What I like about 2014

[El Dude]

Moxie, I totally get and appreciate you defending Rafa - there has been a lot of pile-up, some of it a bit over-the-top, although some of it a bit humorous (I actually find StanTheMan funny), but also some with elements of truth, I think.

When I say Rafa is "pouty" it just seems to be part of his personality. He seems unhappy, indignant, and even angry when he loses. To be honest, sometimes he reminds me of a little boy that didn't get what he wanted, so goes into a sulk. In some ways, this is part of his charm, but it does seem more striking than other high profile players. I wouldn't quite call him a sore loser, but there's an edge of that. Both Novak and Roger are so gracious when they lose and seem to take actual pleasure in their opponent's victory, or at least are able to separate it from their loss (or maybe they just are better actors!). Rafa, on the other hand, almost seems offended.

I do agree with some who have said that there's this subtle (or not-so subtle) implication from his fans and Rafa's camp that when Rafa loses, something went wrong - he was injured, distracted, etc - that he can't have possible been out-played fair and square. I think that's why some folks have been dredging up the past after the AO. Clearly his injury was legit, but there's a pattern there and it isn't the first time that one of Rafa's big losses was entwined with an injury.

Who know's, maybe StanTheMan's satire is actually correct - that Rafa won't lose if he's healthy, and he only loses when he's not. Now it could be that all of his injuries have been legit, which would mean many of his losses were because of injury, not because he was outplayed. That could be true. But the fact is, this question is brought up repeatedly, meaning its a question a that lives in the tennis fan base. We may never know.

What we do know is that Rafa is arguably the greatest player in the history of the game, regardless of his demeanor. If not the greatest, then he's definitely up there. Nothing can take that away from him (or you!).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Moxie, I totally get and appreciate you defending Rafa - there has been a lot of pile-up, some of it a bit over-the-top, although some of it a bit humorous (I actually find StanTheMan funny), but also some with elements of truth, I think.

When I say Rafa is "pouty" it just seems to be part of his personality. He seems unhappy, indignant, and even angry when he loses. To be honest, sometimes he reminds me of a little boy that didn't get what he wanted, so goes into a sulk. In some ways, this is part of his charm, but it does seem more striking than other high profile players. I wouldn't quite call him a sore loser, but there's an edge of that. Both Novak and Roger are so gracious when they lose and seem to take actual pleasure in their opponent's victory, or at least are able to separate it from their loss (or maybe they just are better actors!). Rafa, on the other hand, almost seems offended.

I do agree with some who have said that there's this subtle (or not-so subtle) implication from his fans and Rafa's camp that when Rafa loses, something went wrong - he was injured, distracted, etc - that he can't have possible been out-played fair and square. I think that's why some folks have been dredging up the past after the AO. Clearly his injury was legit, but there's a pattern there and it isn't the first time that one of Rafa's big losses was entwined with an injury.

I agree.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Wait...where did this come form that Federer is "so gracious" when he loses? Not sure I've been following the same guy over the years.

 

[Front242]

Moxie, I totally get and appreciate you defending Rafa - there has been a lot of pile-up, some of it a bit over-the-top, although some of it a bit humorous (I actually find StanTheMan funny), but also some with elements of truth, I think.

When I say Rafa is "pouty" it just seems to be part of his personality. He seems unhappy, indignant, and even angry when he loses. To be honest, sometimes he reminds me of a little boy that didn't get what he wanted, so goes into a sulk. In some ways, this is part of his charm, but it does seem more striking than other high profile players. I wouldn't quite call him a sore loser, but there's an edge of that. Both Novak and Roger are so gracious when they lose and seem to take actual pleasure in their opponent's victory, or at least are able to separate it from their loss (or maybe they just are better actors!). Rafa, on the other hand, almost seems offended.

I do agree with some who have said that there's this subtle (or not-so subtle) implication from his fans and Rafa's camp that when Rafa loses, something went wrong - he was injured, distracted, etc - that he can't have possible been out-played fair and square. I think that's why some folks have been dredging up the past after the AO. Clearly his injury was legit, but there's a pattern there and it isn't the first time that one of Rafa's big losses was entwined with an injury.

I agree.

Good that you removed the last 2 paragraphs before agreeing at least

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Glad you noticed. It was intentional.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I totally get and appreciate you defending Rafa - there has been a lot of pile-up, some of it a bit over-the-top, although some of it a bit humorous (I actually find StanTheMan funny), but also some with elements of truth, I think.

When I say Rafa is "pouty" it just seems to be part of his personality. He seems unhappy, indignant, and even angry when he loses. To be honest, sometimes he reminds me of a little boy that didn't get what he wanted, so goes into a sulk. In some ways, this is part of his charm, but it does seem more striking than other high profile players. I wouldn't quite call him a sore loser, but there's an edge of that. Both Novak and Roger are so gracious when they lose and seem to take actual pleasure in their opponent's victory, or at least are able to separate it from their loss (or maybe they just are better actors!). Rafa, on the other hand, almost seems offended.

I do agree with some who have said that there's this subtle (or not-so subtle) implication from his fans and Rafa's camp that when Rafa loses, something went wrong - he was injured, distracted, etc - that he can't have possible been out-played fair and square. I think that's why some folks have been dredging up the past after the AO. Clearly his injury was legit, but there's a pattern there and it isn't the first time that one of Rafa's big losses was entwined with an injury.

Who know's, maybe StanTheMan's satire is actually correct - that Rafa won't lose if he's healthy, and he only loses when he's not. Now it could be that all of his injuries have been legit, which would mean many of his losses were because of injury, not because he was outplayed. That could be true. But the fact is, this question is brought up repeatedly, meaning its a question a that lives in the tennis fan base. We may never know.

What we do know is that Rafa is arguably the greatest player in the history of the game, regardless of his demeanor. If not the greatest, then he's definitely up there. Nothing can take that away from him (or you!).

I appreciate your taking the time to respond again, Dude. Helps to see how it looks to you, even though I don't quite agree, or see it as a failing. (And I agree with Broken…I think Roger is pretty sulking when he loses and can say rather snarky things about his opponent, which at least Rafa doesn't do.) But it all comes down to taste and perception.

As to the injuries, and big losses, sometimes both things are true, but they don't necessarily account for why Nadal lost, and contrary to popular perception, neither Nadal nor his fan base *all* use these as excuses. I have argued before for this: both Soderling and Rosol each played one of the best matches of his career to beat Rafa. The other thing going on was that Nadal was dealing with the increasingly degenerative effects of his knee issues. Yes, he was properly beaten, but this is why he finally stopped to deal with the knees. While you're winning, you keep taking the treatment, and hope you hold out long enough. When you lose, and are forced to stop, that's when you have to face the music about the body. (Ah…and I can see why this seems pouty….when he's suffered big losses, he has been perceived to take his toys and go home. And I've read the expression "lick his wounds" more than a few times.) I would never claim that Rafa would have beaten Soderling or Rosol on that particular day.

When Rafa lost to Novak in that string of 7 finals, there was no mention of injury on Rafa's part, that I can recall. If he were looking to assuage the indignity of Djokovic being in his head and his game, this would have been the perfect place to cry about his knees, or whatever. (As I mentioned on another thread, the MTO in that series came from Djokovic, in the USO final.) And after losing to Darcis in the 1st round of Wimbledon last year, he didn't run and hide. He came back to the USO series and got back down to business.

It may end up being ironic that the MTO and actual injury that non-fans will allow is his loss at this year's AO…because they could see it. However, it's likely to have been one of the least impactful injuries that has ever affected his career.

My point is that a couple of big losses that were followed by injury lay-offs don't prove that every big loss is followed by an injury-excuse. It's a narrative that has taken on a life of its own, and I think it can be picked apart as unfair and over-stated.

OK, sorry for hijacking your thread. I guess what I DON'T like about 2014, so far, is the piling-on against Rafa. Just trying to clear the record.

 

[Kieran]

There's a lot of Fedfan silliness goes on, which is understandable. They find Rafa hard to take, because he's shown up the absurdities of them thinking their guy is better than he is.

And of course, they mistake a scowl for a pout, because they can nervously mock a pout, but a defiant scowl is more masculine, and their metrosexual hero balks at such forceful stuff. No matter!

Rafa scowls, he 'bukes and scorns, he's the Sulphur, the bully, and the bully club, Thor's hammer, the force of nature, Old Lefty (except when he's called Old Righty Who Plays With His Lefty), The Terrible One, Hellboy, Ye Olde Bass Turd, Nemesis, Lord Wedgie -

Or whatever boot boy nickname you wanna give him.

Save yourself some time: he's the greatest player you've seen until now. Enjoy him, because it's much better to do that than to resist him...

 

[Front242]

There's a lot of Fedfan silliness goes on, which is understandable. They find Rafa hard to take, because he's shown up the absurdities of them thinking their guy is better than he is.

And of course, they mistake a scowl for a pout, because they can nervously mock a pout, but a defiant scowl is more masculine, and their metrosexual hero balks at such forceful stuff. No matter!

Rafa scowls, he 'bukes and scorns, he's the Sulphur, the bully, and the bully club, Thor's hammer, the force of nature, Old Lefty (except when he's called Old Righty Who Plays With His Lefty), The Terrible One, Hellboy, Ye Olde Bass Turd, Nemesis, Lord Wedgie -

Or whatever boot boy nickname you wanna give him.

Save yourself some time: he's the greatest player you've seen until now. Enjoy him, because it's much better to do that than to resist him...

He might be the greatest player you've seen but not me and I speak for many others here too no doubt

 

[britbox]

Front, Am I correct in thinking the person you have in mind isn't Le guerrier peur de la nuit as the french would say?

 

[Front242]

Front, Am I correct in thinking the person you have in mind isn't Le guerrier peur de la nuit as the french would say?

Oui, c'est vrai

 

[Moxie]

There's a lot of Fedfan silliness goes on, which is understandable. They find Rafa hard to take, because he's shown up the absurdities of them thinking their guy is better than he is.

And of course, they mistake a scowl for a pout, because they can nervously mock a pout, but a defiant scowl is more masculine, and their metrosexual hero balks at such forceful stuff. No matter!

Rafa scowls, he 'bukes and scorns, he's the Sulphur, the bully, and the bully club, Thor's hammer, the force of nature, Old Lefty (except when he's called Old Righty Who Plays With His Lefty), The Terrible One, Hellboy, Ye Olde Bass Turd, Nemesis, Lord Wedgie -

Or whatever boot boy nickname you wanna give him.

Save yourself some time: he's the greatest player you've seen until now. Enjoy him, because it's much better to do that than to resist him...

He might be the greatest player you've seen but not me and I speak for many others here too no doubt

The argument gets closer, which is why everyone is so tetchy. Respond to the arguments, fair and square. You've been a bit feathery when faced with a plausible response.

 

[Front242]

There's a lot of Fedfan silliness goes on, which is understandable. They find Rafa hard to take, because he's shown up the absurdities of them thinking their guy is better than he is.

And of course, they mistake a scowl for a pout, because they can nervously mock a pout, but a defiant scowl is more masculine, and their metrosexual hero balks at such forceful stuff. No matter!

Rafa scowls, he 'bukes and scorns, he's the Sulphur, the bully, and the bully club, Thor's hammer, the force of nature, Old Lefty (except when he's called Old Righty Who Plays With His Lefty), The Terrible One, Hellboy, Ye Olde Bass Turd, Nemesis, Lord Wedgie -

Or whatever boot boy nickname you wanna give him.

Save yourself some time: he's the greatest player you've seen until now. Enjoy him, because it's much better to do that than to resist him...

He might be the greatest player you've seen but not me and I speak for many others here too no doubt

The argument gets closer, which is why everyone is so tetchy. Respond to the arguments, fair and square. You've been a bit feathery when faced with a plausible response.

I dunno what feathery is supposed to mean as regards my opinion of who's the greatest I've seen but I'll spell it out again...Nadal might be the greatest Kieran has ever seen but he's not the greatest I've seen. Get it this time ? I don't need people telling me on forums that their favourite player is the greatest I've seen 'cos frankly, for me, he's not. They're both great players and I'll leave it at that.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Wait...where did this come form that Federer is "so gracious" when he loses? Not sure I've been following the same guy over the years.

You should see Federer's post match interview after his 2009 USO loss to JMDP.
Federer was genuinely happy for the guy.

Actually lot of his extremist fans have even accused him of not being bothered
by the loss. But, I am sure he is bothered by the loss, but just being gracious
in defeat.

This is just one example of grace in defeat. There are many more.

Also, Federer is one of very few players who have never abandoned a match
in the middle in his entire career which consists of over 1100 matches. He has given
a walkover and that too just once or twice only. I believe it is just once. He gave
a walkover to Blake. But, I need to check the record to make sure whether it is just
once or twice. He might have given a walkover to Monfils in Doha too.

 

[DarthFed]

There's a lot of Fedfan silliness goes on, which is understandable. They find Rafa hard to take, because he's shown up the absurdities of them thinking their guy is better than he is.

And of course, they mistake a scowl for a pout, because they can nervously mock a pout, but a defiant scowl is more masculine, and their metrosexual hero balks at such forceful stuff. No matter!

Rafa scowls, he 'bukes and scorns, he's the Sulphur, the bully, and the bully club, Thor's hammer, the force of nature, Old Lefty (except when he's called Old Righty Who Plays With His Lefty), The Terrible One, Hellboy, Ye Olde Bass Turd, Nemesis, Lord Wedgie -

Or whatever boot boy nickname you wanna give him.

Save yourself some time: he's the greatest player you've seen until now. Enjoy him, because it's much better to do that than to resist him...

He might be the greatest player you've seen but not me and I speak for many others here too no doubt

The argument gets closer, which is why everyone is so tetchy. Respond to the arguments, fair and square. You've been a bit feathery when faced with a plausible response.

What argument did Kieran make aside from the usual mocking and insults? Are you seriously calling that a plausible response.

As of now there is no real debate as who the greater player is. He could be up 100-0 in the H2H but a 4 slam difference is enormous. Regardless of what posters like Kieran and Huntingyou say there are no extra points handed out for beating player X instead of player Y. Rafa has owned Roger but he has also had way more awful losses than Roger had in his prime and you don't need to look any further than the gem from last Sunday.

Obviously Rafa can and will get closer if not tie/break the record which makes it an easy argument in the other direction.

 

[Kieran]

You see how close to the bone it gets by the responses.

GameSetAndMath!

Federer would have retired from matches if he had been unable to play on.

He could play on, so he didn't retire from matches.

That's simple, no?

 

[Moxie]

There's a lot of Fedfan silliness goes on, which is understandable. They find Rafa hard to take, because he's shown up the absurdities of them thinking their guy is better than he is.

And of course, they mistake a scowl for a pout, because they can nervously mock a pout, but a defiant scowl is more masculine, and their metrosexual hero balks at such forceful stuff. No matter!

Rafa scowls, he 'bukes and scorns, he's the Sulphur, the bully, and the bully club, Thor's hammer, the force of nature, Old Lefty (except when he's called Old Righty Who Plays With His Lefty), The Terrible One, Hellboy, Ye Olde Bass Turd, Nemesis, Lord Wedgie -

Or whatever boot boy nickname you wanna give him.

Save yourself some time: he's the greatest player you've seen until now. Enjoy him, because it's much better to do that than to resist him...

He might be the greatest player you've seen but not me and I speak for many others here too no doubt

The argument gets closer, which is why everyone is so tetchy. Respond to the arguments, fair and square. You've been a bit feathery when faced with a plausible response.

What argument did Kieran make aside from the usual mocking and insults? Are you seriously calling that a plausible response.

As of now there is no real debate as who the greater player is. He could be up 100-0 in the H2H but a 4 slam difference is enormous. Regardless of what posters like Kieran and Huntingyou say there are no extra points handed out for beating player X instead of player Y. Rafa has owned Roger but he has also had way more awful losses than Roger had in his prime and you don't need to look any further than the gem from last Sunday.

Obviously Rafa can and will get closer if not tie/break the record which makes it an easy argument in the other direction.

You're responding to me, not Kieran. I thought I made an argument that was worthy of debate, not as to the GOAT, but as to the other questions…the narrative that people put forward about his injuries, the notion of "excuses," either from the camp for the fan base. I have tried to make plausible and specific arguments in the face of broad generalities. I'd be curious is you have a response to my ideas, as opposed to just one more entry in the Roger-Rafa debate.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You see how close to the bone it gets by the responses.

GameSetAndMath!

Federer would have retired from matches if he had been unable to play on.

He could play on, so he didn't retire from matches.

That's simple, no?

Look, this lack of retirement and graciouness is not the primary point of his greatness.
The only reason I mentioned was because Broken was questioning the grace of Fed in his
losses.

All of Nadal fans were lavishing praise (rightly so, except for the lavishing part) on him for continuing to play the AO final and giving Stan the satisfaction of winning the match properly.
I am just pointing out that Roger had never quit in 1148 matches and more importantly
in the 217 matches that he lost and even more importantly in the many matches in
which he carried some form of injury. For example, when Fed lost in Gastaad against
an unknown guy while suffering back issues, it is all too easy to retire. But, Fed did not
worry about protecting his legacy. He allowed the dignity of winning the match properly
even for a low ranked guy and even in the first round.

Playing it out in the final round of Grand Slam without retiring is a no-brainer.
Doing so in the first round of an ATP 250 when you are getting beaten by a totally
unknown guy, that requires integrity.

 

[Kieran]

It also helps if you can physically continue. And if you can't, obviously you retire hurt.

All this silly stuff about pouting and being a sore loser, I think is ridiculous. I remember Federer's reaction when he lost Oz in 2009 and it wasn't one we'd say was gracious - but actually to me it showed a guy who found losing a match to be almost impossible to bear. I liked his reaction! It showed how much he cared. It showed how much a winner the guy is.

We've seen too many happy losers in tennis. Too many guys look like they're happy being along for the ride.

Sampras used look like somebody had kicked his favourite pooch. Rafa looks furious. These aren't signs of them being inferior in any way - that's just how they react to defeat...

 

[Moxie]

Playing it out in the final round of Grand Slam without retiring is a no-brainer.
Doing so in the first round of an ATP 250 when you are getting beaten by a totally
unknown guy, that requires integrity.

I would say that both speak to integrity.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Wait...where did this come form that Federer is "so gracious" when he loses? Not sure I've been following the same guy over the years.

You should see Federer's post match interview after his 2009 USO loss to JMDP.
Federer was genuinely happy for the guy.

Actually lot of his extremist fans have even accused him of not being bothered
by the loss. But, I am sure he is bothered by the loss, but just being gracious
in defeat.

This is just one example of grace in defeat. There are many more.

Also, Federer is one of very few players who have never abandoned a match
in the middle in his entire career which consists of over 1100 matches. He has given
a walkover and that too just once or twice only. I believe it is just once. He gave
a walkover to Blake. But, I need to check the record to make sure whether it is just
once or twice. He might have given a walkover to Monfils in Doha too.

Honestly, I think this has went on way too long and we have the same argument in 4 different threads, but if you think providing one example of being gracious in defeat proves anything then good for you.

Show me how gracious Federer was in defeat in the following matches:

- Rome 2006
- Wimbledon 2008 (complaints about the dark)
- US Open 2010
- US Open 2011 (let's not even begin to revisit the "how can he go for that shot!?" fiasco).
- Dubai 2008 after losing to Murray ("he'll never win a slam playing this kind of tennis.")

Listen I can go on and on. In another thread, I posted a list of the excuses Federer has made throughout the years and it got conveniently ignored. I'm not going to sit here and play this back-and-forth because it's pointless. But I find Federer fans saying Nadal fans have a problem acknowledging he got outplayed to be the most hilarious levels of irony.

Also, as far as El Dude saying Nadal acts like a child who got something taken away from him when things aren't going his way, I'll just remind everyone that unlike Federer, he's never destroyed a racklet. Unlike Federer, he's never asked the umpire in a Grand Slam final to turn off hawk-eye because "this system is killing me today!" (Wimbledon 2007, in case people are not aware). Unlike Federer, Nadal has never asked someone else's parents to "be quiet, okay?" Unlike Federer, Nadal has never yelled at the crowd to "shut up" because they screamed during a point and he's conveniently blaming them for missing a shot. Unlike Federer, Nadal has told the umpire "don't you fucking tell me to be quiet, when I wanna talk, I talk" (vs. Del Potro in the US Open final). Unlike Federer, Nadal has never yelled at his opponent that "you fucking stopped!" like Federer did vs. Murray at the AO last year (Federer missed a shot and somehow yelled at Murray for "stopping" mid point as if he were going to challenge, even though he never did).

Listen, the list goes on and on, and I'm sure many will be able to compile a list citing Nadal's medical timeouts, excuse making, coaching, etc... and it would be a valid one.

The point is, fans are blind and will only look at what the guy they don't like does, while ignoring their own guy's fault, and that's human. But the level of hypocrisy and convenient turns of black eyes is irritating.