The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[MikeOne]

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 find it amusing when i see some here somewhat belittling nadal’s accomplihments on grass and making roddick out to be so great.

Let’s think about this carefully.

It could be argued that nadal was pretty dominant at wimbledon between 06-11.. that’s quite a long stretch for someone ‘inconsistent’

He made finals in 06, then 07, won it in 08. He didn’t even play in 09 and after his comeback in 2010, won it again! He then made finals in 2011. So in a 5 year stretch, he made 3 finals and won it twice. Roddick never had such a stretch.. he made finals in 04-05, then dialsappeared until 09.. then vanished again..

Nadal had a nice lengthy stretch at wimbledon during a 6 year span! He then had a mediocre span between 12-16 but let’s not forget he had periods of injuries between 12-16, he struggled being fully healthy for extended periods of time and was sort of in/out over the years... he didnn’t even win the FO for 2 straight years! hard to enter wimbledon fully confident when you are not in top physical and mental shape. Some of the losses were to dangerous grass courters too kyrgios for instance. After struggling physically in 15-16, rafa came back strong in 17 and was playing well on grass, ran into gilles muller who had won a grass court tournment before wimbledon, rafa lost to him
In a very tough match. Rafa then was playing very high level in 18, losing to novak.

So really nadal’s only truly bad streak was 12-14.. we can discard 15-16 as nadal couldn’t even win FO those years he was so out of it and in 17, 18, those were respectable losses.. he was playing well.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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.

I wrongly typed "rest" when I meant "rust". The point of playing some (non-RG) clay events during clay season is to make sure he does not get rusty. Clay season is quite long. If one sits out for that long a time, the game is sure to become rusty.

Even though I have said my opinions many times about this matter, I know Roger will not follow it. As you say, Roger will either skip the whole season or play some prep events and the RG.

The only scenario in which he will do what I am recommending is if he gets injured or find it very uncomfortable to play on clay. That would actually be a bad news both for him and for his fans. So, I hope that does not happen.

I am only recommending that he voluntarily skip RG rather than due to being forced by the body/mind.

 

[Federberg]

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.

that's what I think he's doing. Which makes me think next year will be his last. He would have fulfilled his RG obligations already and can give Wimbledon one final Sampras like chance. But sadly he virtually guarantees this years Wimbledon will be a bust

 

[Federberg]

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?

Lol! Here we go again with your "projection" whine. Elo is a performance rating in the moment. Understand? In the moment. It doesn't work across time Mr Psychologist. So comparing the Elo ratings of Ivanisevic and Roddick might seem like an intelligent contribution but it really isn't.

I'm all for statistics. I would just love it if there was utility in a lot of the crap you churn out. I'm all for being convinced by facts. When that happens I'm always happy to concede. But jeez you do tend to mangle data And then you whine like a little bitch when it's pointed out

 

[DarthFed]

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.

I respectfully disagree. I think Roger was like a sumo that had been through the buffet line one too many times after winning #20 and getting back to #1 last year. I expected a big drop in play but was hoping he'd be somewhat back by now. Maybe he is done but maybe not. I wouldn't count him out.

 

[tented]

I respectfully disagree. I think Roger was like a sumo that had been through the buffet line one too many times ...

That’s ... vivid ... and a bit disturbing.

 

[El Dude]

Lol! Here we go again with your "projection" whine. Elo is a performance rating in the moment. Understand? In the moment. It doesn't work across time Mr Psychologist. So comparing the Elo ratings of Ivanisevic and Roddick might seem like an intelligent contribution but it really isn't.

I'm all for statistics. I would just love it if there was utility in a lot of the crap you churn out. I'm all for being convinced by facts. When that happens I'm always happy to concede. But jeez you do tend to mangle data And then you whine like a little bitch when it's pointed out

Federberg, if you knew anything about psychology you'd know that we are all constantly projecting. It is the norm, not the exception. You project your shit onto me, I project mine onto you. Psychological maturity involves recognizing and consciously working with this - trying to own one's projections. Most people don't develop this capacity, unfortunately.

I don't see why comparing Elo is a problem, in a similar manner that I don't see why comparing rankings across eras is a problem. The #1 player at any moment, at any time, is still the best player in the world. It doesn't mean you can compare how, say, the #1 player in 1972 would fair against the #1 player in 2012 in a match...that is impossible. But we can say that both were the best within their context. How is Elo different?

You seem to struggle with the idea of comparing contexts. In fact, we've squabbled about the very same thing before. Fine, disagree that such comparisons have any validity, but why insult me about it? Why not just disagree? I honestly don't understand the need to attack and insult people without just cause (I only attack or insult in retaliation...not saying that is justified, but I never do it unless provoked).

 

[El Dude]

I respectfully disagree. I think Roger was like a sumo that had been through the buffet line one too many times after winning #20 and getting back to #1 last year. I expected a big drop in play but was hoping he'd be somewhat back by now. Maybe he is done but maybe not. I wouldn't count him out.

What concerns me, but also gives me a tiny glint of optimism, is that he looked great at Hopman, and also said he was feeling really good. He then looked pretty good at the AO until folding like a limp noodle to Tsitsipas in a match that, for the most part, he was dictating. The question is why. In other words, we have proof--through his Hopman and early AO matches--that Roger can still bring it. But at the same time, he lost a match he probably should have won.

What I observed in the Tsitsipas match is that Roger was dictating most of the time, but Tsitsipas was playing his heart out and keeping close. In the key moments, he accelerated and Roger hesitated.

This makes me think that Roger's problem is mostly psychological, which is good and bad news. Good in that he still has the skills to bring it, bad in that the mind is a tangled forest that is a lot less straightforward than the body.

 

[tented]

This makes me think that Roger's problem is mostly psychological, which is good and bad news. Good in that he still has the skills to bring it, bad in that the mind is a tangled forest that is a lot less straightforward than the body.

Exactly. While we can’t ignore his age, I think his head is also to blame. You can see his nervousness manifesting itself in UEs in ways he wasn’t prone to when he was younger.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg, if you knew anything about psychology you'd know that we are all constantly projecting. It is the norm, not the exception. You project your shit onto me, I project mine onto you. Psychological maturity involves recognizing and consciously working with this - trying to own one's projections. Most people don't develop this capacity, unfortunately.

I don't see why comparing Elo is a problem, in a similar manner that I don't see why comparing rankings across eras is a problem. The #1 player at any moment, at any time, is still the best player in the world. It doesn't mean you can compare how, say, the #1 player in 1972 would fair against the #1 player in 2012 in a match...that is impossible. But we can say that both were the best within their context. How is Elo different?

You seem to struggle with the idea of comparing contexts. In fact, we've squabbled about the very same thing before. Fine, disagree that such comparisons have any validity, but why insult me about it? Why not just disagree? I honestly don't understand the need to attack and insult people without just cause (I only attack or insult in retaliation...not saying that is justified, but I never do it unless provoked).

oh teach me teach me...

give me a break will you I've done my best to explain the problem with using Elo like you did, but if you refuse to understand or alter your stance that's your business

 

[mrzz]

this is not backed by facts.

Federer's best years were 04-07, results wise. Roddick faced Federer in 04,05 Wimbledon finals and Nadal in 06,07 finals.

Who did better against prime Fed at Wimbledon? (**ANY argument that 04,05 Fed > 06,07 Fed will render you a clown)

In 04, Roddick lost to Fed in 4 sets and in 05, got embarrassed in finals, it was an absolute joke.

Meanwhile, Nadal took a set off Federer in 06 finals (only player to so in whole tournament) and pushed him to 5 in 07 finals.

So Roddick, in the prime of his career, managed to take a set off 04 Fed and Nadal, as a baby, in his first run at wimbledon, did the same. Roddick then got absolutely annihilated the second time around in 05, Nadal took Fed to 5 sets in 07.

So facing prime Fed, Nadal did much better. Nadal >>>>>> Roddick on grass. Since both 07 and 08 finals went to 5 sets, shows Fed's level was quite close both years and more than likely, it was all Nadal, not Fed's deteriorated level, i conclude = 08 Fed >>>>> 04, 05 Roddick.

People have this notion of Roddick being so amazing in 04-05 but truthfully, he only played one beast mode set vs Federer in two finals, this was the first set of 04 Wimbledon. In that set, Roddick went for all his shots, they all went in, served well and barely squeezed a set 6-4.. He couldn't maintain this level past 1st in 04 finals and in 05, played nothing like he did in that first set in 04, thus got totally humiliated in that final... it was a disgrace.

The discussion followed on and I cannot keep up with everything, so I might repeat arguments made by other posters.

First, you seem in general not to give much importance to the difference in level (not to mention playing styles) a player might have in different years. You seem to want to have it all in perfect blocks and the "04,05 Fed > 06,07 Fed" argument is a perfect example. If I even consider the idea of trying to differ between the years, I am a clown. Sorry mate, that argument is completely false. Take every freaking player not named Fedalovic and from one year to another is completely obvious that the level is different. That's the way tennis works. In general I even like a lot of your analysis but this part simply destroys most of your conclusions.

I strongly disagree that Roddick only played one good set in those two finals (but he obviously player better in 2004). I could talk a lot about those matches, but in a nutshell:

They were played at an amazing pace. Any sport, in fact most humans activities, get tougher as the pace increases. The level of coordination required to execute any shot with precision at that 2004/05 pace is absurd.

They were played using the full arsenal of grass tricks. Later on Federer simply was not able to execute that kind of game to the same level, and statistics show that, by the way.

With that I do not mean that 2008 final was trash, level wise. Obviously it was not. The tiring thing is this need to put everything to extremes. It was either the greatest match (level wise) or the shittiest one. Even looking at the time span of Federer's titles it is obvious that 2008 does not represent the peak. If he was close to his peak in 2008, what the hell happened in 2009?

 

[El Dude]

They were played at an amazing pace. Any sport, in fact most humans activities, get tougher as the pace increases. The level of coordination required to execute any shot with precision at that 2004/05 pace is absurd.

They were played using the full arsenal of grass tricks. Later on Federer simply was not able to execute that kind of game to the same level, and statistics show that, by the way.

This is a great point and something that isn't emphasized much, or enough in talk of Roger's level over the course of his career: pace. Maybe that's the main difference between peak Roger of 2004-07 and the rest of his career? He still had the "full arsenal of tricks"--grass and otherwise--and in some ways showed things later on that he didn't have earlier. I mean, in some ways his level of early 2017 was as good as anything I've seen, at least since 2007. But his ability to play at a high pace is something different.

It may be, then, that Rafa's match-up edge over Roger had something something to do with neutralizing pace? Slowing it down? People emphasize the left-handedness and hitting to Roger's backhand, and Rafa's incredible defense, but I wonder if pace has something to do with it?

 

[mrzz]

^hmmm, that is an interesting question and I think there is both an egg and a chicken part in it. On one hand I think that peak Federer's pace on grass was enough to give any version of Nadal an generally unsolvable problem, but on the other, yes, the heavy top spin probably gave Federer a different problem to solve even in the particular sense of how hard he hits.

Peak Federer had no problem dealing with hard hitters. He famously went for full confrontation against Gonzale's forehand, (and against del Potro in 2009, with a bad result, because his FH was simply not that good anymore) and other big hitters in his prime, and when you are able to execute it, it is fine. But Nadal's shots employ the energy in a different way, with the heavy bounce you need to either step back or take it on the rise, which is easierly said than done. So the only way to keep a quick pace is to consistently attack those hard bouncing balls. You can do it but it takes a toll on your error count. So, yes, I guess Nadal was able to neutralize the pace, but in this peculiar way -- as most times when we say that a player neutralizes pace, we are referring to a guy who is not putting to much energy to his shots himself, which is surely not Nadal's case 90% of the time.

 

[Moxie]

Not to distract from other threads, I brought this here. This is funny from Roger: He doesn't see anything wrong with Nick trying the underhand serve v. Rafa. (Neither do I, btw.) But this from the guy who disparaged Novak so much for using a junior's-style shot to save MP against him at the USO. Ironic. Though maybe Roger has evolved re: unconventional shots. He does use the tweener more often.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Not to distract from other threads, I brought this here. This is funny from Roger: He doesn't see anything wrong with Nick trying the underhand serve v. Rafa. (Neither do I, btw.) But this from the guy who disparaged Novak so much for using a junior's-style shot to save MP against him at the USO. Ironic. Though maybe Roger has evolved re: unconventional shots. He does use the tweener more often.

I think you are missing the point. What Novak did was a low percentage shot (almost sort of like a hail mary pass in football). But, the underhand serve when the opponent is standing 2 miles behind is like a trick play (something like a fake attempt to a decoy receiver followed by a real pass to the intended receiver). Fed is appreciating the strategy part of it.

 

[Federberg]

Not to distract from other threads, I brought this here. This is funny from Roger: He doesn't see anything wrong with Nick trying the underhand serve v. Rafa. (Neither do I, btw.) But this from the guy who disparaged Novak so much for using a junior's-style shot to save MP against him at the USO. Ironic. Though maybe Roger has evolved re: unconventional shots. He does use the tweener more often.

Lol Moxie. You simply can't help yourself. It would be great if you policed Rafa's hypocrisy as assiduously. Sadly you're talking apples and oranges here, as pointed out by GSM. Although I did find Roger's whining about Novak going for a hail mary pathetic at the time. Simply because it was one point and all it did was take the game to deuce. He still had the match on his serve. His unwillingness in the heat of the moment to praise Novak's daring was not a good look in my view. I don't recall you saying much about Chang doing to that to Lendl back in the day... if you did raise it as an issue at all then I apologise, but I don't recall you doing so..

 

[mrzz]

Simply because it was one point and all it did was take the game to deuce.

Worst. It was at 15-40 (remember it was on the deuce court). So Fed still had MP.

I completely agree Federer's whining about it was ridiculous. It only shows how these guys hate to lose.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Worst. It was at 15-40 (remember it was on the deuce court). So Fed still had MP.

I completely agree Federer's whining about it was ridiculous. It only shows how these guys hate to lose.

Fed's whining is legendary (like the man himself). Even better than the whining about Novak's return is another one.
This was after Fed lost a clay match to The Worm. Worm played the match quite unconventionally almost serve and
volleying on clay.

After losing the match, Fed came in the presser and said, this is not how one should play on clay with a straight face.
Only Fed can tell the opponent how they should play, after losing the match himself.

 

[Federberg]

Fed's whining is legendary (like the man himself). Even better than the whining about Novak's return is another one.
This was after Fed lost a clay match to The Worm. Worm played the match quite unconventionally almost serve and
volleying on clay.

After losing the match, Fed came in the presser and said, this is not how one should play on clay with a straight face.
Only Fed can tell the opponent how they should play, after losing the match himself.

Note to Moxie... these are all Fed fans here slagging off the maestro. We don't always tow the party line, just enjoy the tennis. No more no less

 

[Moxie]

Lol Moxie. You simply can't help yourself. It would be great if you policed Rafa's hypocrisy as assiduously. Sadly you're talking apples and oranges here, as pointed out by GSM. Although I did find Roger's whining about Novak going for a hail mary pathetic at the time. Simply because it was one point and all it did was take the game to deuce. He still had the match on his serve. His unwillingness in the heat of the moment to praise Novak's daring was not a good look in my view. I don't recall you saying much about Chang doing to that to Lendl back in the day... if you did raise it as an issue at all then I apologise, but I don't recall you doing so..

I don't recall there being a thread about Chang/Lendl "back in the day," but that was '89, so I kinda doubt it. But you missed my point by a mile. I said I had no problem with the underhand serve. In fact, I thought it was well used, and kind of hilarious. My point was Roger's only having a problem with a "challengers" shot when it's against him. And, though I did say that it was some poor form on Rafa to say what he did about Rafa, you don't really need me to keep track of Rafa's peccadilloes, because the Fed fans around here keep track, and then some. And, yes, I do see Roger fans saying that was poor from Roger. Again, Fed fans were not the point. It was Federer himself.