Wimbledon 2014 final: Federer vs Djokovic

[Riotbeard]

It's bogus to claim that Rafa and his fans use injury as an excuse "every time he loses." We've had this thread before and anyone who persists in it is being typically dishonest...

For me it's not so much the injury excuse, but more the excuses in general that are a bit annoying. The narrative is that as nobody is capable of beating Nadal when at his best. Losses can always be ascribed to something, as if everything is on his racket.

You are the main protagonist of that view btw.

What fan group isn't somewhat capable of this (as evidenced by Darth as well on this thread). I tend to think anything can happen but Novak should win 80% of his big 4 matches when both players are at their best...

I do think Rafa fans make more excuses, but that is a different point...

 

[Kieran]

You did a bit of research on this previously, Riotbeard, I think you found that actually we didn't make huge excuses and it was more a case of "give a dog a bad name." I went back through my own posts and actually found myself praising the opponent and getting likes from Denis for these posts...

 

[DarthFed]

No my attitude is that Roger is better than both those guys on grass by a good margin and therefore should normally beat them. 08 was mostly pathetic from Roger, this past year was a lot about Nole playing better than normal.

I'd get behind that logic had you applied it to every time Federer and Nadal played on clay throughout the years.

I have applied that logic. You haven't ever seen a post where I said Roger should beat Rafa on clay. Rafa was always much better on clay and the record paints an accurate portrayal of that. Sure there were times Roger had chances to win or at least make it tight but it's not like he should have done significantly better than the 2-13 clay record.

 

[DarthFed]

And your memory is free of bias I suppose?

I should know never to debate someone who is always correct! We will always disagree on 2008, and it is especially rich to suggest anything would've been different had there been no rain delay. It was 5-5 in the 3rd so you're basically left saying Rafa would've broken serve at 5-5 right away or Roger would've played an awful tiebreak had there been no delay.

It didn't take much heart to get back in that match...his level went from non existent to normal. At no point did he really step up to a great level in that match aside from the 3rd set TB and 2nd half of the 4th set TB.

Ah, so the only time he stepped up is the two tie breaks that would have ended the match had he lost them. But yeah, he didn't need to step up to get back in that match. I don't know if you can actually spot the lack of logic and contradiction in your statement.

Yes out of a 400+ point match with over 60 games he was bound to play great at some point. I am not spotting any contradiction. Roger played a great 3rd set tiebreak even for his standards (playing normal you would expect at least a 50% chance to win that breaker anyways) and then was clutch after Rafa opened the door in the 4th set breaker (after he played awful to lose 5 of the prior 6 points to get down 5-2). Let's not forget how ridiculously poor Roger was in the big moments of sets 1, 2, and 5.

 

[DarthFed]

Rafa didn't have to play at a very high level to win

What a load of horse$hit. Your tune throughout the years kept changing further and further about this match, to where, because it's a distant memory, you could now spread this hyperbole unchallenged. Nadal played really well from start to finish. Roger was average at best for the first two and a half sets, but played great afterwards. His serving, inside out forehand, and net game were all on point in the second half of the match (post first rain delay). He can't have all those 3 elements on and not be playing great.

Sorry for being harsh but you get increasingly hyperbolic talking about this match when there's no need to. Roger played well if you take the match on the whole. Average at first, very good later. Nobody suggested it was his greatest display.

You think he would have lasted 5 sets if he hadn't played well?

I find it hilarious that this sort of post goes unchallenged and gets "likes" but we're supposed to believe Nadal was himself against Rosol and Darcis. Oh, but Nadal "always stunk" in the first week. Well yeah, and Roger always struggled with Nadal. So I guess that means his level is irrelevant.

My tone has never changed about the match. Roger's play gets greatly overstated by the Rafa fanatics. All the sudden new found respect, what a great fighter/champion he is, etc. started after that LOSS. Now why is that :angel:

I said it then and will say it now that they could have both come back that next week and play at that level in their sleep and likely Roger would play better than he did that day. But there's no way it could play out as dramatically as it did and that, combined with what was at stake is what makes it probably the greatest match to date.

Rafa was his normal self pretty much all match and Roger was hideous for 2.5 sets and then got aggressive and played and fought respectably after that. Bro if you think that was the "average" Roger Federer on grass through 3-3 0-40 in the 3rd then I don't know what to tell you. If that was the normal Roger Federer then I'm shocked he won more Wimbledon's than Lleyton Hewitt. Your memory appears foggy in regards to that match. His net play was actually terrible that match, less than 55% success. His serve was it's normal deadly self on grass. He served as he usually does, nothing out of the ordinary. The serving at 07 Wimbledon and this past final were incredible even by his standards. His forehand was mostly deadly but also let him down big time in the end.

And yes I think Roger can play poor/mediocre by his standards and very much compete with anyone on grass. We saw it the year after with Roddick too (and yes I know Andy is not Rafa). Roger played a bad match by his standards and won. He is the 2nd best ever on grass, no?

 

[Fiero425]

And your memory is free of bias I suppose?

I should know never to debate someone who is always correct! We will always disagree on 2008, and it is especially rich to suggest anything would've been different had there been no rain delay. It was 5-5 in the 3rd so you're basically left saying Rafa would've broken serve at 5-5 right away or Roger would've played an awful tiebreak had there been no delay.

It didn't take much heart to get back in that match...his level went from non existent to normal. At no point did he really step up to a great level in that match aside from the 3rd set TB and 2nd half of the 4th set TB.

Ah, so the only time he stepped up is the two tie breaks that would have ended the match had he lost them. But yeah, he didn't need to step up to get back in that match. I don't know if you can actually spot the lack of logic and contradiction in your statement.

Yes out of a 400+ point match with over 60 games he was bound to play great at some point. I am not spotting any contradiction. Roger played a great 3rd set tiebreak even for his standards (playing normal you would expect at least a 50% chance to win that breaker anyways) and then was clutch after Rafa opened the door in the 4th set breaker (after he played awful to lose 5 of the prior 6 points to get down 5-2). Let's not forget how ridiculously poor Roger was in the big moments of sets 1, 2, and 5.

I've posted before that I see so many parallels with the careers of Navratilova and Federer; esp. the later parts! They're both winning in their respective twilights, the last major win being a Wimbledon ('90 & '12), and only challenging the "top dogs" sporadically in smaller events; making another Wimbledon final with a real chance ('94 & '14)! The only difference is, Roger has a little more life in him and can take a few more Masters at least! Navratilova was done after that '94 Wimbledon final loss to Martinez! How many more years do you give Roger to stay at an elite level? I see a lot of weaknesses, but the other tour players still have some reverence for him and allow his escapes! We'll see what happens next week since this has been a long year for Roger with more victories than the other players on the ATP even though no major wins! :angel: :dodgy: :nono

 

[Billie]

86 frickin' pages for a match that ended months ago.:laydownlaughing

You guys are special.

Before anybody jumps on me, I understand, there is no tennis this week and I am not complaining, just find it too funny.

 

[Riotbeard]

You did a bit of research on this previously, Riotbeard, I think you found that actually we didn't make huge excuses and it was more a case of "give a dog a bad name." I went back through my own posts and actually found myself praising the opponent and getting likes from Denis for these posts...

To be fair, that was based on a very limited history of rafa fandom, and all the fans here of all the players are far above the average. I think most of us are as much fans of the sport as our guys.

Also the majority of that post was defending you and rafa fans, as being just about like everyone else. I think we blame different stuff for poor performance, but... Overall we all think are guy should win all the time and rarely see it has them not being that good or the other guy better. Even saying he had a bad day, is an excuse, because it implies the player was not at their best.:faint

 

[Billie]

I am glad you are in Nole's camp of fans, Riot, you make us look better:heart:

 

[Kieran]

86 frickin' pages for a match that ended months ago.:laydownlaughing

You're wrong!

It was a match that ended in 2008! :eyepop

 

[the AntiPusher]

86 frickin' pages for a match that ended months ago.:laydownlaughing

You're wrong!

It was a match that ended in 2008! :eyepop

Probably 45% is dedicated to Fedal

 

[brokenshoelace]

Rafa didn't have to play at a very high level to win

What a load of horse$hit. Your tune throughout the years kept changing further and further about this match, to where, because it's a distant memory, you could now spread this hyperbole unchallenged. Nadal played really well from start to finish. Roger was average at best for the first two and a half sets, but played great afterwards. His serving, inside out forehand, and net game were all on point in the second half of the match (post first rain delay). He can't have all those 3 elements on and not be playing great.

Sorry for being harsh but you get increasingly hyperbolic talking about this match when there's no need to. Roger played well if you take the match on the whole. Average at first, very good later. Nobody suggested it was his greatest display.

You think he would have lasted 5 sets if he hadn't played well?

I find it hilarious that this sort of post goes unchallenged and gets "likes" but we're supposed to believe Nadal was himself against Rosol and Darcis. Oh, but Nadal "always stunk" in the first week. Well yeah, and Roger always struggled with Nadal. So I guess that means his level is irrelevant.

My tone has never changed about the match. Roger's play gets greatly overstated by the Rafa fanatics. All the sudden new found respect, what a great fighter/champion he is, etc. started after that LOSS. Now why is that :angel:

I said it then and will say it now that they could have both come back that next week and play at that level in their sleep and likely Roger would play better than he did that day. But there's no way it could play out as dramatically as it did and that, combined with what was at stake is what makes it probably the greatest match to date.

Rafa was his normal self pretty much all match and Roger was hideous for 2.5 sets and then got aggressive and played and fought respectably after that. Bro if you think that was the "average" Roger Federer on grass through 3-3 0-40 in the 3rd then I don't know what to tell you. If that was the normal Roger Federer then I'm shocked he won more Wimbledon's than Lleyton Hewitt. Your memory appears foggy in regards to that match. His net play was actually terrible that match, less than 55% success. His serve was it's normal deadly self on grass. He served as he usually does, nothing out of the ordinary. The serving at 07 Wimbledon and this past final were incredible even by his standards. His forehand was mostly deadly but also let him down big time in the end.

And yes I think Roger can play poor/mediocre by his standards and very much compete with anyone on grass. We saw it the year after with Roddick too (and yes I know Andy is not Rafa). Roger played a bad match by his standards and won. He is the 2nd best ever on grass, no?

Saying he played "average at best" and at his "average level" are two very, very different things. Roger's average level on grass is great. Roger playing average, is not great. It's a HUGE difference.

 

[DarthFed]

Well in that case I agree, but you should know by now when I talk of most things I talk "by their standards". It's not like Roger looked like the 100th best player in the world those first 2 sets but by his standards it was pretty dreadful IMO