The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[DarthFed]

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?

I think you are a somewhat legitimate Djokovic fan. Never bought the "Nadal fan" from you and the other disgruntled Sampras tribe. That was just you guys praying for anyone to stop 15. If Fed wasn't around you'd have hated Nadal. If neither was around you'd probably be hating on Djokovic now.

We will see if one of them makes Roger's career chopped liver. I for one think Roger better think hard about the future and get back to playing respectable tennis as his legacy is still not safe.

 

[Moxie]

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.

Look, you will always see it the way you see it. If Roger lost to Rafa on grass, he must have been crap. I'm really done trying to argue this one with you. Likewise, you think that if the rest of the world declares it to be the "Greatest Match of all Time," then Roger must have been great in it. I don't say that. We know what all went into, and I know it chaps the Fed fan butt that it is claimed to be so, but it basically had everything.
Except, for you guys, the Fed win. I'm sorry that you hate it, but history decides what it wants. I don't make an issue of Rafa's "fatigue" in the '17 AO final. I have mentioned that Rafa had one less day off, and a hard 5-setter in his SF. It's surely not the same thing is mono, in any way. But it's not like you've never claimed fatigue on Roger. (OG '12 final, as an example.) That's a really different issue, and you know why.

Yes, you can be hyperbolic, which I'm glad you admit. You often misrepresent what others are saying, contrary to your claim. How many times have I told you to stop putting words in my mouth? Many. Because you do. You often take a nuanced statement and turn it on the poster, or me, anyway, into an extreme b/w. I love you, man, but you do that, whether you recognize it or not.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

You destroyed no arguments about the draws because you can't refute my points. I also did say that Safin was clearly a tougher semi than Bjorkman not because he was actually better on grass but just from a perspective of who was more dangerous. Aside from that and maybe the second round (old Tim Henman compared to Soderling who had not broken out yet) Roger's draw was clearly tougher in 2006. Gasquet was #17 and coming off a grass title the week before, one which he had won the season. before as well. Yes, Berdych in 06 was already more dangerous than broken down Hewitt in 2008 and Ancic had a career year in 06, got mono in 2007 and was never the same. It was a surprise he made the QF in 2008 whereas he was a top 5 favorite easily at 2006 especially since he had been the last player to beat Federer at Wimbledon. You of course will say this is propping up one draw and crapping on the other but you really provide no refutation here.

The answer to your first two questions are yes but no to the last one. The disconnect here is that you seem to think 2008 match represents Federer at his best while I don't think he was close to good. Yes, I think if a guy considered the greatest ever on grass plays at the top of his game he is normally going to win especially when we are talking a guy with a mediocre serve, no net game and could barely flatten out his forehand. Playing well for Federer means he doesn't donate a ridiculous amount of errors, doesn't come into net consistently on junk and that he doesn't suck in the clutch.

I just feel that Fed haters are sensitive. An excuse would be if you actually see any of us blame that match on mono or something else. Rather some of us are critical of our favorite player's performance and people like you and Moxie can't handle it for some reason. It isn't an excuse for me to say Roger was disappointing. Hell, look at this past AO when he lost to Tsitsipas. His ROS was absolute trash but I'm guessing me saying that will be considered an excuse for Roger losing. And even when you see most Roger fans give credit to Nadal for that match and for earning his way into Fed's head you'll still find problem with it.

So my question to you is what exactly do you want us to say?

 

[MikeOne]

You destroyed no arguments about the draws because you can't refute my points. I also did say that Safin was clearly a tougher semi than Bjorkman not because he was actually better on grass but just from a perspective of who was more dangerous. Aside from that and maybe the second round (old Tim Henman compared to Soderling who had not broken out yet) Roger's draw was clearly tougher in 2006. Gasquet was #17 and coming off a grass title the week before, one which he had won the season. before as well. Yes, Berdych in 06 was already more dangerous than broken down Hewitt in 2008 and Ancic had a career year in 06, got mono in 2007 and was never the same. It was a surprise he made the QF in 2008 whereas he was a top 5 favorite easily at 2006 especially since he had been the last player to beat Federer at Wimbledon. You of course will say this is propping up one draw and crapping on the other but you really provide no refutation here.

absolute trash, his 06 draw wasn't that impressive... you go through great lengths to find anything BIG in his 06 opponents and anything SMALL with his 08 opponents. I even remember once mentioning to you that Keifer gave Roger a tough 4 set battle at Wimbledon one year and you dared to tell me Keifer was a GIANT! btw, a baby Nadal was the only one who could take a set off Fed in 06 final. Think about this for a min.. Rafa in 05 had dominated clay and done little outside of clay, in 06 he had hardly played on grass and makes finals and takes a set of Federer! If baby, learning to play on grass could take a set of Fed on 06, what makes you think 08 Nadal couldn't have defeated Fed in 06? 08 Nadal WAY WAY WAY better than 06 baby Nadal on grass. Federer wasn't that unbeatable in 06 on grass...

he answer to your first two questions are yes but no to the last one. The disconnect here is that you seem to think 2008 match represents Federer at his best while I don't think he was close to good. Yes, I think if a guy considered the greatest ever on grass plays at the top of his game he is normally going to win especially when we are talking a guy with a mediocre serve, no net game and could barely flatten out his forehand. Playing well for Federer means he doesn't donate a ridiculous amount of errors, doesn't come into net consistently on junk and that he doesn't suck in the clutch.

The problem with your line of thinking is that you think Fed at his best beats Nadal 100-0 one grass.. NO! NO! and neither would Nadal beat Federer 100-0 on clay, even nadal at his best. Nadal CAN beat Federer on grass, even Fed at his best, just that Fed would win MOST of them. Similarly, Fed can beat Nadal on clay, even nadal at his best, just that Nadal would win MOST of them. What you fail comprehend is that a match is not only about how you play, it's how you handle an opponent. You guys always believed that Federer could just out of the blue play the same way against Nadal as he looked against Roddick, for instance. NO! Roddick made Roger look good with his poor movement and one dimensional serving game. Roger would easily hit a fh, slice here and there and put Roddick in a bad position, then easily hit a winner to the open court... it looked EASY BUT NOT easy vs Nadal. Nadal was much faster and time and time again hit very good shots even when he seemed out of position. Roddick had awful passing shots, Nadal hit so many incredible passing shots from seemingly impossible positions. Nadal hit so many on the run shots vs federer in 07 and 08 finals, Roddick could only DREAM of hitting those shots. Nadal also forced Fed to hit extra shots, time and time again and Nadal was able to hit MANY, MANY, MANY more winners off the baseline than Roddick. He hit a ton of baseline winners vs Federer in those two finals. Not only this, he attacked Federer's bh in ways Roddick never could.

So you FAIL to comprehend one of the most basic laws of tennis - your play is largely dependent on your opponent! Your opponent largely dictates how good you look, what you can do. Put 05 Roddick in that 08 finals and he gets CREAMED...

Federer's level in last 3 sets was as high as anything he showed in 04-07 Wimbledon, Nadal just made it very difficult for Federer to look SUBLIME, as Hewitt, Roddick made him look.

 

[Front242]

Prime Roddick would beat Nadal 2008 on grass. In his prime he was an animal on grass.

 

[Moxie]

Prime Roddick would beat Nadal 2008 on grass. In his prime he was an animal on grass.

Maybe, but he lost in R64 that year, so I'm not sure of your point. The best player in that tournament, in the end, was Nadal, who was at a very high point in his career, and he's one of the best of all time. That's a high bar to meet, compared to a player that won 1 Major, and it wasn't at Wimbledon.

 

[Moxie]

I just feel that Fed haters are sensitive. An excuse would be if you actually see any of us blame that match on mono or something else. Rather some of us are critical of our favorite player's performance and people like you and Moxie can't handle it for some reason. It isn't an excuse for me to say Roger was disappointing. Hell, look at this past AO when he lost to Tsitsipas. His ROS was absolute trash but I'm guessing me saying that will be considered an excuse for Roger losing. And even when you see most Roger fans give credit to Nadal for that match and for earning his way into Fed's head you'll still find problem with it.

So my question to you is what exactly do you want us to say?

As you know I'm not a Fed hater. Maybe Mike One is, so I'll let him respond to that. But I would question who is "sensitive" about that match: Nadal fans for Federer fans? Seriously. I know that your only position has ever been that Roger just played shite. As I've said before, I think that over-states it too much, but that ends up being a judgement call. An opinion you hold that is not shared with much of the wider world. Whatever. Just remember, that by saying he wasn't completely terrible does NOT mean I'm saying he played his best. (Sheesh, I can't believe how often that has to be emphasized for you to get it.) But to open it up to other Federer fans on the forums, there has been talk of how mono prevented him, at least, from preparing properly. Tell me you have never read that. Federberg has said it a few times, and he also likes to tell us how dark it was at the end of that match, as he lives around the corner, and that it should have been stopped. Seems pointless, but he keeps saying it. And a lot of Fed fans, including on this thread, have complained hugely that they really resent that it's called The Greatest Match of All Time. It adds up to a lot of whining and complaining, which starts to sound like excuse-making. And, frankly, very little credit given to Nadal for winning it. When you talk about how crap Roger played, when you go on about the unforced errors by Rog, the failure to convert BPs, you do diminish Nadal's performance, not to mention the places, as above, where you actually describe his play as unfit to win on grass. I know you think that it would cost you a kidney (by which I mean "testicle," but I'm trying not to be crude,) to admit that Nadal deserved to win that Wimbledon. I suppose that is what the Nadal fans want you Fed fans to say.

As a PS, I can't believe you're resorting to comparing 37-year-old Roger losing to Tsitsipas at AO this year to losing at 26 to a 22-year-old Rafa. That's not just reaching desperately, there's basically no parallel.

 

[MikeOne]

Prime Roddick would beat Nadal 2008 on grass. In his prime he was an animal on grass.

prime Roddick made 3 Wimbledon finals and never won it. Prime Nadal made 5 Wimbledon finals and won it twice. Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick on grass.

They met once on grass, Nadal straight setted him, of course, let me hear how past his prime Roddick was.

 

[Moxie]

prime Roddick made 3 Wimbledon finals and never won it. Prime Nadal made 5 Wimbledon finals and won it twice. Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick on grass.

They met once on grass, Nadal straight setted him, of course, let me hear how past his prime Roddick was.

That was 2008 Queens Club, which Nadal won. Worth pointing out that Roddick was good enough still, and on grass, to make the 2009 final v. Roger, which he lost by a whisker. Broken only once, IIFC, right at the last to lose it in 5.

 

[Front242]

prime Roddick made 3 Wimbledon finals and never won it. Prime Nadal made 5 Wimbledon finals and won it twice. Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick on grass.

They met once on grass, Nadal straight setted him, of course, let me hear how past his prime Roddick was.

Wow. Nadal beat him by a whopping 1 break per set 7-5 6-4. As everyone knows, the margins on grass are so slim it's easy to lose serve and consequently the set. Take prime Roddick on grass and Nadal on grass and using your example of how many wins in 100 matches, hands down it'd be Roddick imo.

Roddick was just unlucky to have faced Federer in all those finals or he'd have won 3 Wimbledons and I've said on many occasions they both equally deserved the title in 2009. Obviously you can only play who is across the net from you and Federer played poorly in 2010 but one of Nadal's titles came from beating Berdych who is a much lesser player than Roddick was.

 

[DarthFed]

absolute trash, his 06 draw wasn't that impressive... you go through great lengths to find anything BIG in his 06 opponents and anything SMALL with his 08 opponents. I even remember once mentioning to you that Keifer gave Roger a tough 4 set battle at Wimbledon one year and you dared to tell me Keifer was a GIANT! btw, a baby Nadal was the only one who could take a set off Fed in 06 final. Think about this for a min.. Rafa in 05 had dominated clay and done little outside of clay, in 06 he had hardly played on grass and makes finals and takes a set of Federer! If baby, learning to play on grass could take a set of Fed on 06, what makes you think 08 Nadal couldn't have defeated Fed in 06? 08 Nadal WAY WAY WAY better than 06 baby Nadal on grass. Federer wasn't that unbeatable in 06 on grass...

The problem with your line of thinking is that you think Fed at his best beats Nadal 100-0 one grass.. NO! NO! and neither would Nadal beat Federer 100-0 on clay, even nadal at his best. Nadal CAN beat Federer on grass, even Fed at his best, just that Fed would win MOST of them. Similarly, Fed can beat Nadal on clay, even nadal at his best, just that Nadal would win MOST of them. What you fail comprehend is that a match is not only about how you play, it's how you handle an opponent. You guys always believed that Federer could just out of the blue play the same way against Nadal as he looked against Roddick, for instance. NO! Roddick made Roger look good with his poor movement and one dimensional serving game. Roger would easily hit a fh, slice here and there and put Roddick in a bad position, then easily hit a winner to the open court... it looked EASY BUT NOT easy vs Nadal. Nadal was much faster and time and time again hit very good shots even when he seemed out of position. Roddick had awful passing shots, Nadal hit so many incredible passing shots from seemingly impossible positions. Nadal hit so many on the run shots vs federer in 07 and 08 finals, Roddick could only DREAM of hitting those shots. Nadal also forced Fed to hit extra shots, time and time again and Nadal was able to hit MANY, MANY, MANY more winners off the baseline than Roddick. He hit a ton of baseline winners vs Federer in those two finals. Not only this, he attacked Federer's bh in ways Roddick never could.

So you FAIL to comprehend one of the most basic laws of tennis - your play is largely dependent on your opponent! Your opponent largely dictates how good you look, what you can do. Put 05 Roddick in that 08 finals and he gets CREAMED...

Federer's level in last 3 sets was as high as anything he showed in 04-07 Wimbledon, Nadal just made it very difficult for Federer to look SUBLIME, as Hewitt, Roddick made him look.

See here's the problem, I'm trying to have a legitimate discussion about the draws and you claim it's all nuts and I'm being biased, which is ironic since you basically try so hard to shoot down 2004-2007 while talking up Roger's play in 2008. Also, are you sure Roddick would've been destroyed in 2008 the way Roger was returning Nadal's serve. Did you seen Federer-Roddick in 2009?

Face the facts here, the draws are actually irrelevant but if you want to keep arguing that I'd be happy to since I am right on this subject and the best you can come up with is going crazy and not even really debating it. Apparently Hewitt in 08 was still a great player, apparently Safin was outstanding on grass. And you can maybe just admit you're clueless as to Ancic's career and illness (another irony). If I was being biased I'd say Henman was a tougher opponent than Soderling and Bjorkman over Safin based on their achievements on grass.

What is relevant is that Roger had a lot of problems in 08, you want to attribute them 100% to the competition and to do that you have to try so hard to make it look like he was playing as well as ever in 2008. Your agenda has been obvious since day 1. Roger isn't any good, he just had weak competition and since he barely did anything right in 2008 it's a good time for you to say "see, look at that. Roger was brilliant all year but lost as soon as Nadal and Djokovic became competent". So while you accuse everyone else for making excuses you may want to check yourself as Roger was beating scrubs and babies according to you in 04-07.

You ask if Rafa was playing better in 08 than 07 and the answer is yes. But was Roger playing worse in 08 than 07 and earlier years? The answer is of course yes. Put the normal Roger in that final and I doubt he loses, and I doubt he gets blown out by a Djokovic who had done little before and after that tournament. And that doesn't even dive into other big events like the Olympics (straigt set beatdowns loss to Blake) or YEC where he didn't make the semis for the only time in his career. The funny thing is if Roger had won either of those matches you, Moxie and others would have still claimed Roger's competition wasn't any good yet since they were young.

 

[MikeOne]

Wow. Nadal beat him by a whopping 1 break per set 7-5 6-4. As everyone knows, the margins on grass are so slim it's easy to lose serve and consequently the set. Take prime Roddick on grass and Nadal on grass and using your example of how many wins in 100 matches, hands down it'd be Roddick imo.

Roddick was just unlucky to have faced Federer in all those finals or he'd have won 3 Wimbledons and I've said on many occasions they both equally deserved the title in 2009. Obviously you can only play who is across the net from you and Federer played poorly in 2010 but one of Nadal's titles came from beating Berdych who is a much lesser player than Roddick was.

So you say ‘roddick was unlucky to have faced federer in 3 w finals’.

To which i respond ‘nadal was also unlucky to have faced fedeter in 3 wimbledon finals’. So using your logic, nadal would’ve won 4 wimbledon titles if he hadn’t faced federer in 06 and 07.

So funny enough, both roddick and nadal faced federer 3 times in w finals. Roddick was able to win 3 sets in all 3 finals and lost all 3. Nadal was able to win 5 sets in 3 finals and won 1 of the matches.

And if roddick was so great on grass, why only 3 finals? Nadal made 5...

And nadal did beat him only time they met in grass and this a year before roddick had his best performance vs fed (09 w) so roddick was not an oldie past past his prime.

By almost every measure or statistic, facts show nadal > roddick on grass. I know this is hard to take as some of you want to make nadal out to be just a clay courter but nadal has always been good on grass, on hardcourts, it’s just that he’s insane on clay.

If you closely analyze roddick’s game, he actually never had a game suited for grass outside of the serve - good volleys. agile, fast, good slice... he basically rode his serve to the 3 w finals but outside of his serve, he had an awful grass court game. Sampras, federer were the perfect grass court players. Even nadal had much better slice, volleys and movement than roddick.. roddick truly had a very 1 dimensional game on grass and this is why when federer was able to get his serve back in play, roddick was a joke... fed toyed with him. In 09 roddick was able to take federer to 5 sets because he served like crazy.. he had amazing serving day.. without it, he was garbage on grass.

 

[Front242]

The problem with so many people who slag Roddick to belittle Federer is they fail to recall just how hard and flat Roddick used to hit his forehand in his prime. By 2009 he was no longer hitting it flat and had adopted a more crap, loopy FH with way more net clearance. I'm sticking to saying prime Roddick and not 2009 Roddick was a beast on grass. If he was only all serve then why didn't Karlovic or Isner ever make the finals of Wimbledon? Easy, because Roddick had more than serve. He had a monstrous forehand that went to crap in his later years just as Federer's has also gone crap for the most part.

Nadal has only been good on the mangled week 2 grass which plays more like clay with all the hard mud at the back of the court and huge patches with zero grass. He's been extremely poor (I had originally typed dog shit but I'm trying to be nice) when the grass was fresh in the first week and playing fast and beaten by numerous nobodies and even in 2010 when he won the title, he had to resort to some of his most famously dubious medical timeouts to beat Haase and Petzschner, both times while trailing and getting his ass kicked. Ironically, the tour felt pity for him that year and gave him the sportsmanship award which was hilarious.

 

[El Dude]

Roddick is somewhat underrated historically speaking, in a similar way that Andy Murray is. Both players were greatly impacted by playing alongside Fedalkovic.

Consider Roddick's record vs other members of "Gen Fed" and older players:
Hewitt: 7-7
Robredo: 11-0
Verdasco: 10-3
Blake: 9-3
Ferrero: 5-0
Davydenko: 5-1
Nalbandian 4-2
Safin: 4-3
Fish: 9-3
Coria: 5-0
Moya: 4-1
etc.

He had a Federer problem (3-21) in the worst possible way. He had losing records against Rafa (3-7) and Murray (3-8), but it wasn't absolute dominance. He also couldn't handle the savvy Agassi (1-5) or young del Potro (1-4), but other than that he was pretty competitive with everyone else.

He's also one of the few players to have a winning record against Novak: 5-4. He was also 2-1 vs geriatric Sampras.

 

[El Dude]

He reached 19 Slam QF, which is the same number as 4-Slam winner Guillermo Vilas and one less than 7-Slam winner Wilander and two less than 11-Slam winner Borg.

 

[atttomole]

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.

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.



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.

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

So how do you explain Nadal's losses to Federer in 2017?

 

[Moxie]

Prime Roddick would beat Nadal 2008 on grass. In his prime he was an animal on grass.

Andy Roddick was 25 when Nadal beat him on grass in 2008. And, as I mentioned, he did make the Wimbledon final in the next year. I'm not sure what about Roddick was not "prime" in 2008.

The problem with so many people who slag Roddick to belittle Federer is they fail to recall just how hard and flat Roddick used to hit his forehand in his prime. By 2009 he was no longer hitting it flat and had adopted a more crap, loopy FH with way more net clearance. I'm sticking to saying prime Roddick and not 2009 Roddick was a beast on grass. If he was only all serve then why didn't Karlovic or Isner ever make the finals of Wimbledon? Easy, because Roddick had more than serve. He had a monstrous forehand that went to crap in his later years just as Federer's has also gone crap for the most part.

Nadal has only been good on the mangled week 2 grass which plays more like clay with all the hard mud at the back of the court and huge patches with zero grass. He's been extremely poor (I had originally typed dog shit but I'm trying to be nice) when the grass was fresh in the first week and playing fast and beaten by numerous nobodies and even in 2010 when he won the title, he had to resort to some of his most famously dubious medical timeouts to beat Haase and Petzschner, both times while trailing and getting his ass kicked. Ironically, the tour felt pity for him that year and gave him the sportsmanship award which was hilarious.

Nobody is "slagging Roddick to belittle Fed." Who has slagged him at all? Unless pointing out that Rafa beat him on grass courts, and that he did beat Roger at W, which Roddick did not, constitutes demeaning him. But I will point out, to your above point about Nadal only being good on "mangled" grass, that Queens Club is played in one week, so the grass is still pretty nice. He also beat Djokovic in the final, so clearly he was playing some good tennis, and on proper grass.

 

[atttomole]

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?

I envy you then. You could be celebrating within a few years when one of them surpasses Federer. Do you like Nadal and Djokovic equally? Why do yo dislike Federer so much? Is it because he broke Sampras' record?

 

[Moxie]

Roddick is somewhat underrated historically speaking, in a similar way that Andy Murray is. Both players were greatly impacted by playing alongside Fedalkovic.

Consider Roddick's record vs other members of "Gen Fed" and older players:
Hewitt: 7-7
Robredo: 11-0
Verdasco: 10-3
Blake: 9-3
Ferrero: 5-0
Davydenko: 5-1
Nalbandian 4-2
Safin: 4-3
Fish: 9-3
Coria: 5-0
Moya: 4-1
etc.

He had a Federer problem (3-21) in the worst possible way. He had losing records against Rafa (3-7) and Murray (3-8), but it wasn't absolute dominance. He also couldn't handle the savvy Agassi (1-5) or young del Potro (1-4), but other than that he was pretty competitive with everyone else.

He's also one of the few players to have a winning record against Novak: 5-4. He was also 2-1 vs geriatric Sampras.

I'm enjoying the cameo appearance by Roddick in the Fedal Wars thread, as a respite. I don't know if the Murray comparison is completely apt, as Murray has had a much better career, and I think he was a much more versatile player. They are both very funny, though, off-court. I wasn't a fan of Roddick's game, but you had to respect his sturdiness. He didn't fall out of the top 10 for a full decade.

He reached 19 Slam QF, which is the same number as 4-Slam winner Guillermo Vilas and one less than 7-Slam winner Wilander and two less than 11-Slam winner Borg.

While I do agree that Roddick, like Murray, would likely have won more in a different era, I'm not sure how far you can stretch a point about making a lot of QFs. But thanks for the stat.

 

[MikeOne]

The problem with so many people who slag Roddick to belittle Federer is they fail to recall just how hard and flat Roddick used to hit his forehand in his prime. By 2009 he was no longer hitting it flat and had adopted a more crap, loopy FH with way more net clearance. I'm sticking to saying prime Roddick and not 2009 Roddick was a beast on grass. If he was only all serve then why didn't Karlovic or Isner ever make the finals of Wimbledon? Easy, because Roddick had more than serve. He had a monstrous forehand that went to crap in his later years just as Federer's has also gone crap for the most part.

Nadal has only been good on the mangled week 2 grass which plays more like clay with all the hard mud at the back of the court and huge patches with zero grass. He's been extremely poor (I had originally typed dog shit but I'm trying to be nice) when the grass was fresh in the first week and playing fast and beaten by numerous nobodies and even in 2010 when he won the title, he had to resort to some of his most famously dubious medical timeouts to beat Haase and Petzschner, both times while trailing and getting his ass kicked. Ironically, the tour felt pity for him that year and gave him the sportsmanship award which was hilarious.

couple of points you make that we need to talk about.

you ask why Isner nor Karlovic did anything an Wimbledon and use this fact to somehow argue that Roddick wasn't all serve. You are right, but wrong at same time. Of course Roddick wasn't just all serve but he was pretty 1 dimensional. Comparing Isner and Karlovic to Roddick is a joke because these guys are extremes - unathletic behemoths who are very limited athletically. Roddick was more athletic than these guys and more mobile so compared to these guys he was an athlete but everything is relative. When you compare Roddick to Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Sampras and even guys like Ivanisevic, Roddick was limited athletically. It's like me saying i'm really fast because so so who is 360 lbs and obese is slow.... but if i compare myself to a top athlete, i'm nothing.

You can say all you want, and a lot of it is absolute trash because the facts are totally against you.

Wimbledon finals:

Roddick 3
Nadal 5

Wimbledon titles:

Nadal 2
Roddick 0

H2H vs Federer at Wimbledon:

Nadal 1-2
Roddick 0-3

H2H

Nadal 1, Roddick 0


By EVERY measure, stat, fact Nadal >>>> Roddick on grass. End of discussion