"Was 2014 Wimbledon Final Roger Federer's Greatest Match at All England Club?"

[Kieran]

Rafa winning over Roger (as in 2008) surely is a great victory for Rafa as Roger is
Grass King and he conquered him over that ground. The five year age gap does not
diminish it in any way. However, the converse (Roger beating Rafa on Grass) cannot
be considered a great victory.

While your conclusions are predictable, to say the least, I must commend you for your consistency. Because if a win against Rafa isn't a great achievement, then the rest of them get looked at a bit closer too, right? And all you're left with is Pete, if you want to follow that line.

And I agree, it was a great win for Roger, but it was a match Roger faced without any pressure. He had nothing to lose, and so while he played great, it wasn't like his own reputation was on the line. I'd certainly have it as one of his greatest wins, but I see the logic in giving the nod to this year against Novak.

I mean, Roger shouldn't be getting to five sets against Rafa or Nole at the slams at this stage of his career, right? The semi in Oz is the way of things, for a bloke who's nudging 33. But he peeled back the seasons and summoned old thunder and played an exceptional level, having Novak almost in tears of anguish in the fourth. He served great, charged the net with success and gusto, and his nerve held firm in the clutch.

I don't know that there's any objective measure of these things, we all take from them what we want to. It's like the thread about the 2008 v 2014 finals. How do we measure "higher level?" Roger in the 2007 final faced immense pressure, but Roger against Nole faced a different sort of pressure.

And against Pete, he faced only the pressure to make his mark, which is big enough.

Can we remove greatness from the pressures they face? I don't think so. Things are only great because the stakes are high. If Federer was Beethoven, we'd say that Roger v Pete was Early Period Roger - and the 2007 final was Middle Period Roger.

2014 was Late Period Roger.

All of them glorious, but in different ways. Is there a best? I don't believe so...

 

[DarthFed]

^ Roger on grass should be beating Nole and Rafa regardless of age. So much of the baseline war is taken out of the equation on grass and the baseline war itself is a little more manageable. There is still a world of difference between Roger's serve and Nole's and Rafa's and that is a big advantage on grass. Roger's incredibly poor returning in both matches and weak play from the baseline is what did him in. He was dang tough this year, served incredibly, brought his game with his back against the wall, etc. he wasn't even that in the 08 final. Either way I said it before and will say it again, when you win 7 at a major there is no such thing as a quality loss.

 

[Kieran]

Darth, you often write about Roger's matches in definitive, black and white terms, but what we're talking about is a competition. If the other man earns the win, then Roger "should not be beating" him. You say that Roger should always win against Nole and Rafa - and yet when Nole lost the FO final, you slated him.

Eh...if Roger should always beat Rafa and Nole on grass, then how much more should Rafa always beat Nole and Roger on clay? You can't have it both ways, buddy.

And there is such a thing as glorious defeat. Sometimes players do more than is expected of them, and they gain glory through their efforts. It's not all black and white...

 

[DarthFed]

And how did Roger do more than what was expected of him in both matches? Worst case scenario going into last week I'd figure Roger would lose in a long 4 or 5. Similar in 2008. Roger had won 65 straight on grass going into that match. He didn't exceed expectations, he didn't come close to meeting them.

Nole came in being a puppet in finals and got waxed by Murray last year. Even Cilic took him to 5 at Wimbledon this year. Now Nole did play a great match Sunday and Roger being ancient didn't do all that bad but it's not an amazing performance to take Nole to 5 sets on grass. That is bizarre thinking.

 

[Kieran]

In 2008, Rafa was ascendant, and laid down a marker in 2007. He was up two sets and love-40 on Roger's serve in the third. He'd creamed Roger in Paris, inflicting a psychological landmark blow. You don't think that Roger was Herculean in bringing that match to five?

And as you say above, you expected Roger could lose to Nole in four: he defied that expectation, at least.

Fact is, he's almost 33, he's facing great champions. If he played Roddick and lost, I'd give credence to your theory, but he's struggled at slams for two seasons and almost defied all expectations by becoming the oldest player in Open tennis to win a slam.

You don't think that's a great effort? You don't think that even a defeat in a close five setter can be a thing of glory? Come on brother, 50% of players will lose the match, but how they lose matters a great deal...

 

[Federberg]

It would be truly bizarre to identify a loss as Rogers greatest match at the tournament he has had the most success. The tournament where few can even equal his WINNING achievements. I'm not even sure one of the finals is the answer, but I guess it's what we define as a great match. If we're looking at it from the perspective of the "match" as a whole instead of his greatest performance then yes we can look at one of the finals, because context is important. Otherwise there are any number of blowout beatdowns he delivered where one can say his level was even higher

 

[shawnbm]

It was one of his greatest there, to go along with all of his other finals. I know that is a cop out, but how can you say otherwise? The only thing I believe firmly is that (regardless of Roger being involved) it was the highest quality Wimbledon final I think I have ever seen--from start to finish. Each set was tightly contested and the winners-to-UFEs proves this was a special match. This was a battle of two hall of famers playing at a high level through and through. That is as far as I can go on this unanswerable thread.

 

[DarthFed]

In 2008, Rafa was ascendant, and laid down a marker in 2007. He was up two sets and love-40 on Roger's serve in the third. He'd creamed Roger in Paris, inflicting a psychological landmark blow. You don't think that Roger was Herculean in bringing that match to five?

And as you say above, you expected Roger could lose to Nole in four: he defied that expectation, at least.

Fact is, he's almost 33, he's facing great champions. If he played Roddick and lost, I'd give credence to your theory, but he's struggled at slams for two seasons and almost defied all expectations by becoming the oldest player in Open tennis to win a slam.

You don't think that's a great effort? You don't think that even a defeat in a close five setter can be a thing of glory? Come on brother, 50% of players will lose the match, but how they lose matters a great deal...

Nah, Roger played ok tennis the last 3 sets of 2008. He manned up after an atrocious start. It was no Herculean effort to take it to 5 on a surface he hadn't lost on in 6 years. And against someone who was basically just a clay court specialist until that day...

Last Sunday was closer to the point you are trying to make. Roger did admirably well in some respects but at the end of the day the things he did poorly kept him from winning against someone who had been notably fragile on the big stage. Roger's ROS and vanilla baseline game made it easy for Nole to settle. Roger's serve, toughness and defense made it difficult for Nole to overcome and he did great to win that match.

 

[Kieran]

Brother, Rafa wasn't "basically just a clay court specialist until that day!" :lolz:

Look, I'm tired of defending Roger to his own fans - I'll let other Roger fans take that on. You're far too black and white about things, my friend. When Nole lost in Paris, you slated him, even though presumably - if we use your logic - Rafa should always beat Nole at Paris. And I spent a lot of time defending Nole then, too. Because I found the argument to be fundamentally one that was based upon unnecessary putdowns, as opposed to a realistic appraisal of what goes on in competition between two elite stars...

 

[Kieran]

And I agree, it was a great win for Roger, but it was a match Roger faced without any pressure. He had nothing to lose, and so while he played great, it wasn't like his own reputation was on the line. I'd certainly have it as one of his greatest wins, but I see the logic in giving the nod to this year against Novak.

I don't know that there's any objective measure of these things, we all take from them what we want to. It's like the thread about the 2008 v 2014 finals. How do we measure "higher level?" Roger in the 2007 final faced immense pressure, but Roger against Nole faced a different sort of pressure.

And against Pete, he faced only the pressure to make his mark, which is big enough.

Can we remove greatness from the pressures they face? I don't think so. Things are only great because the stakes are high.

There is no question that Roger faced lot more pressure in 2007 to win than in 2001.
In fact, the pressure was palpable. Borg was in the audience and Fed was trying to match
him.

After the 2007 final, I think Fed faced lot of pressure in the 2012 final. This is because
the #1 ranking was on the line which would help him beat Pete's record in total no. of
weeks spent in #1. If Fed was not winning the Wimby at that time, he was probably
never going to break Pete's record and so there was lot of pressure (especially considering
he was slamless for 9 majors going into it). But, it was not against a good, but not
a great player as Murray was slamless at that time.

If you ignore the pressure component and simply look at Fed's great performance
in a competitive match in Wimbledon (here we are not talking about other blow outs in which
Fed may have played much better) I think Pete vs. Fed will get the award easily. It is a clean match, lots of winners, very few UFE. It was evenly poised. All sets were close. Both had exact
same number of winners (42) and exact same number of aces (25). It went to 5 sets.
It was against a grass King.

Having said that, I would agree with you that the pressure component must be taken into
account as that is what makes it difficult to play other than a good opponent.

The 2012 final is a good call, because after Roger came through the initial unsteadiness, he played virtuoso tennis to decapitate Murray. Some highlight reel stuff in the last two sets, including this ridiculous beauty...

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAeFXIIq95A[/video]

 

[GameSetAndMath]

For reasons unknown to me, one of my posts got deleted. However, it is quoted completely
in Kieran's post #27.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

1999 Wimbledon R128: Jiri Novak def. Roger Federer (6-3, 3-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
1999 Davis Cup QF: Christophe Van Garsse def. Roger Federer (7-6, 3-6, 1-6, 7-5, 6-1)
2000 French Open R32: Roger Federer def. Michel Kratochvil (7-6, 6-4, 2-6, 6-7, 8-6)
2000 Davis Cup: Roger Federer def. Vladimir Voltchkov (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-2)
2000 US Open R128: Roger Federer def. Peter Wessels (4-6, 4-6, 6-3, 7-5, 3-4 ret.)
2000 Basel F: Thomas Enqvist def. Roger Federer (6-2, 4-6, 7-6, 1-6, 6-1)
2001 French Open R64: Roger Federer def. Sargis Sargsian (4-6, 3-6, 6-2, 6-4, 9-7)
2001 Wimbledon R64: Roger Federer def. Xavier Malisse (6-3, 7-5, 3-6, 4-6, 6-3)
2001 Wimbledon R16: Roger Federer def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5)
2002 Australian Open R16: Tommy Haas def. Roger Federer (7-6, 4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 8-6)
2003 Australian Open R16: David Nalbandian def. Roger Federer (6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 1-6, 6-3)
2003 Gstaad F: Jiri Novak def. Roger Federer (5-7, 6-3, 6-3, 1-6, 6-3)
2003 Davis Cup SF: Lleyton Hewitt def. Roger Federer (5-7, 2-6, 7-6, 7-5, 6-1)
2004 US Open QF: Roger Federer def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3)
2005 Australian Open SF: Marat Safin def. Roger Federer (5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 9-7)
2005 Miami F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (2-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 6-1)
2005 Masters Cup F: David Nalbandian def. Roger Federer (6-7, 6-7, 6-2, 6-1, 7-6)
2006 Australian Open R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (6-4, 6-0, 3-6, 4-6, 6-2)
2006 Rome F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 2-6, 7-6)
2007 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2)
2008 Australian Open R32: Roger Federer def. Janko Tipsarevic (6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 6-1, 10-8 )
2008 Wimbledon F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)
2008 US Open R16: Roger Federer def. Igor Andreev (6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3)
2009 Australian Open R16: Roger Federer def. Tomas Berdych (4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
2009 Australian Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2)
2009 French Open R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (6-7, 5-7, 6-4, 6-0, 6-2)
2009 French Open SF: Roger Federer def. Juan Martin del Potro (3-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4)
2009 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14)
2009 US Open F: Juan Martin del Potro def. Roger Federer (3-6, 7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 6-2)
2010 Wimbledon R128: Roger Federer def. Alejandro Falla (5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-0)
2010 US Open SF: Novak Djokovic def. Roger Federer (5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5)
2011 Australian Open R64: Roger Federer def. Gilles Simon (6-2, 6-3, 4-6, 4-6, 6-3)
2011 Wimbledon QF: Jo-Wilfried Tsonga def. Roger Federer (3-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
2011 US Open SF: Novak Djokovic def. Roger Federer (6-7, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5)
2012 French Open QF: Roger Federer def. Juan Martin del Potro (3-6, 6-7, 6-2, 6-0, 6-3)
2013 Wimbledon R16: Roger Federer def. Julien Benneteau (4-6, 6-7(3), 6-2, 7-6(6), 6-1)
2013 Australian Open QF: Roger Federer def. J. Tsonga (7-6(4), 4-6, 7-6(4), 3-6, 6-3)
2013 Australian Open SF: Andy Murray def. Roger Federer (4-6, 7-6(5), 3-6, 7-6(2), 2-6)
2013 French Open R16: Roger Federer def. Gilles Simon (6-1, 4-6, 2-6, 6-2, 6-4)
2014 Wimbledon F: Novak Djokovic def. Rofer Federer (7-6(7), 4-6, 6-7(4), 7-5, 4-6)

 

[DarthFed]

Brother, Rafa wasn't "basically just a clay court specialist until that day!" :lolz:

Look, I'm tired of defending Roger to his own fans - I'll let other Roger fans take that on. You're far too black and white about things, my friend. When Nole lost in Paris, you slated him, even though presumably - if we use your logic - Rafa should always beat Nole at Paris. And I spent a lot of time defending Nole then, too. Because I found the argument to be fundamentally one that was based upon unnecessary putdowns, as opposed to a realistic appraisal of what goes on in competition between two elite stars...

It wasn't that Nole lost to Rafa at RG but the way he lost. Similar to the USO last year, and Wimbledon in 2012 and 2013 he went down without a whimper. It was the culmination of a very ugly pattern that plagued him for the better part of 2 years save his lone win at his home slam in 2013. Perhaps he just bucked the trend with his win at Wimbledon.

You "defend" Roger every time he loses and talk about how lucky he is every time he wins. Why is that again? You are thrilled when he accomplishes nothing these days and then talk of how "tremendous" he is. The game is getting old bro :nono

 

[Front242]

^ It sure is! Extremely admirable given his age but it would've only been great if he'd actually won.

 

[Moxie]

In 2008, Rafa was ascendant, and laid down a marker in 2007. He was up two sets and love-40 on Roger's serve in the third. He'd creamed Roger in Paris, inflicting a psychological landmark blow. You don't think that Roger was Herculean in bringing that match to five?

And as you say above, you expected Roger could lose to Nole in four: he defied that expectation, at least.

Fact is, he's almost 33, he's facing great champions. If he played Roddick and lost, I'd give credence to your theory, but he's struggled at slams for two seasons and almost defied all expectations by becoming the oldest player in Open tennis to win a slam.

You don't think that's a great effort? You don't think that even a defeat in a close five setter can be a thing of glory? Come on brother, 50% of players will lose the match, but how they lose matters a great deal...

Nah, Roger played ok tennis the last 3 sets of 2008. He manned up after an atrocious start. It was no Herculean effort to take it to 5 on a surface he hadn't lost on in 6 years. And against someone who was basically just a clay court specialist until that day...

Last Sunday was closer to the point you are trying to make. Roger did admirably well in some respects but at the end of the day the things he did poorly kept him from winning against someone who had been notably fragile on the big stage. Roger's ROS and vanilla baseline game made it easy for Nole to settle. Roger's serve, toughness and defense made it difficult for Nole to overcome and he did great to win that match.

You really shouldn't get away with this. "Roger played OK tennis the last 3 sets of 2008." That's pretty much you against the rest of the tennis world, as to that opinion. He played better than "OK," and even in the first two sets, though I'll give you that he was rather off-color, at the start. And Nadal "was basically just a clay-court specialist until that day…." Really? You do rewrite history to the way it suits you. Nadal didn't beat Federer in 2008 by accident, or by a complete collapse on Roger's part. It was a hard-fought match, a complete turf-war. Fed fought hard to defend his title. Just because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean you get to reinvent it as a less-than-compelling match, which was well-played by both.

 

[DarthFed]

In 2008, Rafa was ascendant, and laid down a marker in 2007. He was up two sets and love-40 on Roger's serve in the third. He'd creamed Roger in Paris, inflicting a psychological landmark blow. You don't think that Roger was Herculean in bringing that match to five?

And as you say above, you expected Roger could lose to Nole in four: he defied that expectation, at least.

Fact is, he's almost 33, he's facing great champions. If he played Roddick and lost, I'd give credence to your theory, but he's struggled at slams for two seasons and almost defied all expectations by becoming the oldest player in Open tennis to win a slam.

You don't think that's a great effort? You don't think that even a defeat in a close five setter can be a thing of glory? Come on brother, 50% of players will lose the match, but how they lose matters a great deal...

Nah, Roger played ok tennis the last 3 sets of 2008. He manned up after an atrocious start. It was no Herculean effort to take it to 5 on a surface he hadn't lost on in 6 years. And against someone who was basically just a clay court specialist until that day...

Last Sunday was closer to the point you are trying to make. Roger did admirably well in some respects but at the end of the day the things he did poorly kept him from winning against someone who had been notably fragile on the big stage. Roger's ROS and vanilla baseline game made it easy for Nole to settle. Roger's serve, toughness and defense made it difficult for Nole to overcome and he did great to win that match.

You really shouldn't get away with this. "Roger played OK tennis the last 3 sets of 2008." That's pretty much you against the rest of the tennis world, as to that opinion. He played better than "OK," and even in the first two sets, though I'll give you that he was rather off-color, at the start. And Nadal "was basically just a clay-court specialist until that day…." Really? You do rewrite history to the way it suits you. Nadal didn't beat Federer in 2008 by accident, or by a complete collapse on Roger's part. It was a hard-fought match, a complete turf-war. Fed fought hard to defend his title. Just because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean you get to reinvent it as a less-than-compelling match, which was well-played by both.

For Roger's standards at the time sets 3-5 were par for the course. He certainly played a lot better compared to the first 2 sets, got more aggressive, wasn't totally worthless in the clutch, etc. But I wouldn't call his play tremendous at any point in that match aside from 3rd set TB and 2nd half of 4th set TB after Nadal flinched near the finish line. Roger still made tons of errors throughout the ENTIRE match, still was awful returning the ENTIRE match, sucked big time at net, was 1-12 on BP's etc. I'd imagine his 52 UFE's rank among the most in the history of the tournament, for Wimbledon scoring it is an astronomic figure.

And please tell me what Rafa had done of note off clay until that day? Won a couple master titles on HC and made 2 Wimby finals is all I come up with...

 

[Moxie]

In 2008, Rafa was ascendant, and laid down a marker in 2007. He was up two sets and love-40 on Roger's serve in the third. He'd creamed Roger in Paris, inflicting a psychological landmark blow. You don't think that Roger was Herculean in bringing that match to five?

And as you say above, you expected Roger could lose to Nole in four: he defied that expectation, at least.

Fact is, he's almost 33, he's facing great champions. If he played Roddick and lost, I'd give credence to your theory, but he's struggled at slams for two seasons and almost defied all expectations by becoming the oldest player in Open tennis to win a slam.

You don't think that's a great effort? You don't think that even a defeat in a close five setter can be a thing of glory? Come on brother, 50% of players will lose the match, but how they lose matters a great deal...

Nah, Roger played ok tennis the last 3 sets of 2008. He manned up after an atrocious start. It was no Herculean effort to take it to 5 on a surface he hadn't lost on in 6 years. And against someone who was basically just a clay court specialist until that day...

Last Sunday was closer to the point you are trying to make. Roger did admirably well in some respects but at the end of the day the things he did poorly kept him from winning against someone who had been notably fragile on the big stage. Roger's ROS and vanilla baseline game made it easy for Nole to settle. Roger's serve, toughness and defense made it difficult for Nole to overcome and he did great to win that match.

You really shouldn't get away with this. "Roger played OK tennis the last 3 sets of 2008." That's pretty much you against the rest of the tennis world, as to that opinion. He played better than "OK," and even in the first two sets, though I'll give you that he was rather off-color, at the start. And Nadal "was basically just a clay-court specialist until that day…." Really? You do rewrite history to the way it suits you. Nadal didn't beat Federer in 2008 by accident, or by a complete collapse on Roger's part. It was a hard-fought match, a complete turf-war. Fed fought hard to defend his title. Just because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean you get to reinvent it as a less-than-compelling match, which was well-played by both.

And please tell me what Rafa had done of note off clay until that day? Won a couple master titles on HC and made 2 Wimby finals is all I come up with...

Well, not to split hairs, but he'd won Canada and Madrid, (indoor HC at that time) '05, IW '07, Queens Club on grass in '08, and been a finalist in Miami and a SFist in AO. All but Queens by age 21. You casually toss off the 2 Wimby finals…he nearly won in '07. If this were now, we'd be looking at him as the next HC king. And the next best thing on grass. Beating Roger at SW19 in '08 certainly didn't come out of nowhere, and it wasn't because Federer was crap. He played well enough to thrill the great majority of folks on that day.

 

[DarthFed]

In 2008, Rafa was ascendant, and laid down a marker in 2007. He was up two sets and love-40 on Roger's serve in the third. He'd creamed Roger in Paris, inflicting a psychological landmark blow. You don't think that Roger was Herculean in bringing that match to five?

And as you say above, you expected Roger could lose to Nole in four: he defied that expectation, at least.

Fact is, he's almost 33, he's facing great champions. If he played Roddick and lost, I'd give credence to your theory, but he's struggled at slams for two seasons and almost defied all expectations by becoming the oldest player in Open tennis to win a slam.

You don't think that's a great effort? You don't think that even a defeat in a close five setter can be a thing of glory? Come on brother, 50% of players will lose the match, but how they lose matters a great deal...

Nah, Roger played ok tennis the last 3 sets of 2008. He manned up after an atrocious start. It was no Herculean effort to take it to 5 on a surface he hadn't lost on in 6 years. And against someone who was basically just a clay court specialist until that day...

Last Sunday was closer to the point you are trying to make. Roger did admirably well in some respects but at the end of the day the things he did poorly kept him from winning against someone who had been notably fragile on the big stage. Roger's ROS and vanilla baseline game made it easy for Nole to settle. Roger's serve, toughness and defense made it difficult for Nole to overcome and he did great to win that match.

You really shouldn't get away with this. "Roger played OK tennis the last 3 sets of 2008." That's pretty much you against the rest of the tennis world, as to that opinion. He played better than "OK," and even in the first two sets, though I'll give you that he was rather off-color, at the start. And Nadal "was basically just a clay-court specialist until that day…." Really? You do rewrite history to the way it suits you. Nadal didn't beat Federer in 2008 by accident, or by a complete collapse on Roger's part. It was a hard-fought match, a complete turf-war. Fed fought hard to defend his title. Just because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean you get to reinvent it as a less-than-compelling match, which was well-played by both.

And please tell me what Rafa had done of note off clay until that day? Won a couple master titles on HC and made 2 Wimby finals is all I come up with...

Well, not to split hairs, but he'd won Canada and Madrid, (indoor HC at that time) '05, IW '07, Queens Club on grass in '08, and been a finalist in Miami and a SFist in AO. All but Queens by age 21. You casually toss off the 2 Wimby finals…he nearly won in '07. If this were now, we'd be looking at him as the next HC king. And the next best thing on grass. Beating Roger at SW19 in '08 certainly didn't come out of nowhere, and it wasn't because Federer was crap. He played well enough to thrill the great majority of folks on that day.

Rafa would be thought of as the next HC king by making 1 slam semi and winning a couple MS events on hard courts? He won 1 small grass tourney and made 2 Wimby finals. This is hardly some impressive resume off clay coming into 2008 Wimbledon.

Roger thrilled the Wafa fans around the world that's for sure. It was an awesome match but what was the expectation, that Roger would play like a complete and utter clown from start to finish? Again I still await someone who can explain to me how someone who had won 65 straight on grass did great in LOSING a 5 setter? There is no such thing as a quality loss for someone who hadn't lost on grass in 6 years with the lone exception of someone flying in prime Sampras. Certainly losing to Rafa wasn't a quality loss there, stats and common sense show that well enough. There was nothing special about Roger's play that day for his standards on grass. I see a slightly above average day serving, overall his forehand was above average (though it let him down in the biggest moments) and the rest of his game was poor or worse.

 

[Moxie]

^ You skated quickly past Rafa's record off of clay in the above, but that would qualify as far above average in this day and age, for a 21-year old, or even possibly a 25-year-old. (And he won 2 MS on HC at 19.)

I understand your outrage, as a fan, that Roger lost the final in '08, but your assessment of it is too black and white, as Kieran says. You can't see the match. You only see that Federer, in your estimation, is the superior grass court player. It's not just that that match thrilled "Wafa" fans, it thrilled the general viewing public…except for you, and a few other blinkered partisans. No one is trying to shove "quality loss" down your throat. You are saying that. (And probably the goofball that wrote the article we're discussing, about the 2014 one.) But you can't invent that Roger played poorly in a massive 5-setter, just because he lost to a guy you think he shouldn't have "let" beat him. Nadal was improving on all surfaces, and gaining on Roger at Wimbledon. And he got him on the day. That's fair play, and exciting tennis, too.

You'd like to think it couldn't have been good play from Federer, or how would he have lost? But you do denigrate the opponent when you insist on that.

 

[Federberg]

Darth I agree about your Roger-specific comments in this thread, but I have to say.. even in 2008, Rafa was a bit more than a dirt-baller. 3 Wimbledon finals in a row? I think that qualifies as decent on grass. Think about it.. it's like saying Roger was no good on clay back in the day.. before he won RG. I do agree with the core of what you're getting at though. In 2008, his first 2 sets were not just awful, but completely unexpected given his form going into the final. It was clearly a mental issue. In the next 2 sets he just said "F" it and played. The final set was a crap-shoot and frankly after about 3 all it was too dark... trust me on that.. I lived a 5 minute walk away from Centre Court.. I wouldn't have continued a game in the park with that lighting! Rafa handled it better, and that's that. What made it a great final was this young guy.. the heir apparent got the crown, he beat possibly the greatest Wimbledon champion we've ever seen. That doesn't mean Roger played his best, that's just silly thinking. There were stretches when the level was as high as anything I've ever seen... including Edberg's first 2 sets in his 1990 win against Boris (if you don't remember it, watch it again. You'll never see better s&v than that). But let's not go overboard...