high quality match in terms of pure tennis. Then you waffle around.

Simply claiming that we refuse to call 08 as the greatest match because we hate Ralph is absurd.

 

[Federberg]

That is absolutely not true. Leaving off trolls, I'll challenge you to a case-by-case, versus Fed fans claims of extenuating circumstances. Let's see how we do.

I don't really want to be involved with this tired old battle, but I had to do a double take at this one. Are you really seriously claiming that Fed fans make more excuses for losses than Rafa fans? Seriously?

Now I've seen it all. Truth isn't truth anymore...

 

[Moxie]

I don't really want to be involved with this tired old battle, but I had to do a double take at this one. Are you really seriously claiming that Fed fans make more excuses for losses than Rafa fans? Seriously?

Now I've seen it all. Truth isn't truth anymore...

Where did I claim that? What I'm saying is that Fed fans do a fair amount of giving reasons for various losses, including your theory of Fed not being able to train properly for Wimbledon '08 and various other tournaments that spring/summer. Obviously, with Nadal injury history, there are going to be more times when we feel the need to point them out, but there's not particular dearth of claims about why Roger has lost. You'd find it's not dissimilar, if you'd remember that just because Nadal fans make them, they're not just "excuses," and when Fed fans make them, they're merely "explanations." B-)

 

[Moxie]

I actually never did call the 08 Wimbledon competition weak, that's just Mike doing his normal move where I say something and then he later adds an extreme to it. I did say the 06 draw was harder, something that he flipped out on, and I'm right on that score. Federer had Gasquet in the first round of 06 and Mike of course thinks Ancic of 06 = Ancic of 08. Im sure in his mind he also thinks Safin was some amazing grass court player so that was a really tough semifinal. And of course Hewitt of 08 is suddenly equated to Hewitt before injury. I remember the boards and commentators in general agreed that Roger's draw was brutal before 06 Wimbledon. It didn't change his status as overwhelming favorite but it gave people a bit more hope that he could stumble.

And I also said it doesn't really matter the difference in draw, even though Roger got to the final without dropping a set in 2008 he didn't look like a world beater all year and had recently been embarrassed by Nadal at RG. I knew Nadal had a decent shot, and more "balanced" Fed fans like Haelfix thought it as well based on Roger not looking good from the baseline. 2008 Wimbledon his serve was pretty dominant but he never looked good.

It's like Fed fans admit Rafa was in Roger's head and give credit to Nadal for it and that somehow comes off as an excuse. I don't think I've ever made an excuse for 2008. Roger was easily outplayed and never really impressed that day. Mike talks about Roger improving the last 3 sets. Well Christ, I wonder why that is? Could he have done worse than the first 2 which were pathetic? The margins on grass are small and he won a couple TB's and then despite momentum he blinked fairly easily in the 5th. 9-7 isn't some incredibly long set at Wimbledon and the defining moments of the match (BP and MP lost) were atrocious unforced forehand errors. In the Fed hater world all this equates to him playing the best match of his career. That's where you get the pushback.

Adding a hyperbole to what other people say is one of your favorite gambits, as bolded above, so I wouldn't throw stones on that one, if I were you. I never said you've made an excuse for Wimbledon '08, you've just exaggerated that he played like crap. I have always said that he had a lackluster start. However, other Federer fans around here have made rather a lot of the mono even into that match, such as GSM, and I was calling him out on that, not you. You should note GSM's distinction between an "excuse" and a "factor." I don't remember anyone ever saying that Rafa being in Roger's head was an "excuse." It only becomes an irritation when we are asked to discount clay for that reason. It depends on how you wield it really. I never said that fatigue was the reason that Rafa lost to Roger. I only pointed out what anyone could see in that match, that Rafa was pretty flat in much of it. A factor. Like Roger's back in Montreal and USO in '17. A factor. Though sometimes folks would forget themselves a bit, whining about how Roger blew his chances at USO title and YE#1 by playing Montreal, as if that were otherwise a near-given.

As usual, you are softening your comments about Roger's draw in W '08, when you're called out. When we're discussing the affects of mono, and point out who he played, you sneer at them. When it is pointed out that you are weakening his competition, you mellow. Let's face it, you are given to overstating a point when you want to make it, and sometimes dig yourself into a hole.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Adding a hyperbole to what other people say is one of your favorite gambits, as bolded above, so I wouldn't throw stones on that one, if I were you. I never said you've made an excuse for Wimbledon '08, you've just exaggerated that he played like crap. I have always said that he had a lackluster start. However, other Federer fans around here have made rather a lot of the mono even into that match, such as GSM, and I was calling him out on that, not you.

Show me any post by me, old or new, in which I am saying that Fed's mono played a role in his loss to Ralph in the 2008 Wimbledon.
If you are able to do so, I accept Ralph as GOAT and savior of my life.

 

[MikeOne]

I noticed that you have rarely posted on these boards the last few years and I am guessing you have not been reading other people’s posts either. Most Federer fans accept that Nadal has been the most difficult player for Federer. Most of us were not keen to watch any matches between the two because we thought the outcome would be obvious. Even with a huge lead, we always expected Rafa to win the match vs Roger, which was a clear sign of how much we accepted Rafa’s superiority. A few posts ago, I even mentioned that too and many other Fed fans have said the same, but clearly you read what you want and then create strawman arguments.

I have debated Fed fans for many years, trust me, they have been pretty clear on their thoughts on Federer losing to Nadal. They explained every Fed loss as either Fed being mentally weak or suffering from mono, little credit was given to Nadal's quality of tennis. They made Nadal out to be a mental giant with limited tennis talent and Federer a mental midget with limitless tennis talent.

Your problem is that you think when we say Rafa was in Roger’s head, we are trying to make excuses for Roger’s losses. I don’t see how that makes it an excuse.

It depends what angle you take. There is no question that when a player beats another in big matches, he's in that player's head. The excuse is born the minute fans start claiming that because an opponent is their favorite's player's head, their favorite player becomes mentally weak and plays below his capabilities. THIS, IS, an excuse.

As a Nadal fan, you are saying that you never made excuses for his losses to Djokovic. It was clear to us Fed fans as well, but the other thing that was not clear to some Nadal fans is that Djokovic was in Nadal’s head, a situation which is not very different from Federer/Nadal.

but there is a key difference here. As i point out above, the main reason Djokovic beat Nadal was because of Djokovic's quality of tennis and because of this, he was in Nadal's head. Federer fans argued something entirely different, it wasn't Nadal's quality as a tennis player but rather that Fed was mentally weak and played poorly when he lost to Nadal. Fed fans argued that in Fed's case, Fed was a mental midget vs a Nadal that didn't have the resources to defeat a mentally strong Fed.

As a Nadal fan, when did you become a Djokovic fan?

Why, is it difficult to envision someone being a fan of multiple players? guess it's how Fed fans operate..

 

[Moxie]

Show me any post by me, old or new, in which I am saying that Fed's mono played a role in his loss to Ralph in the 2008 Wimbledon.
If you are able to do so, I accept Ralph as GOAT and savior of my life.

How about this one: post #1350 on this thread (page 67 or 68).

"Nobody claims he suddenly aged from 2007 from 2008. But, there was a legitimate issue of mono which prevented him to get ready for the slams properly. At the same time there is no question that both Novak and Rafa (on Non-clay surfaces) were becoming better in 2008. While Roger would have any way lost to Rafa in RG, there is a reasonable chance that Fed might have won AO, if not for the mono."

Now, you may want to say that you specified the AO, but we were talking about Slams in 2008, which would include Wimbledon. You can worm out of that one if you like, but it was easy to find. I can keep looking. You have definitely been a subscriber to the "Roger couldn't train properly due to mono" theory as a contributor to why he lost Wimbledon that year. But don't worry. I won't hold you to the promise.

 

[MikeOne]

I will answer the last question for you, he became a Djokovic fan after Fed passed up Sampras by a lot. Mike is a huge Sampras fan that became a "Nadal fan" out of necessity.

could be true but then i wonder why i would wake up at 3:30am EST and make a cup of a coffee to watch AO final if these were two players that i don't really care for... ahh... i do care because i just want one of them to surpass Federer's 20 slams? is that it?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

How about this one: post #1350 on this thread (page 67 or 68).

"Nobody claims he suddenly aged from 2007 from 2008. But, there was a legitimate issue of mono which prevented him to get ready for the slams properly. At the same time there is no question that both Novak and Rafa (on Non-clay surfaces) were becoming better in 2008. While Roger would have any way lost to Rafa in RG, there is a reasonable chance that Fed might have won AO, if not for the mono."

Now, you may want to say that you specified the AO, but we were talking about Slams in 2008, which would include Wimbledon. You can worm out of that one if you like, but it was easy to find. I can keep looking. You have definitely been a subscriber to the "Roger couldn't train properly due to mono" theory as a contributor to why he lost Wimbledon that year. But don't worry. I won't hold you to the promise.

Nice attempt in taking things out of context. That was in reply Mikeone's post about Roger vs. Novak at AO 2008. By the time Wimby rolled around, mono played no role and neither did I claim so.

 

[Moxie]

@MikeOne: As to your above, and rather than complicate things with your multiple citations, I will just say this: I don't think that most Federer fans have used mono as an "excuse" for why Roger lost the '08 Wimbledon. It has been cited as a "factor" by some, which still strains credulity a bit, but ok. And I will cop to, as a Nadal fan, that I think Djokovic being in Rafa's head actually probably was a feature in Nadal's loss at '11 Wimbledon and '11 USO, though. However, we Nadal fans have admitted to Novak being in his head, and we don't have to otherwise demean his play. What you are right in saying is that Federer fans will not really give an inch of credit to Nadal for excellent play where he's beaten Roger off of clay. It's basically always "head" or otherwise excuse. They basically refuse to recognize Nadal as a great player off of clay. If they relegate him to clay, and praise him to the hilt there, they feel like that is enough. It's an irritating gambit, and I think you point out the difference well.

However, I also don't agree with you that if a player beats another in a big match, it's because he's in his head. You're getting lost in the big 3. Murray didn't beat Djokovic in USO '12 because he was 'in his head,' nor did he beat Novak in '13 Wimbledon for that reason. Or win the OGs 2x. Murray wasn't really in anyone's head, nor was especially Wawrinka. I don't think that's why he beat Novak at RG '15 or USO '16. Sometimes, they just outplay them. Or they also get in their own way, as I think Djokovic did in RG '15. Not to take away from Stan.

 

[Moxie]

Nice attempt in taking things out of context. That was in reply Mikeone's post about Roger vs. Novak at AO 2008. By the time Wimby rolled around, mono played no role and neither did I claim so.

I knew you'd try to worm out of it, but the thread in those few pages had much to do with Wimbledon '08, and I have a hard time believing that you weren't reading. Play it as you will.

 

[MikeOne]

However, I also don't agree with you that if a player beats another in a big match, it's because he's in his head. You're getting lost in the big 3. Murray didn't beat Djokovic in USO '12 because he was 'in his head,' nor did he beat Novak in '13 Wimbledon for that reason. Or win the OGs 2x. Murray wasn't really in anyone's head, nor was especially Wawrinka. I don't think that's why he beat Novak at RG '15 or USO '16. Sometimes, they just outplay them. Or they also get in their own way, as I think Djokovic did in RG '15. Not to take away from Stan.

I should've elaborated. I didn't just mean 1 big match, but when it becomes a pattern.

Nadal defeated Federer 6-3, 6-3 in Miami 04 when Nadal was only 17 years old. Was Nadal in Fed's head back then? of course not.. Then Nadal started to make finals and beat Federer.. he then faced Fed in 05 Miami and almost beat him again, won first 2 sets, lost in 5. He then beat Fed in Dubai, MC, Rome, FO finals in 06! One of Fed's most dominant years. By this time, of course he was in Fed's head because Federer was shell shocked that this spanish 'grinder' was the only player who could beat him, consistently. What i argue is that just because Nadal was in his head, it didn't mean Federer was mentally weak, these are two completely different things. Nadal was in Fed's head 100% because of Nadal's quality of tennis, something Fed fans refuted, vigorously.

As far as Nadal vs Novak, i'm sure you agree that we have never seen Nadal so lost during 2011 year, never seen that look in his face as if he was facing someone invincible. Novak was never in Nadal's head before 2011, but after Djokovic beat him at IW, Miami, MC, Rome... he was definitely in Nadal's head... Nadal looked helpless and his eyes said it all. Novak then went on destroy Nadal at Wimbledon and beat him at USO. So Novak was in his head but this DOESN'T MEAN Nadal all of sudden became a mental midget, weak mentally and just played poorly vs Novak, IT WAS NOVAK'S GAME.

being is someone's head <> someone being weak, something Fed fans can't separate.

Nadal has attributes that Fed struggled with - his angles, lefty fh, speed, spins and ability to make passing shots off difficult positions. Roddick had none of these attributes and Hewitt only the speed. Nadal just kept making Federer hit extra, extra balls and he would switch defense to offense in a heartbeat, he would also pound Fed's bh relentlessly... this was all QUALITY.

Novak is a nightmare for Nadal as he takes Nadal's weapons away - spin and angles. Novak runs down all of the angles Nadal uses effectively vs even Fed, but Novak is best mover in the game. Novak's ability to take ball on the rise and power through Nadal's heavy shots takes Nadal's spin away... Ontop of this, Novak keeps the ball very deep, unlike any other, which forces Nadal to play back and leave balls short. The icing on the cake is the return - he punishes Nadal's serve, which is underrated but Novak is best returner ever. As you saw in AO final, Novak took Nadal's spin, angles and serve away... rendering Nadal helpless.. what could he do at that point? hit flat and blow past winners past Djokovic... not Nadal;s game. Rafa destroys opponents by attacking with angles, some deep, some short, once opponents are off the court, Nadal pounces...Novak is too fast and has an uncanny ability to run down winners and actually hit deep and with pace, some of those balls he stretched for vs Nadal was outrageous. I've never seen a player beat Nadal bh to fh, something only Djokovic can do, his bh is crazy good.

 

[DarthFed]

Adding a hyperbole to what other people say is one of your favorite gambits, as bolded above, so I wouldn't throw stones on that one, if I were you. I never said you've made an excuse for Wimbledon '08, you've just exaggerated that he played like crap. I have always said that he had a lackluster start. However, other Federer fans around here have made rather a lot of the mono even into that match, such as GSM, and I was calling him out on that, not you. You should note GSM's distinction between an "excuse" and a "factor." I don't remember anyone ever saying that Rafa being in Roger's head was an "excuse." It only becomes an irritation when we are asked to discount clay for that reason. It depends on how you wield it really. I never said that fatigue was the reason that Rafa lost to Roger. I only pointed out what anyone could see in that match, that Rafa was pretty flat in much of it. A factor. Like Roger's back in Montreal and USO in '17. A factor. Though sometimes folks would forget themselves a bit, whining about how Roger blew his chances at USO title and YE#1 by playing Montreal, as if that were otherwise a near-given.

As usual, you are softening your comments about Roger's draw in W '08, when you're called out. When we're discussing the affects of mono, and point out who he played, you sneer at them. When it is pointed out that you are weakening his competition, you mellow. Let's face it, you are given to overstating a point when you want to make it, and sometimes dig yourself into a hole.

Some of what I say is hyperbolic, I admit that but I usually don't misrepresent what others are saying. Most Rafa fans/Fed haters, IMO, greatly overstate Roger's play that match. We are talking a guy who came in winning 65 in a row on grass, one that is now considered the best ever on grass. I've already broken down Roger's game across the board that day. His serve was average for his standards on grass, his forehand was pretty deadly for much of the last three sets though it did break down at the end, but then the rest of his game was crap. He was an atrocious 42/75 at net, the ROS was beyond a nightmare, often missing 2nd serve returns including on BP's, and his backhand was harmless and broke down easily. This does not even get to the clutch factor or lack thereof. In a must win 2nd set he blew a 4-1 lead losing 5 straight games, 1-13 on BP's, etc.

The margins are small on grass, yes a Roger at a C level at that point was still not an easy out. Bottom line is Roger was majorly disappointing, he lost did he not?

I stand by the statement that 06 draw was a lot harder. And I also said it really doesn't matter? Do we really need to debate Roger played better in 2006 than 2008? Maybe I should say Rafa of 2015 was on par with 2013 or Novak of 2017 was on par with 2015. If you want to get retarded like that I will give it right back.

And how is your constant fatigue excuse for 2017 AO different than Roger fans talking about mono in 2008? Or how about recently when you laughingly said Roger started beating Rafa because the latter is old. Apparently it is better to be 35-36 than 30-31.