PDA

View Full Version : disparity and hypocrisy


dh003i
07-09-2007, 05:23 PM
Federer just won the Wimbledon, simply playing better than Nadal, end of discussion. Yet, all some people can talk about is how great Nadal played, and how he played "better". If he played better, he would have won. He didn't. All this talk about "if not for Federer serving so well" is non-sense. The serve is a part of the game, the most important part (on any surface). How about if not for Nadal passing so well, or playing slightly above his normal level on a variety of other areas?

And of course there were all of the nay-saying dimwits like Mats Wilander saying that Federer had "no balls" or heart. Yet, in this match, he won both tie-breaks, and turned it on in the last set when the momentum was against him. That's balls and heart. Few of his detractors seemed to have revoked their statements. Wilander's website is down for repair -- maybe he's embarassed by his stupid comments.

superman1
07-09-2007, 05:41 PM
I don't know the stats, but it seemed like Nadal had the edge off the baseline, just not on the big points (the two tiebreakers). At one point I remember that Nadal had 24 forehand winners to 12 from Federer. The big differences was the number of aces. Federer had over 20 more aces than Nadal, and those saved him from a lot of break points. Yes, Federer did play better overall, because he served better, but he did not play better off the ground.

anointedone
07-09-2007, 05:45 PM
Federer didnt play a good match really and Nadal was playing the best he could possibly play. Federer still won the match in the end playing subpar vs an inspired Nadal, so I dont know what else you can say in the end. However Nadal will win Wimbledon atleast once in his career I think, and will be in the finals atleast two more times.

superman1
07-09-2007, 05:47 PM
Federer NEVER plays his best against Nadal, and he never will. You keep waiting for him to play like he does against Roddick, and that's just not going to happen, because Nadal will never allow him to play that well.

anointedone
07-09-2007, 05:49 PM
Federer NEVER plays his best against Nadal, and he never will. You keep waiting for him to play like he does against Roddick, and that's just not going to happen, because Nadal will never allow him to play that well.

He has played much better matches then that particular match vs Nadal. The Rome final, which he would have won in straights on any other surface playing that same way; the year end Masters semis last year, the Dubai final even though he lost he played alot better then the final yesterday, the Hamburg final. So pretty much your comments make no sense but that seems usual for you.

Moose Malloy
07-09-2007, 05:53 PM
And of course there were all of the nay-saying dimwits like Mats Wilander saying that Federer had "no balls" or heart.

did wilander say something new or are you referring to his comments after last year's FO final? Not sure what that has to do with this match, if that is what you mean.

as far as the final, Nadal did win more games than Federer, the first Wimbledon final in the open era in which that has happened, which could cause one to say he was outplayed for most of the match.

But that 5th set was incredible for Fed, Nadal had no chances on those break points at all(even on that one 2nd serve) & he went on a great run to finish, not unlike Borg's serving display in the 5th set of the '80 Wimbledon.

I'm just glad that Fed has now been part of an alltime classic match in a major(that he won, the only other classic he's been in was the Safin match imo)
He's been so dominant he never was involved in the amount of great matches that Borg,Sampras, Mac were.

Kobble
07-09-2007, 06:04 PM
Federer didn't turn it on the 5th. Nadal made unforced errors on breakpoints to allow Federer to go for one more big serve. Nadal played stupid, went for unecessary winners, whatever. Federer was not hitting a single winner off the first ball Nadal was putting back into play. All nadal had to do was get it in play, start hitting to the backhand, and Roger would have missed at 15-40 down. If you think Roger would have hit(or even went for) a backhand winner off those balls 15-40 down you are delusional, and don't even know your own man. He didn't do it under pressure before, he wasn't about to now.

dh003i
07-09-2007, 06:12 PM
Moose,

Well, the relevance isn't to this match in particular, but just to Wilander's stupid comments about Federer having no balls or heart. Maybe if Wilander had as much heart and balls as Federer, he would have had 11 slams as well.

I agree with your other comments.

Kobble,

I would note that sure, you can say he was outplayed "most of the match", but he blew away Nadal when it mattered: in the tie-breaks, when facing break-points, and in the last set. Federer raised his level when it counted. You want to say that Nadal played "stupid" at those points, and didn't play as well, fine; we can also say Federer played "stupid" after getting ****ed off about Hawk-Eye, and otherwise would've won in straights. Your point is? Oh yea, that's right, you don't have one, because for you, there's one set of standards for Federer, and another set for Nadal.

TheNatural
07-09-2007, 06:17 PM
Nadal played better and won 3/4 of the baselline rallys
Federer served better
Nadals level dropped after he was injured
Federer beat Nadal while playing worse than Nadal
Federer was lucky, he better get them while he can b4 his luck runs out

Moose Malloy
07-09-2007, 06:21 PM
Federer didn't turn it on the 5th. Nadal made unforced errors on breakpoints to allow Federer to go for one more big serve

Federer hit great serves on all the breakpoints that Nadal didn't return, what counts as errors in your book? Missed returns don't count as errors in the stats anyway, & those were not easy returns by any definition. Fed only hit one 2nd serve on those break points & Nadal had no play on it. Its not like Fed just hit serves in the center of the service box on those points.

The only bad shot I think Nadal made that may have cost him the match was in the 5-6 game in the 3rd, he missed an easy forehand that would have given him set point. But the back & forth nature of this match makes me think there wasn't really one point that could have guaranteed the match for him. Even if Nadal did break in the 5th, it was a long way from the finish line, Fed was fighting well the entire match.

I wonder about that knee injury though, his serve mph dropped after it, it may have been a factor in the fifth, and made him go for winners too early. It certainly may be a big factor in the summer hardcourt season. Tendinitis won't get better on that surface.

dh003i
07-09-2007, 06:22 PM
TheNatural,

Nadal's injury didn't seem to bother him after it in the 4th set. So don't use that as an excuse for the 5th. Also, it's his responsibility to remain injury-free, and close out matches quickly early on, so as not to get in the situation he was in.

Federer was just the better player out there, period. End of discussion. He was mentally tougher, beating Nadal on all the points that mattered most.

Yea, Federer really got lucky. Lucked into his 11th grand slam, just like all the prior ones, right?

CyBorg
07-09-2007, 06:25 PM
I'm just glad that Fed has now been part of an alltime classic match in a major(that he won, the only other classic he's been in was the Safin match imo)
He's been so dominant he never was involved in the amount of great matches that Borg,Sampras, Mac were.

The Sampras-Federer match is definitely a classic today. Otherwise you're right - 2005 Wimbledon vs Roddick was okay, but not earth shattering.

A non-major classic is Roger's fight with Nadal in Rome in 2006, but he lost that one just like he lost to Safin in Aussie.

This wimbledon match is Federer's Borg moment. I long waited for this.

dh003i
07-09-2007, 06:26 PM
The thing I find interesting is that some fans think it's all just bad luck whenever Nadal has an injury. That has to do with the nature of his game, his playing style, and him not closing out matches quickly.

Also, if Nadal's injury vs. Federer (w/c didn't bother him much in the 4th) means Federer didn't "earn" his victory, then I guess Nadal didn't earn his place at the Wimbledon finals.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 06:29 PM
How can Federer play under those conditions yesterday?The fact that he couldnt break Nadal is crazy.Nadal served great and was dictacting points on the baseline and this is grass?I thought Federer was the one that was gonna dictate the points?All the credit to Nadal but this surface has been slowed down immensely.I got a feeling it might be slower then RG next year, at this pace.

To be honest, i thought Roger didnt have no shot after he lost the 4th set.The conditions werent on his favor.

Virginia
07-09-2007, 06:42 PM
But that 5th set was incredible for Fed, Nadal had no chances on those break points at all(even on that one 2nd serve) & he went on a great run to finish, not unlike Borg's serving display in the 5th set of the '80 Wimbledon.

This wimbledon match is Federer's Borg moment. I long waited for this.
This is what I was referring to when I posted the following thread:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=143399

dh003i
07-09-2007, 06:44 PM
I've agreed with Ace of Heart's sentiments for the most part, with respect to Wimbledon and the grass. It's a disgrace what they've done to it, and it clearly favored clay-court players.

However, Federer still won, on a grass that was playing more like clay than real grass.

CyBorg
07-09-2007, 07:16 PM
This is what I was referring to when I posted the following thread:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=143399

Yup - eerie stuff. Thanks goodness Roger isn't married to Marianna Simonescu.

P.S. Keep Roger out of swimsuit competitions.

fastdunn
07-09-2007, 07:29 PM
Federer NEVER plays his best against Nadal, and he never will.

This has some point. Federer's game just doesn't match up nicely with
Nadal's.

One of the comments Federer made after FO 2007, something like "The
fact that he is lefty screwes the whole thing up. It does not matter whether
I play great or not". I'm not sure about exact wording but I think he said
something along this line.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 07:32 PM
I would like to see a matchup of Federer vs Nadal at the U.S Open.Nadal wouldnt stand a chance.I dont like Nadal's chances in a fast surface against Fed, on slow stuff maybe but Nadal still hasnt maded a final at the aussie open.Lets not forget here that most of the matches have been on clay, i dont know why people dismiss this.

fastdunn
07-09-2007, 07:33 PM
I've agreed with Ace of Heart's sentiments for the most part, with respect to Wimbledon and the grass. It's a disgrace what they've done to it, and it clearly favored clay-court players.

However, Federer still won, on a grass that was playing more like clay than real grass.

Well whatever condition changes happended between 2001-2003.
First, the type of grass changed in 2001-2002 and then the extra hardening of clay layer
in 2003.

Same condition helped Federer win 5 straight Wimbledon with his superior
baseline game. He is being pushed becasue Nadal neutralizes his baseline game.
In a way, he is tasting some of his own medicine.

Let's not forget that Federer himself is very very good clay court player.
In fact, his best results have been on slowest clay at Hamburg.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 07:38 PM
Hey Dunn, i dont know, yesterday it was more slower previous years.More bounces and everything.U telling me that Nadal is more of a shotmaker then Federer on grass?Yesterday that wasnt real grass.

TheNatural
07-09-2007, 07:38 PM
At the AO Nadal was injured this year against Gonzo and pulled out injured the year before so he hasnt exctly had many opportunities to play there.

I would like to see a matchup of Federer vs Nadal at the U.S Open.Nadal wouldnt stand a chance.I dont like Nadal's chances in a fast surface against Fed, on slow stuff maybe but Nadal still hasnt maded a final at the aussie open.Lets not forget here that most of the matches have been on clay, i dont know why people dismiss this.

ollinger
07-09-2007, 07:42 PM
People talk about what's NEWS. Federer winning Wimbledon is no longer novel and has lost much of its news value. Nadal appearing poised to win is news. People talking about the aspect they find most interesting does not fit my definition of hypocrisy.

Purostaff
07-09-2007, 07:43 PM
Federer NEVER plays his best against Nadal, and he never will. You keep waiting for him to play like he does against Roddick, and that's just not going to happen, because Nadal will never allow him to play that well.

I think the best tennis Fed played against Nadal was during the semi-final of Masters in Shanghai last year, but my point is that there's many factors in determining how one's play at one's best (ie. opponent's level of play, mother nature, etc). Though I have to agree with the topic opener; in the end, there can only be one winner and that's the better player of that particular match.

Kobble
07-09-2007, 07:46 PM
When I have time to review the tape I will certainly point out what I mean. If I am wrong, fine, but I doubt it; my memory is pretty good. I remember Nadal going for winners on second serves when there was no need to. That is what I mean by stupid play. Not late in the fifth set when Fed was feeling free and playing on house money serving for the lines. Nadal misses on first serves, fine, but play a dumb shot on a second serve deserves to be noted. Also, Federer's self destruction was partly because Nadal was kicking his ***. He wouldn't give a damn if he didn't feel the title slipping away. Roger was not in control when he gave away those points, Nadal was in complete control when he gave away his.

The Gorilla
07-09-2007, 07:47 PM
is Al Gore starting threads?

TheNatural
07-09-2007, 07:47 PM
It was fast versus Ferrero and Gasquet and Fed was hitting winners all over the place. They must have put a new surface in overnight to make Nadal look like more of a shotmaker. Even against Gonzo int he AO final, Fed only hit one backhand winner all match from the backcourt when both players were on the back court. Versus Nadal he only hit about 2 or 3 service returns winners in 5 sets. Mabe Nadal's tactics prevented him from being much of a shot maker.

Hey Dunn, i dont know, yesterday it was more slower previous years.More bounces and everything.U telling me that Nadal is more of a shotmaker then Federer on grass?Yesterday that wasnt real grass.

dh003i
07-09-2007, 07:50 PM
Kobble,

Yea, sure, whatever. Federer's won 5 straight Wimbledons. Nadal lost, get over it.

Whenever Federer plays, the match is on his racket. Get over it. That was proven in the most critical points, the tie-breaks and break-points. Federer can just turn it up a gear when he needs to, an Nadal is simply then at the end of his rope.

dh003i
07-09-2007, 07:52 PM
The Natural,

Here's reality: the grass this year was slower and higher bouncing. The commentators noticed that. Players noticed that. It is disingenuous to deny such.

This should go down as Federer's 2nd clay-court win over Nadal, as it isn't real grass court tennis.

dennis10is
07-09-2007, 08:19 PM
With all of the interesting "explanation" for wins and losses here. I wondered if folks here are as equally creative in explaining their own wins and losses?

sondraj
07-09-2007, 08:25 PM
Moose,

Well, the relevance isn't to this match in particular, but just to Wilander's stupid comments about Federer having no balls or heart. Maybe if Wilander had as much heart and balls as Federer, he would have had 11 slams as well.

I agree with your other comments.

Kobble,

I would note that sure, you can say he was outplayed "most of the match", but he blew away Nadal when it mattered: in the tie-breaks, when facing break-points, and in the last set. Federer raised his level when it counted. You want to say that Nadal played "stupid" at those points, and didn't play as well, fine; we can also say Federer played "stupid" after getting ****ed off about Hawk-Eye, and otherwise would've won in straights. Your point is? Oh yea, that's right, you don't have one, because for you, there's one set of standards for Federer, and another set for Nadal.

That's pretty much right except for the he blew him away during the tiebreaks.

The only convincing wins Fed had over rafa was in the second tiebreak and the 5th set

Remember the first tiebreak rafa fought back to tie it up. And rafa was noticeably off his game in the 5ht set and didn't take ad of his chances and remember fed was broken more times during that match than rafa was. Now how often can anyone say that against Fed

sondraj
07-09-2007, 08:28 PM
The Natural,

Here's reality: the grass this year was slower and higher bouncing. The commentators noticed that. Players noticed that. It is disingenuous to deny such.

This should go down as Federer's 2nd clay-court win over Nadal, as it isn't real grass court tennis.


And I'm sure people will cry the same story every year.

well there is no more grass so let it go and get over it already. I'd rather hear people complain about making more grass tourny than hearing people constantly complain about how once wimby was a grass tourny.

So now if it's no longer grass let it go

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 08:44 PM
Dont u understand the tradition behind wimbledon?I think its the best slam out of the 4.It has much more history and players dream of winning it.The fact that they have tinker with it makes people sick to their stomach.I hate hypocrites who whined when it was faster.If they gonna do this, why not speed up the FO?

FarFed
07-09-2007, 09:00 PM
You're forgetting the all important 6th game of the final set where Federer broke Nadal. Apart from one or errors from Nadal, Federer won that game almost purely on the basis of winners. Try and remember it.

Federer didn't turn it on the 5th. Nadal made unforced errors on breakpoints to allow Federer to go for one more big serve. Nadal played stupid, went for unecessary winners, whatever. Federer was not hitting a single winner off the first ball Nadal was putting back into play. All nadal had to do was get it in play, start hitting to the backhand, and Roger would have missed at 15-40 down. If you think Roger would have hit(or even went for) a backhand winner off those balls 15-40 down you are delusional, and don't even know your own man. He didn't do it under pressure before, he wasn't about to now.

anointedone
07-09-2007, 09:00 PM
Well whatever condition changes happended between 2001-2003.
First, the type of grass changed in 2001-2002 and then the extra hardening of clay layer
in 2003.

Same condition helped Federer win 5 straight Wimbledon with his superior
baseline game. He is being pushed becasue Nadal neutralizes his baseline game.
In a way, he is tasting some of his own medicine.

Let's not forget that Federer himself is very very good clay court player.
In fact, his best results have been on slowest clay at Hamburg.

Federer and Nadal would be in the finals of Wimbledon among the current field on any type of grass. Who are these grand serve-volleyers who would prevent them by taking advantage of the more real grass? OK maybe Nadal imparticular would have some harder time, but I am not sure how much difference it would make with the type of players present today. Like I said who are the master serve-volley specialists to take advantage of even more real grass? 35 year old Bjorkman? Great serve but no volley to go with it Karlovic? Awkward and clunky serve and volleyer Ancic? Even more awkward and clunky serve volley player Mirnyi?

superman1
07-09-2007, 09:12 PM
I think the best tennis Fed played against Nadal was during the semi-final of Masters in Shanghai last year, but my point is that there's many factors in determining how one's play at one's best (ie. opponent's level of play, mother nature, etc). Though I have to agree with the topic opener; in the end, there can only be one winner and that's the better player of that particular match.

Yes, I think that might be the one exception, although Nadal was probably low on confidence due to having a mediocre second half of the year, as usual.

When they play, Nadal generally has the edge off the ground, whereas Federer has the edge on the serve. Nadal knows how to handle himself at net now so they are pretty even in that regard. I would say that Nadal played better for most of this match, but Federer played better on the important points which is all that matters in the end.

Polaris
07-09-2007, 09:18 PM
Federer NEVER plays his best against Nadal, and he never will. You keep waiting for him to play like he does against Roddick, and that's just not going to happen, because Nadal will never allow him to play that well.

This is very true. Nadal is not a good match-up for Federer as his strength dovetails into Federer's (relative) weakness. Good to have you back superman1. You disappeared for a while.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 09:38 PM
1-6 on clay, Nadal's best surface. 2-0 for Fed on grass, Fed's best surface although the surface is not the same anymore. 2-2 on hard courts.I need to see more on hardcourts to say that Nadal's a bad matchup for Fed.