A Federer fan and a Djokovic fan rewatch the 2009 Wimbledon final

What's a heavily debated Nadal match apart from AO 22 F and maybe RG 05/06 vs RG 13 ?
 
Last edited:
The Guru said:
Don’t see whats so controversial about that. Roddicks run is less bad but he did struggle mightily with mediocre opponents. That’s just factually accurate.
Click to expand...

Can’t agree here.

Roddick did lose sets in his first three rounds, but they were all after taking a 2 set lead, and he won the 4th by a break each time.

Hewitt was a dangerous opponent on grass even at that time. He won his next grass tournament beating Fed in the final, then lost at Wimby in a tight 4-setter to Djoko…almost took a two set lead against Fed at DC in ‘11…made a GC final, straight-setted Cilic and almost beat Djoko in ‘12…made a final in ‘13, and Queens SF beating Delpo, Querrey, Dim and almost Cilic…then won a title in ‘14.

By then, it was by far his best surface, and he played a great match. Better GC’er than anyone Kyrgios played up to the final…forget about Hewitt’s peak, he was 34-16 on grass from ‘09-‘14 alone…with a 4-7 record against the Top 10 (took sets in 5 of the 7 losses) and at worst two bad losses overall.

So that’s starkly different from almost losing to the world #219 and Nakashima, while receiving a W/O in the process.

Besides, I don’t think the Tsitsipas win even tops Roddick’s second best win against Berd, much less the one over Muzzah…that was a ridiculously clinical showing vs. Berd, with serving stat splits of 29.3 ace%/0.0 df% and 69.5/89.5/80.0 1st serve in/1st serve winning %/2nd serve winning%.
 
Last edited:
TheFifthSet said:
Can’t agree here.

Roddick did lose sets in his first three rounds, but they were all after taking a 2 set lead, and he won the 4th by a break each time.

Hewitt was a dangerous opponent on grass even at that time. He won his next grass tournament beating Fed in the final, then lost at Wimby in a tight 4-setter to Djoko…almost took a two set lead against Fed at DC in ‘11…made a GC final, straight-setted Cilic and almost beat Djoko in ‘12…made a final in ‘13, and Queens SF beating Delpo, Querrey, Dim and almost Cilic…then won a title in ‘14.

By then, it was by far his best surface, and he played a great match. Better GC’er than anyone Kyrgios played up to the final.

So that’s starkly different from almost losing to the world #219 and and Nakashima, while receiving a W/O.

Besides, I don’t think the Tsitsipas win even tops Roddick’s second best win against Berd, much less the one over Muzzah…that was a ridiculously clinical showing vs. Berd, with serving stat splits of 29.3 ace%/0.0 df% and 69.5/89.5/80.0 1st serve in/1st serve winning %/2nd serve winning%.
Click to expand...

Versus 2005 Roddick is a much better comparison and it still favours Roddick lol.
 
TheFifthSet said:
Can’t agree here.

Roddick did lose sets in his first three rounds, but they were all after taking a 2 set lead, and he won the 4th by a break each time.

Hewitt was a dangerous opponent on grass even at that time. He won his next grass tournament beating Fed in the final, then lost at Wimby in a tight 4-setter to Djoko…almost took a two set lead against Fed at DC in ‘11…made a GC final, straight-setted Cilic and almost beat Djoko in ‘12…made a final in ‘13, and Queens SF beating Delpo, Querrey, Dim and almost Cilic…then won a title in ‘14.

By then, it was by far his best surface, and he played a great match. Better GC’er than anyone Kyrgios played up to the final…forget about Hewitt’s peak, he was 34-16 on grass from ‘09-‘14 alone…with a 4-7 record against the Top 10 (took sets in 5 of the 7 losses) and at worst two bad losses overall.

So that’s starkly different from almost losing to the world #219 and Nakashima, while receiving a W/O in the process.

Besides, I don’t think the Tsitsipas win even tops Roddick’s second best win against Berd, much less the one over Muzzah…that was a ridiculously clinical showing vs. Berd, with serving stat splits of 29.3 ace%/0.0 df% and 69.5/89.5/80.0 1st serve in/1st serve winning %/2nd serve winning%.
Click to expand...

Yo am I having a stroke or something, why so many ellipses?! :-D
 
TheFifthSet said:
Can’t agree here.

Roddick did lose sets in his first three rounds, but they were all after taking a 2 set lead, and he won the 4th by a break each time.

Hewitt was a dangerous opponent on grass even at that time. He won his next grass tournament beating Fed in the final, then lost at Wimby in a tight 4-setter to Djoko…almost took a two set lead against Fed at DC in ‘11…made a GC final, straight-setted Cilic and almost beat Djoko in ‘12…made a final in ‘13, and Queens SF beating Delpo, Querrey, Dim and almost Cilic…then won a title in ‘14.

By then, it was by far his best surface, and he played a great match. Better GC’er than anyone Kyrgios played up to the final…forget about Hewitt’s peak, he was 34-16 on grass from ‘09-‘14 alone…with a 4-7 record against the Top 10 (took sets in 5 of the 7 losses) and at worst two bad losses overall.

So that’s starkly different from almost losing to the world #219 and Nakashima, while receiving a W/O in the process.

Besides, I don’t think the Tsitsipas win even tops Roddick’s second best win against Berd, much less the one over Muzzah…that was a ridiculously clinical showing vs. Berd, with serving stat splits of 29.3 ace%/0.0 df% and 69.5/89.5/80.0 1st serve in/1st serve winning %/2nd serve winning%.
Click to expand...
How would you rate Roddick out of 10 here?
 
RS said:
Nadal’s 2011 level is a good one. I didn’t know about AO 09.
Click to expand...
Some feel AO 09 is better than peak anyone at AO, some don’t, some think peak Fedovic take care of AO 09Dal comprehensively and that Dasco was made to look good by Rafa’s style (see Gonzy, Tsonga teeing off on him the previous years). I wonder which is true.

2011 is a really interesting one to debate tbh. Hyperbole on both sides (Peak Nadal… vs horrible worst ever Nadal)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
Kralingen said:
Some feel AO 09 is better than peak anyone at AO, some don’t, some think peak Fedovic take care of AO 09Dal comprehensively and that Dasco was made to look good by Rafa’s style (see Gonzy, Tsonga teeing off on him the previous years). I wonder which is true.

2011 is a really interesting one to debate tbh. Hyperbole on both sides (Peak Nadal… vs horrible worst ever Nadal)
Click to expand...
Another one is Fed USO 04/06 vs Nadal USO 10. I have seen 5-6 threads in depth on this and 7-3 whichever way was a common pick.

That’s only half Nadal but still.
 
RS said:
Why mate why
Click to expand...

Depends on what the scale is supposed to measure. Assessment of absolute level, yes, but what is baseline?

Too often I see average or even BAD matches being rated 6-7+ so I start to view it like an Uber rating where 4.7/5 is really more like 3/5, etc.:-D

Most of the time the scales seem to skew overly positive, from what I’ve seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
TheFifthSet said:
Depends on what the scale is supposed to measure. Assessment of absolute level, yes, but what is baseline?

Too often I see average or even BAD matches being rated 6-7+ so I start to view it like an Uber rating where 4.7/5 is really more like 3/5, etc.:-D

Most of the time the scales seem to skew overly positive, from what I’ve seen.
Click to expand...
Yes it depends on the scale.

@NatF created a pre and post 2016 scale. In other words a 7 on the pre 2016 scale is a 8 on the post 2016 scale
 
RS said:
Yes it depends on the scale.

@NatF created a pre and post 2016 scale. In other words a 7 on the pre 2016 scale is a 8 on the post 2016 scale
Click to expand...

I guess what I’d like to know is what constitutes an ‘average’ rating.

Average should logically be 5/10, but are we applying the standard of a normal touring pro here, as the ‘replacement level’ (so to speak)? Is a regular pro playing a middling match enough to warrant a 5/10?

Or are we meant to grade on a huge curve? Cuz it seems like, say, prime Fed’s 5/10 is equivalent to the world #100’s 9-9.5/10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
TheFifthSet said:
I guess what I’d like to know is what constitutes an ‘average’ rating.

Average should logically be 5/10, but are we applying the standard of a normal touring pro here, as the ‘replacement level’ (so to speak)? Is a regular pro playing a middling match enough to warrant a 5/10?

Or are we meant to grade on a huge curve? Cuz it seems like, say, prime Fed’s 5/10 is equivalent to the world #100’s 9-9.5/10.
Click to expand...
I just allow everybody to use there own scale for this reason.
 
mike danny said:
I mean, 2009 Fed > 2022 Djokovic, so Roddick was much more than just marginally impressive. Nick doesn't push Fed that hard.
Click to expand...
There is a chance Fed straights sets Nick in a tighter 3 setter IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Roddick, Wimbledon final, 2009
3 4 5
Replies
244
Views
10K
RS
RS
W
Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Roddick, Wimbledon semi-final, 2003
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
Rafa4LifeEver
Rafa4LifeEver
W
Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Roddick, Wimbledon final, 2004
Replies
30
Views
3K
NatF
NatF
F
Cincy Final Pre-Match
Replies
1
Views
621
Breaker
Breaker
beltsman
Wimbledon: 2004 F vs 2009 F
Replies
22
Views
2K
mattosgrant
M
Back
Top