The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[tented]

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

But what if Rafa doesn’t go or pulls out, and Novak loses early? A second RG would be huge, if only by getting the career double slam.

 

[El Dude]

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

Lots of projection here. You completely misunderstand how and why I use statistics, and then attack me based upon your misunderstanding. Nothing new, really - and rather predictable.

I use statistics not to "make my positions more legitimate," but to try to understand things beyond my mere opinion. So it is actually the opposite of what you think. This may be a foreign thought to you, but some people are more interested in the truth than they are in being right. Statistics, while flawed and easily misused, at least give us something objective to look at.

I've noticed a pattern among people who complain about statistics: they tend to see their own opinion as inviolable and beyond question. "I was there, I saw it - you're just an armchair fan!" It is a position of egotism, really. Anything that disagrees with such a person's opinion is "fake news."

 

[Federberg]

But what if Rafa doesn’t go or pulls out, and Novak loses early? A second RG would be huge, if only by getting the career double slam.

that would be even more painful mate. It's not Rafa or Novak I worry about there. It's injury and a worthless loss to A.N Other

 

[Federberg]

Lots of projection here. You completely misunderstand how and why I use statistics, and then attack me based upon your misunderstanding. Nothing new, really - and rather predictable.

I use statistics not to "make my positions more legitimate," but to try to understand things beyond my mere opinion. So it is actually the opposite of what you think. This may be a foreign thought to you, but some people are more interested in the truth than they are in being right. Statistics, while flawed and easily misused, at least give us something objective to look at.

I've noticed a pattern among people who complain about statistics: they tend to see their own opinion as inviolable and beyond question. "I was there, I saw it - you're just an armchair fan!" It is a position of egotism, really. Anything that disagrees with such a person's opinion is "fake news."

Lol! Mate... you misuse statistics. That's the point. Your use of Elo to compare Ivanisevic to Roddick is as blatant an example as one could imagine. In fact if I had wanted to caricature you that's exactly what I would have done

Statistics when misused are as highly subjective as can be found anywhere. That's quite a stunning misunderstanding right there. You seem to completely miss one of the biggest problems in politics today

 

[El Dude]

Lol! Mate... you misuse statistics. That's the point. Your use of Elo to compare Ivanisevic to Roddick is as blatant an example as one could imagine. In fact if I had wanted to caricature you that's exactly what I would have done

Statistics when misused are as highly subjective as can be found anywhere. That's quite a stunning misunderstanding right there. You seem to completely miss one of the biggest problems in politics today

More projection. Did I say that statistics cannot be misused to serve subjectivity? No. You just assumed, again; to fit your narrative. Ironic, considering your comment about politics!

But explain to me why using Elo to compare players is misusing the statistic. That is how people use it - to compare players! How should it be used? Or should we drop all statistics in favor of the Federberg Standard, which is a percentile of how closely a perspective comes to your true and inviolable opinion of absolute knowledge?

 

[tented]

that would be even more painful mate. It's not Rafa or Novak I worry about there. It's injury and a worthless loss to A.N Other

True, an injury before Wimbledon would be awful.

 

[DarthFed]

But what if Rafa doesn’t go or pulls out, and Novak loses early? A second RG would be huge, if only by getting the career double slam.

If those two are gone his chances go from less than 1% to probably under 10%. He's 37, hasn't played on clay in 3 years, etc. There are too many players that can and probably would beat him in best of 5 on clay. I'm still hoping he comes to his senses and skips clay again.

Maybe he thinks rust contributed to the poor 2nd half of 2018 but I doubt it. He didn't blow that Wimbledon match out of his ass because he took a couple months off after Miami.

 

[Moxie]

If those two are gone his chances go from less than 1% to probably under 10%. He's 37, hasn't played on clay in 3 years, etc. There are too many players that can and probably would beat him in best of 5 on clay. I'm still hoping he comes to his senses and skips clay again.

Maybe he thinks rust contributed to the poor 2nd half of 2018 but I doubt it. He didn't blow that Wimbledon match out of his ass because he took a couple months off after Miami.

Watching this Golden Swing, no, I don't like Roger's chances at RG, even if somehow both Rafa and Novak go out early. The youngsters are getting stronger, and some are good on clay. It seems Roger is committed to his clay schedule, though.

 

[atttomole]

What are Roger's plans for clay this year?

 

[Moxie]

What are Roger's plans for clay this year?

I think on the Fed Fan thread, they said Madrid and RG. That according to @isabelle and lequipe.com, both very reliable.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If those two are gone his chances go from less than 1% to probably under 10%. He's 37, hasn't played on clay in 3 years, etc. There are too many players that can and probably would beat him in best of 5 on clay. I'm still hoping he comes to his senses and skips clay again.

Maybe he thinks rust contributed to the poor 2nd half of 2018 but I doubt it. He didn't blow that Wimbledon match out of his ass because he took a couple months off after Miami.

I actually would like Roger to play on clay this year. But, I don't want him to play at RG. Those five set grinders on clay is not a good idea at this stage of his career. Playing two or three clay events during the clay season would make sure that he does not accumulate rest by just sitting on the couch and watching Ralph biting trophies.

I don't think Roger owes RG fans (or for that matter fans of any specific tourney) a proper farewell.

 

[atttomole]

I think on the Fed Fan thread, they said Madrid and RG. That according to @isabelle and lequipe.com, both very reliable.

If he meets Nadal at RG this year, he may get fewer games than he got in 2008. I don't get the logic behind the decision to play on clay this year.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If he meets Nadal at RG this year, he may get fewer games than he got in 2008.

No, I am sure he will get more games than in 2008. One of the reasons for such low number of games is that he was trying a different approach after three straight losses to Ralph at RG in the previous years. Unfortunately, it turned out to be disastrous.

Having said that, I am strongly against Roger playing RG (but strongly for him playing on clay) independent of whether he manages to meet Ralph there or not.

 

[Moxie]

I actually would like Roger to play on clay this year. But, I don't want him to play at RG. Those five set grinders on clay is not a good idea at this stage of his career. Playing two or three clay events during the clay season would make sure that he does not accumulate rest by just sitting on the couch and watching Ralph biting trophies.

I don't think Roger owes RG fans (or for that matter fans of any specific tourney) a proper farewell.

Why would Roger bother with clay, if not to play the Major? To keep his hand in, you say, but seriously...he's a champ. He's not going to not play the Major.

 

[Moxie]

If he meets Nadal at RG this year, he may get fewer games than he got in 2008. I don't get the logic behind the decision to play on clay this year.

He'd be lucky to get to Nadal.

 

[DarthFed]

I actually would like Roger to play on clay this year. But, I don't want him to play at RG. Those five set grinders on clay is not a good idea at this stage of his career. Playing two or three clay events during the clay season would make sure that he does not accumulate rest by just sitting on the couch and watching Ralph biting trophies.

I don't think Roger owes RG fans (or for that matter fans of any specific tourney) a proper farewell.

Number 1 goal is more majors and best chance is Wimbledon. Or to be more specific, goal is to hold off Nadal and Djokovic because 20 is jack shit if one or more of them gets to 20 and beyond. Take Wimbledon seriously and to me that means big rest and serious training and serious ambition. IMO he didn't want it bad enough last year and when push came to shove he lost vs a donut who wanted it a hell of a lot more.

I don't see how playing on clay at his age is going to help that. Seems to only risk injury. At best it is low risk and very low chance at a big reward. At worst high risk and no chance at a big reward

 

[atttomole]

He'd be lucky to get to Nadal.

He may meet him if his ranking is low.

 

[Moxie]

Number 1 goal is more majors and best chance is Wimbledon. Or to be more specific, goal is to hold off Nadal and Djokovic because 20 is jack shit if one or more of them gets to 20 and beyond. Take Wimbledon seriously and to me that means big rest and serious training and serious ambition. IMO he didn't want it bad enough last year and when push came to shove he lost vs a donut who wanted it a hell of a lot more.

I don't see how playing on clay at his age is going to help that. Seems to only risk injury. At best it is low risk and very low chance at a big reward. At worst high risk and no chance at a big reward

If I were a Fed fan, I think I would agree with this. Even as a non-Fed fan, I agree. Roger has seemed not to be able to play more than a few tournaments at a trot, any more. Even 2 clay tournaments risks injury or fatigue. Does he risk his chances at Wimbledon by playing clay? Yes. Is he playing RG because it may be the last time. Maybe.

 

[Ricardo]

How about he plays RG as a farewell appearance for the fans? These days he is barely able to string a few good matches together, that’s the only reason I think of.

 

[tented]

IMO he didn't want it bad enough last year and when push came to shove he lost vs a donut who wanted it a hell of a lot more.

I think he wanted it too much — that what happens when you know you only have a few more chances. He gets panicked, and plays like shit. Think the JMDP QF at the USO, or the Blake match at the 08 Olympics.