The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[El Dude]

Without watching a ton of tape of Ivanisevic (and, to a lesser degree, Roddick) on grass to make an educated speculation, but based upon the record alone, one could go either way. Goran did win Wimbledon, but had a far lower Win% and ELO on grass than Roddick:

Ivanisevic: 71.7%, 2273
Roddick: 79.6%, 2350

That suggests that, based upon their overall record on grass, Roddick was a better player and would have beaten Ivanisevic on grass more often than not. Now how their matchup would have actually played out is another matter.

 

[MikeOne]

Without watching a ton of tape of Ivanisevic (and, to a lesser degree, Roddick) on grass to make an educated speculation, but based upon the record alone, one could go either way. Goran did win Wimbledon, but had a far lower Win% and ELO on grass than Roddick:

Ivanisevic: 71.7%, 2273
Roddick: 79.6%, 2350

That suggests that, based upon their overall record on grass, Roddick was a better player and would have beaten Ivanisevic on grass more often than not. Now how their matchup would have actually played out is another matter.

Goran made more finals at W and won it. Coincidently he beat roddick in 01 wimbledon.. roddick was 2 years from winning uso.. goran was on his way out of the tour.

You can argue fed stopped roddick and sampras stopped goran in two finals, they were both unlucky in this respect.

It’s pretty close but to me, goran’s serve was better and he had a more attacking style, came to net more and had a decent slice... roddick may have been more consistent but goran could reach a higher level...

 

[Federberg]

your problem is the same problem other Fed fans like darthfed have, you want to discredit anyone that wasn't a fanboy of Fed as someone 'with issues, something twisted'. This actually says something about you as-well, why seek to discredit and belittle anyone that wasn't a fan boy of Fed? I haven't seen you do the same with people who clearly dislike Nadal, there are plenty here... why? you haven't paid attention to the constant excuse making by Fed fans and how they go to great lengths to belittle all of Nadal's big wins? why so much Nadal distaste? you don't say anything..

Like i said, 'hate' is a strong word as i have never met him, you guys claim i hate him without knowing crap, just to discredit me. So, it comes down to favoritism.. i just couldn't be a big fan of him given he had this thing about him where he was condescending towards rivals, especially early on. He did change though, over the years, he started to give credit to Nadal and even called him a great shot maker, which was black and white vs when he used to claim Nadal was 'just a grinder' and made it seem all matches were on his (Fed's) racquet, he just let Nadal win..he was quite open about this early on. He has also been complimentary about Djokovic in recent years, someone he dissed as a weak excuse making player who retired for no good reasons, this without knowing what was going on with Djoker.

So call it maturity, i truthfully liked Federer 07 onwards more than when he was younger, he was 100% condescending of his rivals when he was younger, was hard to be his big fan, other than appreciating the level he displayed.. i always enjoyed those matches like 06 AT tour finals when he destroyed Blake, any tennis player like myself appreciated that. It comes down to who was my favourite he wasn't.

discredit? You're discrediting yourself mate. You're the one who creates a false characterisation of Federer's personality. You've completely blown out of proportion what Federer said about Nadal's game. He basically called him a grinder when he was a grinder and it was in reference to whether he thought Rafa would become an all court player. He was right at the time, but Rafa changed his game. He adapted and Federer was quick to praise the improvements in his game. He was similarly critical of Murray's pushing game, and he was right. But Murray changed his game and got success. What's the problem with that? I recall talking to someone in the Murray circle and it was interesting that Roger's criticisms were noted - they didn't see anything offensive about it by the way. I highly doubt that Rafa or Uncle Toni were offended either. Federer has always been extremely blunt when asked questions about other players, and my suspicion is that he says exactly the same things off camera. Snowflakes like you might take offence on behalf of the players you support, but these players just want to improve. You were the one who stated a personal dislike of Federer, I haven't discredited you, I've observed how you've personalised your observations about Federer and suggested a possible reason for it. I well remember your mania around Sampras so please don't try to come across as an innocent now. Your analysis reeks of bias and saying you "liked" Federer at one time or another has very little credibility for those of us who have observed your posts over the years

 

[El Dude]

Goran made more finals at W and won it. Coincidently he beat roddick in 01 wimbledon.. roddick was 2 years from winning uso.. goran was on his way out of the tour.

You can argue fed stopped roddick and sampras stopped goran in two finals, they were both unlucky in this respect.

It’s pretty close but to me, goran’s serve was better and he had a more attacking style, came to net more and had a decent slice... roddick may have been more consistent but goran could reach a higher level...

Sounds about right. Out of curiosity, where would you throw Krajicek in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Horsa]

Without watching a ton of tape of Ivanisevic (and, to a lesser degree, Roddick) on grass to make an educated speculation, but based upon the record alone, one could go either way. Goran did win Wimbledon, but had a far lower Win% and ELO on grass than Roddick:

Ivanisevic: 71.7%, 2273
Roddick: 79.6%, 2350

That suggests that, based upon their overall record on grass, Roddick was a better player and would have beaten Ivanisevic on grass more often than not. Now how their matchup would have actually played out is another matter.

What does E.L.O. stand for, please? I'm asking because I've only ever known E.L.O. stand for Electric Light Orchestra & it wouldn't make sense. Please excuse the ignorance.

 

[Federberg]

What does E.L.O. stand for, please? I'm asking because I've only ever known E.L.O. stand for Electric Light Orchestra & it wouldn't make sense. Please excuse the ignorance.

It's a rating system for chess designed by a guy called Arpad Elo. It's not been used properly in this case so please don't spend too much time on the analysis. Elo doesn't really work well across time. The fact that Bobby Fischer's peak Elo rating was something like 2785 and someone like Teimour Radjabov has a peak at 2799, doesn't make Teimour a better player than Fischer. There is simply no chess player on earth who would entertain that idea for even a micro second. That in itself illustrates the gross stupidity of comparing Ivanisevic's Elo rating to Roddicks

 

[Horsa]

It's a rating system for chess designed by a guy called Arpad Elo. It's not been used properly in this case so please don't spend too much time on the analysis. Elo doesn't really work well across time. The fact that Bobby Fischer's peak Elo rating was something like 2785 and someone like Teimour Radjabov has a peak at 2799, doesn't make Teimour a better player than Fischer. There is simply no chess player on earth who would entertain that idea for even a micro second. That in itself illustrates the gross stupidity of comparing Ivanisevic's Elo rating to Roddicks

Thank you very much for the information.

 

[MikeOne]

discredit? You're discrediting yourself mate. You're the one who creates a false characterisation of Federer's personality.

I'm just going by what he's said, especially early on.

You've completely blown out of proportion what Federer said about Nadal's game. He basically called him a grinder when he was a grinder and it was in reference to whether he thought Rafa would become an all court player. He was right at the time, but Rafa changed his game. He adapted and Federer was quick to praise the improvements in his game. He was similarly critical of Murray's pushing game, and he was right.

since you are a Federer fan, you see it that way. We all rationalize and see things differently depending on which side we are on. I viewed it as a little more than just Federer providing a neutral analysis of his opponent's games when he lost to Nadal and called him nothing but a grinder. Thanks for reminding me about Murray, Fed also called Murray a pusher and belittled his game, Murray was much more than that. So you, as a Fed fanatic, see it your way, i see it as Federer being irritable, not willing to accept these guys were good enough to beat him and him being a sore loser. Criticizing him for it is far from hate... he deserved criticism for it.

Snowflakes like you might take offence on behalf of the players you support, but these players just want to improve. You were the one who stated a personal dislike of Federer, I haven't discredited you, I've observed how you've personalised your observations about Federer and suggested a possible reason for it. I well remember your mania around Sampras so please don't try to come across as an innocent now. Your analysis reeks of bias and saying you "liked" Federer at one time or another has very little credibility for those of us who have observed your posts over the years

speaking about credibility, there was an even more brutal wave of Nadal hate , the way many Fed fans discredited Nadal and pretty much insulted him. Where were you Mr. impartial? don't remember you coming to Nadal's defense...

 

[El Dude]

@Horsa, check out this article or here. Elo is basically a way of rating players based upon how they fared against competition. As with any statistic, they shouldn't be taken too seriously, in my opinion, but are also not "gross stupidity." Don't listen to Federberg - he's just grumpy because I chastised him in another thread and he can't handle any kind of opposition without getting his panties in a wad . Elo is just another perspective; like all statistical measurements, it shoudln't be taken as absolute or definitive. It is just another way of looking at things.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Ralph may have had greater highs in Wimby than Arod. But, for sure Ralph had abysmal lows at Wimby than Arod. Even in the last year when he played, Arod lost to a player ranked better than him. Arod did not lose four years in a row to players ranked 100 and above.

 

[Moxie]

Ralph may have had greater highs in Wimby than Arod. But, for sure Ralph had abysmal lows at Wimby than Arod. Even in the last year when he played, Arod lost to a player ranked better than him. Arod did not lose four years in a row to players ranked 100 and above.

As I've noted above, their grass records were nearly identical. You can try to make less of Rafa if you like, (and clearly you do,) but winning 2 Wimbledons is a LOT better than winning none. ARod could barely touch the hem of Rafa's garment, even on grass, in terms of results, let's face it.

 

[Horsa]

@Horsa, check out this article or here. Elo is basically a way of rating players based upon how they fared against competition. As with any statistic, they shouldn't be taken too seriously, in my opinion, but are also not "gross stupidity." Don't listen to Federberg - he's just grumpy because I chastised him in another thread and he can't handle any kind of opposition without getting his panties in a wad . Elo is just another perspective; like all statistical measurements, it shoudln't be taken as absolute or definitive. It is just another way of looking at things.

Thank you very much for the information. I would agree that statistics shouldn't be taken too seriously unless you have to work with them & it's your job to get them right & of course they're not stupid. You have to have the numerical skills to both compile & interpret them which not everyone has. There are lots of different ways of looking at things & I try to see things in all ways possible because I think it's important to do that before deciding what you really think.

 

[Federberg]

@Horsa, check out this article or here. Elo is basically a way of rating players based upon how they fared against competition. As with any statistic, they shouldn't be taken too seriously, in my opinion, but are also not "gross stupidity." Don't listen to Federberg - he's just grumpy because I chastised him in another thread and he can't handle any kind of opposition without getting his panties in a wad . Elo is just another perspective; like all statistical measurements, it shoudln't be taken as absolute or definitive. It is just another way of looking at things.

Come on man. Be serious. If you think that anything you say has any emotional impact on me you're delusional You say that statistics shouldn't be taken too seriously yet you continue to come up with a whole load of BS to back your view. Your attempts to make your positions more legitimate with statistics backing you up are well known. Your problem is that you have a little knowledge and you use it to such a poor effect. If you only understood the effectiveness of Elo rating you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself. But you've done it before and no doubt you'll do it again. As someone who was a huge fan of Ivanisevic I confess the question of who was more accomplished at Wimbledon is a tough one. He wasn't necessarily one of the players we would have considered a favourite at any Wimbledon, he was more of a dangerous dangerous sleeper. I don't think anyone - at the time - considered him a serious contender at any other slams. We can't say the same about Roddick. We might not have ever considered him a standout favourite but when draws were published we would look and say... hmmm... Roddick might be in contention. That alone tells me - without even looking at who ended up achieving more what the perception at the time was. That's the difference between an armchair opinion maker and someone who actually watches the game. But there you go. Keep on keeping on buddy And if you call whining on another thread chastising then that just makes me laugh. Your such a sensitive snowflake

 

[Federberg]

As I've noted above, their grass records were nearly identical. You can try to make less of Rafa if you like, (and clearly you do,) but winning 2 Wimbledons is a LOT better than winning none. ARod could barely touch the hem of Rafa's garment, even on grass, in terms of results, let's face it.

I have to go with Moxie here. Similar to my comments about Ivanisevic vs Roddick, I don't think anyone can really sustain an argument comparing Nadal and Roddick. They shouldn't really be in any discussion against each other. Rafa is an order of magnitude more significant at Wimbledon than Roddick. We know that because whenever Roddick departed Wimbledon there was barely any discussion about it. Whereas with Rafa there was always discussion about the huge upset. Yes it's happened a lot but it's really only in the last few years that we've come to even anticipate that another Rafa early loss could happen.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As I've noted above, their grass records were nearly identical. You can try to make less of Rafa if you like, (and clearly you do,) but winning 2 Wimbledons is a LOT better than winning none. ARod could barely touch the hem of Rafa's garment, even on grass, in terms of results, let's face it.

I am giving due credit to Ralph. Surely, Ralph's highs on grass were better than that of Roddick. I was merely pointing out, similary (probabaly to a greater extent), Ralph's lows on grass were much worse than that of Roddick.

 

[Federberg]

Roddick...
Tournament 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 SR W–L
Wimbledon A 3R 3R SF F F 3R QF 2R F 4R 3R 3R 0 / 12 41–12

Nadal...
Tournament 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 SR W–L
Wimbledon 3R A 2R F F W A W F 2R 1R 4R 2R A 4R SF 2 / 13 48–11

So...
Roddick had 0 1st rounds vs Rafa 1
Roddick had 0 2nd rounds vs Rafa 2
Roddick had 5 3rd rounds vs Rafa 1
Roddick had 1 4th round vs Rafa 2
Roddick had 1 QF vs Rafa 0
Roddick had 1 SF vs Rafa 1
Roddick had 3 runner ups vs Rafa 3
Roddick had 0 wins vs Rafa 2 wins

but we have to ask ourselves... when Roddick got to semis or finals did we think he overachieved? I don't think that even Fed fans felt that Rafa over achieved getting that deep. We hated it, but we weren't surprised...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't think that even Fed fans felt that Rafa over achieved getting that deep. We hated it, but we weren't surprised...

I was not surprised when Ralph went deep in the 2000's. But, I was truly surprised when he reached SF last year thus finding second life on grass, just when I thought he is dead on grass forever.

 

[Federberg]

I was not surprised when Ralph went deep in the 2000's. But, I was truly surprised when he reached SF last year thus finding second life on grass, just when I thought he is dead on grass forever.

me too! It actually made me a bit disgusted with the current depth in tennis. This shouldn't really happen. Next thing we know, if Federer plays the French this year he'll get to the semis!

 

[tented]

me too! It actually made me a bit disgusted with the current depth in tennis. This shouldn't really happen. Next thing we know, if Federer plays the French this year he'll get to the semis!

I’m curious how he’ll do in Paris, but my guess is he’ll go out by, say, the QFs, especially since his ranking could expose him to the top seeds earlier than usual. The weather will be a factor. If it’s hot, he’ll have a harder time; if it’s not, he could get to the semis.

 

[Federberg]

I’m curious how he’ll do in Paris, but my guess is he’ll go out by, say, the QFs, especially since his ranking could expose him to the top seeds earlier than usual. The weather will be a factor. If it’s hot, he’ll have a harder time; if it’s not, he could get to the semis.

I hope he's gone in the first round mate. It's a waste of his fading energy! Let him get his ass kicked and then he can give the RG crowd what they want... a nice good bye en francais