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

[Kieran]

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

I defend Roger from black and white statements like yours, yeah. And so do other Fedfans, and tennis fans, because we see the guy as a great champ who's trying his best out there, and hard to beat. But you write things like that as a way of making excuses, or denigrating the winner.

The "way Novak lost?" He won the first and was puking up on the court afterwards. He did well - just as well as Roger ever did against Rafa in Paris. Maybe even better, in fact.

And in the US Open final, I think you're just being prejudicial and silly saying that Novak went down without a whimper. You should understand what happens immediately after a guy loses a gut-wrencher third set, like Novak did. His level dropped, and Rafa was rampant. That's not a bloke going down without a whimper.

You didn't complain about the way people lost when Roger racked up his first 8 or 9 slams.

Bear in mind, Nole has seven majors now, and most of his career he's had Fedal in the way. Infact, statistically, Novak has played about 13% of his career against the others in the Big 4. He's hardly a midget. He might disappoint you cos he can't stop Rafa chasing 17, but that's not his fault. :snigger

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...

Yep, reached two Wimbo finals. Hardly a simple clay-court specialist. You saw the 2007 final, right? He didn't look too bad on grass there...

 

[Kieran]

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.

Trust me, if this was the case, he'd have been out of there as fast as the FO final. It's not the case...

 

[DarthFed]

^ Yes it was.

 

[DarthFed]

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...

IMO you aren't great on a surface unless you win a GS on it and that's the point I'm getting across. I'm not saying Rafa was bad off clay, far from it, but until that day he had done nothing of note off clay and had won 4 GS on it.

 

[Kieran]

We could also say that until he faced Rafa, Roger hadn't faced anybody of note in his Wimbledon finals. You also said that Rafa "was basically only a clay court specialist until that day" when he won in 2008.

You speak in absolute terms, my friend, with no room for shade or nuance. There aren't really absolutes in things like this. And all the wins have to be earned. Once Rafa found his range on grass, you knew he was going to beat Roger at some stage. You shouldn't act as if it's a calamity, or unexpected result. If you think so little of Rafa on grass, heaven knows what you think of everybody but Rafa, on clay...

 

[DarthFed]

We could also say that until he faced Rafa, Roger hadn't faced anybody of note in his Wimbledon finals. You also said that Rafa "was basically only a clay courter until that day" when he won in 2008.

You speak in absolute terms, my friend, with no room for shade or nuance. There aren't really absolutes in things like this. And all the wins have to be earned. Once Rafa found his range on grass, you knew he was going to beat Roger at some stage. You shouldn't act as if it's a calamity, or unexpected result. If you think so little of Rafa on grass, heaven knows what you think of everybody but Rafa, on clay...

I knew no such thing. I figured Roger would continue to play well at Wimbledon for many years to come even if he had been struggling badly in 2008. Figured he would acquit himself well that day...

I naturally think little of everyone on clay aside from Rafa and Roger, there is currently no one we can say has been great on clay. Might seem unfair to Nole but unless he wins RG I don't see how anyone would call him great on clay. Greatness is about winning, not finishing 2nd.

 

[Kieran]

He did acquit himself well that day, very well.

Your definition of greatness is hugely transparent. Of course there can be greatness, even in defeat, but if you have no shades of colour between black and white, you won't notice it...

 

[DarthFed]

Call it a difference of opinion I guess. But in a one on one competition there is no such thing as greatness in defeat. You either get the job done or do the worst thing that can be done...2nd out of 2.

 

[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...

IMO you aren't great on a surface unless you win a GS on it and that's the point I'm getting across. I'm not saying Rafa was bad off clay, far from it, but until that day he had done nothing of note off clay and had won 4 GS on it.

ok understood. I think that's a rather harsher definition of 'great on a surface' than I would entertain, but I get where you're going with this based on that criteria. For me though, I would say that someone like Pat Rafter was a great grass court player. Does the fact that Agassi won Wimbledon and he didn't make me think that Agassi is a better grass court player? Definitely not for me!

 

[tented]

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

I checked the logs, and you are the only one listed as having deleted a post written by you in this thread. When I checked the post, it was blank -- as if you had clicked reply, deleted all contents, then clicked post reply.

 

[Moxie]

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...

IMO you aren't great on a surface unless you win a GS on it and that's the point I'm getting across. I'm not saying Rafa was bad off clay, far from it, but until that day he had done nothing of note off clay and had won 4 GS on it.

Yes, Darth, but in 2008 (and 2010) Rafa DID win a Slam on grass. Just because he hadn't before, or on HCs (which he did a few months later,)…you gotta start somewhere, right? And he was only 22. It wasn't like he had a few random clay events and one RG, in which case I would say beating Roger at Wimbledon would have been a big upset. But if you take out the phrase "off clay," (and don't treat clay court tennis as if it's a separate sport,) you have a 22-year-old who had won 4 Majors, and spent 3 years at #2. Looking at it that way, it's not that shocking. Unless you just think Nadal beating Federer on grass is a travesty, on its face...