Bad matchup is not an excuse for Federer!

[eliars]

Excuses are important to our mental health. Y'no the attribution theory and all.

Is good.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Yes, an excuse is always polite.

 

[jg153040]

Yes if goat is opinion, that would be pretty convincing.

Goat is opinion. Goat is partly opinion, partly stats.

 

[timnz]

It has some valid points but does not fully mitigate for the discrepancies.


It's easy to agree with stuff that corroborates with one's agenda. I have a lot of personal opinions that do "match up" with the idea that Federer has been unfortunate in that rivalry and in more ways than one, but still, an awful lot of what people believe is not even based on the reality of the situation, but rather, merely supposition.

In my tests, I used the winning % on grass based on a pool of only three matches. Who is given the hypothetical benefit of the doubt there? Is it Nadal because if they'd played 10 matches he would have got crushed 9-1, or is it Federer who, despite being by far the better grass-court player, may have only had a slight edge over Nadal on the surface in the direct match-up as a result of various other factors which have been talked about at length in this thread (match-up disadvantages, timing, lack of consistency from one player on their weaker surfaces.. other things I'm forgetting)?

We have a large pool of data to draw from for matches on outdoor HC, and Nadal has also won more outdoor tournaments in his career than Federer has so far, and he's only 28.

We can look at Fed's peak and say Federer easily bested Nadal more often than not in certain conditions (2006-2007 ish, Fed did well) but two players are not going to play all their matches through all their careers during a concurrent peak and also it's selective argumentation, as one can also easily mention that Nadal had not fully matured on HC at least until 2008.

It might just be possible you know that Nadal is the better player (which of course would need to be backed up in the end by his overall career achievements). In which case, let's just for arguments sake say that Federer is slightly better than Nadal, it wouldn't be enough to overcome the other factors, so even in some hypothetical "fair" rivalry, Nadal could lead the individual H2H.

Would you agree with this statement? If Federer and Nadal had played throughout their career 33 matches - but spread evenly between the 4 surfaces/conditions their head to head would be different than 23-10 in Nadal's favour. If you do agree with that statement then you are agreeing that surface/conditions can influence outcomes greatly. And if this is the case, then any talk of H2h without reference to this lacks greatly.

Regarding your point about outdoor hard - as I mentioned in my original post - Nadal has only 1 win on medium-fast, every other victory is on modern slow hard court- which is closer to clay in speeds than historical hard court. So again, that establishes that Nadal is a better slow court player. But we knew that already.

I do agree that Nadal is in Federer's head and the match up isn't great for Federer . But would Federer have that mentality if the conditions spread had been even from the start?

 

[hawkeye63]

Nole was in Rafa's head but Rafa found solutions.

Just another reason why many tennis greats both past and present don't just paint-by-numbers.

 

[moonballs]

Nadal has been in Berdych's head but berdych found solutions. He is the true goat of overcoming matchup disadvantages

 

[hawkeye63]

One solution one time.

The brilliant rationalizing head-in-the-sand calculus of the federazzi.

 

[Raz11]

Nole was in Rafa's head but Rafa found solutions.

Just another reason why many tennis greats both past and present don't just paint-by-numbers.

How is Nadal's match up issue with Djokovic comparable to Federer - Nadal.

Federer Nadal matchup is so fundamentally defined that everyone knows it. The same can't be said for Nadal Djokovic other than Nadal was struggling so there had to be match up issue.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Would you agree with this statement? If Federer and Nadal had played throughout their career 33 matches - but spread evenly between the 4 surfaces/conditions their head to head would be different than 23-10 in Nadal's favour. If you do agree with that statement then you are agreeing that surface/conditions can influence outcomes greatly. And if this is the case, then any talk of H2h without reference to this lacks greatly.

Regarding your point about outdoor hard - as I mentioned in my original post - Nadal has only 1 win on medium-fast, every other victory is on modern slow hard court- which is closer to clay in speeds than historical hard court. So again, that establishes that Nadal is a better slow court player. But we knew that already.

I do agree that Nadal is in Federer's head and the match up isn't great for Federer . But would Federer have that mentality if the conditions spread had been even from the start?[/QUOTE]

One can reference along with age etc. and these are all things to consider for sure. I do think however that you have to look at the fact that Nadal beat Fed 3-0 in 3 slams from RG 08 to AO 09.

Regarding your last point about mentality and conditions, I would say that if a pro player can't overcome a past mentality even if the conditions are better now in a particular match (Wimbledon 08, AO 09) then that's his problem. But I don't even think that's the case. Nadal beat Federer in Miami '04, was up 2 sets to love and about to get a break late in the 3rd before a bad line call (Fedfans usually admit this was a tainted victory) and then beat Fed on a fast Harcourt in Dubai in 06. Nadal was 17-19 in all these matches, so Fed def had the age advantage then...Also on clay, Fed actually played Nadal BETTER than usual in Rome '06 but still folded mentally as so often has been the case in crunch time. So I really don't think you can use surface as an excuse. You could say Dubai is the only true fast court there, and that's just 1 match in a 500, but I think Nadal has show an even higher level at the USO than AO...

My final point: While it's clear Federer is more accomplished on 2 of 3 surfaces and 3 of 4 slams, I wouldn't love Fed if peak versions of both met at all 4 slams..he would have his shots at the USO and Wimby for sure...but I think the USO especially people assume Fed would win because they never met there...to me Nadal is appreciably better at the USO than AO and not just because of bad luck/injuries in Melb7 yourne...and he beat a 27 year old Roger at the AO in a year that Fed made all 4 finals was 2 5th sets away from a CYGS. Nadals peak has obviously occurred less often and he is less consistent, but this is about head to head issues for Federer... so this is just food for thought regarding the matchup/h2h. I agree that Fed's consistency and Nadal not even reaching Fed when he is not in form should be considered with this issue, but it is still rather striking to me that when both are playing well, Nadal has come out on top so often. All the other reasons to explain it, which are somewhat valid, don't quite get to the essence of it which I flat out think is a combination of some mental weakness on Federer's part/a matchup issue (which he should have been able to solve/and an underrating of Nadal's peak level which I agree doesn't happen as often as you would like off clay in a GOAT candidate. I would obviously favor Federer at the WTF, but that and maybe some indoor tournaments or Wimby with the roof closed are about the only big tournaments where I would say Federer would be the appreciable favorite in a peak H2H.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Goat is opinion. Goat is partly opinion, partly stats.

I agree. Goat is opinion, based on facts. Ofcourse one should be reasonable in ones reasoning.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

My final point: While it's clear Federer is more accomplished on 2 of 3 surfaces and 3 of 4 slams, I wouldn't love Fed if peak versions of both met at all 4 slams..he would have his shots at the USO and Wimby for sure...but I think the USO especially people assume Fed would win because they never met there...to me Nadal is appreciably better at the USO than AO and not just because of bad luck/injuries in Melb7 yourne...and he beat a 27 year old Roger at the AO in a year that Fed made all 4 finals was 2 5th sets away from a CYGS. Nadals peak has obviously occurred less often and he is less consistent, but this is about head to head issues for Federer... so this is just food for thought regarding the matchup/h2h. I agree that Fed's consistency and Nadal not even reaching Fed when he is not in form should be considered with this issue, but it is still rather striking to me that when both are playing well, Nadal has come out on top so often. All the other reasons to explain it, which are somewhat valid, don't quite get to the essence of it which I flat out think is a combination of some mental weakness on Federer's part/a matchup issue (which he should have been able to solve/and an underrating of Nadal's peak level which I agree doesn't happen as often as you would like off clay in a GOAT candidate. I would obviously favor Federer at the WTF, but that and maybe some indoor tournaments or Wimby with the roof closed are about the only big tournaments where I would say Federer would be the appreciable favorite in a peak H2H.

Well that is hypothetical. And you did not really answer timnz question.

 

[tennis_commentator]

Nadal has been in Berdych's head but berdych found solutions. He is the true goat of overcoming matchup disadvantages

Not true.
Nadal just played weak at the AO (no preparation).
Even when Berdych was up 2 sets and 5-1 in 3rd set tie-breaker he found a way to let Nadal back in (Nadal got it back to 5-5 and serving).

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Would you agree with this statement? If Federer and Nadal had played throughout their career 33 matches - but spread evenly between the 4 surfaces/conditions their head to head would be different than 23-10 in Nadal's favour. If you do agree with that statement then you are agreeing that surface/conditions can influence outcomes greatly. And if this is the case, then any talk of H2h without reference to this lacks greatly.

Regarding your point about outdoor hard - as I mentioned in my original post - Nadal has only 1 win on medium-fast, every other victory is on modern slow hard court- which is closer to clay in speeds than historical hard court. So again, that establishes that Nadal is a better slow court player. But we knew that already.

I do agree that Nadal is in Federer's head and the match up isn't great for Federer . But would Federer have that mentality if the conditions spread had been even from the start?

I've already given my views on this thread in some quite considerable depth and even conducted some tests that shows that the H2H would be 18-15 to Nadal if based on winning percentages that currently exist across an even distributed set of conditions.


"It has some valid points but does not fully mitigate for the discrepancies."

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Well that is hypothetical. And you did not really answer timnz question.

So is just about everything else in this thread.

Federer is given the benefit of the doubt here based on hypotheticals by definition. I think there are some fairly safe assumptions that can be made, such as Federer being too good for his own good on his weakest surface. The idea that if Federer was a worse player, he'd have done better overall, is quite funny and yet perhaps even realistic. Maybe he'd have more confidence against Nadal elsewhere and have a far more attractive looking H2H overall against him. In the end though, that's still merely supposition.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

#I #do #not #think #so #either.

I have to wonder how someone types with a hashtag before every word. It's not only hard to read, it's almost impossible to type that way.

I've considered reporting them for spam, to be honest. :|

I have. If more posters do, then mods will hopefully do something about it.

This is a prime example of what my signature states.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

This is a prime example of what my signature states.

So, it's the hashtag troll era?



BTW, I'm really getting back into wrestling now for the first time in many years.. just a bit of side info. I'm not sure what it is.. perhaps it's Seth Rollins.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

So, it's the hashtag troll era?



BTW, I'm really getting back into wrestling now for the first time in many years.. just a bit of side info. I'm not sure what it is.. perhaps it's Seth Rollins.

Trolling evolves like a virus, like a disease, which society. A prime example of what is seen in this thread. But for every trolling disease, a cure can be found eventually.

You picked a good time to get back into wrestling, with the Road to Wrestlemania getting hotter. This is the best time of the year to be a wrestling fan.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

double post

 

[Povl Carstensen]

So is just about everything else in this thread.

Federer is given the benefit of the doubt here based on hypotheticals by definition. I think there are some fairly safe assumptions that can be made, such as Federer being too good for his own good on his weakest surface. The idea that if Federer was a worse player, he'd have done better overall, is quite funny and yet perhaps even realistic. Maybe he'd have more confidence against Nadal elsewhere and have a far more attractive looking H2H overall against him. In the end though, that's still merely supposition.

Yes that is the enigma of the h2h. Or perhaps better, paradox.

 

[MichaelNadal]

So, it's the hashtag troll era?



BTW, I'm really getting back into wrestling now for the first time in many years.. just a bit of side info. I'm not sure what it is.. perhaps it's Seth Rollins.

Seth is just gold

 

[Day Tripper]

Gotta get this off my chest. Nadal fanatics and detractors of Federer love to point out the lopsided head-to-head between the two players. This is followed by Fed apologists which declare that Nadal is a "bad matchup" for Federer's game, and that the head-to-head metric should be less important, if not discarded entirely because of this fact. What bogus.

The matchup advantage Nadal has is clear. What is also clear, is that this is not an excuse for Federer to keep losing over and over to Nadal. Match-ups happen to every sport and every rivalry. What makes the rivalry good is when each party acknowledges and tries to overcome these matchup inequalities. Federer has not done this and his head-to-head record against Nadal deserves to acknowledge this.

Despite being his fiercest rival, Federer has never found a creative way of solving the Nadal matchup - in fact he barely even tried! He had one idea, that was to cut Nadal off at the fore-court and avoid the topspin groundstrokes (I think it was '08?). He got the worse beating of his life at Roland Garros with that strategy. And after that? He has never tried to alter his game to solve the match up, besides running around the backhand. That's pretty big failure by Federer to not change his game in the appropriate ways to combat Nadal. So this great rivalry between two of the best players of all time is really a stale stinker in which Nadal never has to do anything new because Federer refuses to try anything new himself.

Contrast this to Djokovic, who served his time as a whipping boy to the No. 1 and No. 2. Djokovic adjusted his game fantastically (at least for Nadal). Took time away from opponents, began killing Nadal with deep court-covering counterpunching and doing everything he could to beat the two guys above him.

Thing is, Federer is stuck on Nadal. He clearly knows how to adjust his game - look at how Federer slices against Novak and tries to crush his forehand wing, or how Federer throws way more pace into his inside-outs against Murray, and (even subconsciously) stands further from the net when in the fore-court, anticipating Murray's many lobs.

Nadal is a stain on Federer's record. And bringing up the matchup doesn't negate the criticism, it makes it even worse.

If Nadal and Federer were the only two people who ever played tennis you might have a compelling argument - unfortunately for you and many other Nadal fans they are not.

Think of it like this - Nadal developed a style of play that happened to allow him great success against another great player unfortunately though it didn't allow him success across the range of surfaces or allow him to play for long periods of tiem without getting injured - consequently he achieved significantly less. Federer developed a game that allowed him to dominate across all surfaces and against nearly the entire field. Hence why he has achieved so much more than Nadal.

Nadal has a great H2H against Federer but in the end it means squat as it hasn't allowed him to break any of tennis's most important records other than his achievements at Roland Garros. His resume is pretty average when compared to Federer.

As I have often said Nadal won the battle but Federer won the war. Tennis is about winning tournaments in particular the slams.

 

[jg153040]

Why would you expect that Federer should have a winning record vs goat contender of new generation?

Also, why would you expect that Federer should have a winning record vs clay goat?

Because off clay Fed was leading h2h vs Nadal on HC and grass when his prime ended in 2010, I think.

Let's say for example that Nishikori becomes and all time great with 15 slams and from now on he starts to own Nole and Rafa. Why would you use that against them?

Why would you expect for goat to be perfect? All goat contenders have flaws, the question is who has the least flaws?

 

[SLD76]

Why would you expect that Federer should have a winning record vs goat contender of new generation?

Also, why would you expect that Federer should have a winning record vs clay goat?

Because off clay Fed was leading h2h vs Nadal on HC and grass when his prime ended in 2010, I think.

Let's say for example that Nishikori becomes and all time great with 15 slams and from now on he starts to own Nole and Rafa. Why would you use that against them?

Why would you expect for goat to be perfect? All goat contenders have flaws, the question is who has the least flaws?

Fair point when you consider Sampras' record against Fed's generation.

 

[jg153040]

Fair point when you consider Sampras' record against Fed's generation.

Yeah, it's the same logic. Pete was losing in GS finals to Safin and Hewitt, so he was still in top form if he was making GS finals. Same with Agassi.

Either everything counts or nothing.

The same with Rafa losing on grass, cuz he is outside of grass prime. Hey he still won RG the week earlier lol, past prime excuse won't cut it.

People can't just use double standards just against Fed when it suits them.

So, if Fed loses to Rafa 5 GS matches that is bad for Fed, but when Rafa loses 5 matches to Wawrinka, Rosol, Darcis, Berdych, Kyrgios, that is supposed to be overlooked?

Fed has his h2h spread vs just one all time great, but just because Rafa has his negative h2h spread over 5 lesser guys, that should excuse Rafa and damage Fed?

Sorry people, you can't have it both ways.

For some reason, for Federer there are special rules that don't apply for other greats. What gives? Is Federer so good that people can't actually believe it, so they think it's fake?

Like a lot of people don't believe we went to the Moon. They can't believe our technology is so advanced.

 

[SLD76]

Yeah, it's the same logic. Pete was losing in GS finals to Safin and Hewitt, so he was still in top form if he was making GS finals. Same with Agassi.

Either everything counts or nothing.

The same with Rafa losing on grass, cuz he is outside of grass prime. Hey he still won RG the week earlier lol, past prime excuse won't cut it.

People can't just use double standards just against Fed when it suits them.

So, if Fed loses to Rafa 5 GS matches that is bad for Fed, but when Rafa loses 5 matches to Wawrinka, Rosol, Darcis, Berdych, Kyrgios, that is supposed to be overlooked?

Fed has his h2h spread vs just one all time great, but just because Rafa has his negative h2h spread over 5 lesser guys, that should excuse Rafa and damage Fed?

Sorry people, you can't have it both ways.

For some reason, for Federer there are special rules that don't apply for other greats. What gives? Is Federer so good that people can't actually believe it, so they think it's fake?

Like a lot of people don't believe we went to the Moon. They can't believe our technology is so advanced.

The fact that Fed does so well against current generations and only really lost badly to one player exhibits

1) how damn good he really is and how lucky yo be mostly physically healthy

2) how bad his matchup is with nadal

 

[jg153040]

The fact that Fed does so well against current generations and only really lost badly to one player exhibits

1) how damn good he really is and how lucky yo be mostly physically healthy

2) how bad his matchup is with nadal

Yeah. People forget, that Fed is battling greats of next generation and still competing, that is crazy. And those aren't just normal greats. Nole and Rafa are arguably like Sampras and Agassi.

Plus, people forget, in order to lose to your rival, you still need to consistenly make all those slam finals, which is still damn impressive.

Fans have gone mad, I tell you. Like they can't even recognize greatness anymore.

Like listening to Chopin play the piano and just count mistakes and speed of his playing and from that concluding he isn't good at playing piano, without even using music and creativity as the measure of greatness of his piano playing.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

True, Nadal and Djokovic have 14 and 8 Slams just as Sampras and Agassi do and they aren't even done yet (So maybe that tandem will become very obviously better/greater/whatever than Sampras-Agassi), and yet there towers the almighty lord of sport: Roger Federer, with at least 44 Slams (I think we counted more).

 

[SpinToWin]

True, Nadal and Djokovic have 14 and 8 Slams just as Sampras and Agassi do and they aren't even done yet (So maybe that tandem will become very obviously better/greater/whatever than Sampras-Agassi), and yet there towers the almighty lord of sport: Roger Federer, with at least 44 Slams (I think we counted more).

Did we already count weeks at number 1 there?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Did we already count weeks at number 1 there?

Nah, but we don't need to. Federer is playing against a tandem as strong as Sampras-Agassi, or stronger! Yet he's achieved the most.

INCREDIBLE

I mean it's hard to deny, right?

When you think of it that way...


Pure erotica.

 

[SLD76]

Nah, but we don't need to. Federer is playing against a tandem as strong as Sampras-Agassi, or stronger! Yet he's achieved the most.

INCREDIBLE

I mean it's hard to deny, right?

When you think of it that way...


Pure erotica.

Is it not a fact or nah?

 

[BringBackSV]

If Nadal and Federer were the only two people who ever played tennis you might have a compelling argument - unfortunately for you and many other Nadal fans they are not.

Think of it like this - Nadal developed a style of play that happened to allow him great success against another great player unfortunately though it didn't allow him success across the range of surfaces or allow him to play for long periods of tiem without getting injured - consequently he achieved significantly less. Federer developed a game that allowed him to dominate across all surfaces and against nearly the entire field. Hence why he has achieved so much more than Nadal.

Nadal has a great H2H against Federer but in the end it means squat as it hasn't allowed him to break any of tennis's most important records other than his achievements at Roland Garros. His resume is pretty average when compared to Federer.

As I have often said Nadal won the battle but Federer won the war. Tennis is about winning tournaments in particular the slams.

H2H would mean nothing if Rafa didn't have the great career that he does. The fact that he's injury prone and has achieved all that he has is even more impressive.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Is it not a fact or nah?

It's sheer fiction; Federer's accomplishments are too great.

 

[jg153040]

True, Nadal and Djokovic have 14 and 8 Slams just as Sampras and Agassi do and they aren't even done yet (So maybe that tandem will become very obviously better/greater/whatever than Sampras-Agassi), and yet there towers the almighty lord of sport: Roger Federer, with at least 44 Slams (I think we counted more).

I would also like to add, they are five years younger too, which is even more impressive.

Imagine if Sampras was 33 years old and would still be competing vs 28 years old Borg and 27 years old Lendl.

Also imagine if surfaces slowed down in the middle of Pete's prime to extra slow him down.

So, this means maybe Federer really is the best but also very unlucky to end up with "only" 17 slams.

But now the weak era theorists would use reverse weak era theory and double standards for Federer. They will now claim, that Fed is not that great, since he let his competition to win so many majors.

Here, I even helped Fed detractors to use this, because I doubt they could come up with reverse weak era theory by themselves. They didn't even come up with weak era theory, they just use copy and paste and use it, without knowing how it works.

 

[jg153040]

If Nadal and Federer were the only two people who ever played tennis you might have a compelling argument - unfortunately for you and many other Nadal fans they are not.

Think of it like this - Nadal developed a style of play that happened to allow him great success against another great player unfortunately though it didn't allow him success across the range of surfaces or allow him to play for long periods of tiem without getting injured - consequently he achieved significantly less. Federer developed a game that allowed him to dominate across all surfaces and against nearly the entire field. Hence why he has achieved so much more than Nadal.

Nadal has a great H2H against Federer but in the end it means squat as it hasn't allowed him to break any of tennis's most important records other than his achievements at Roland Garros. His resume is pretty average when compared to Federer.

As I have often said Nadal won the battle but Federer won the war. Tennis is about winning tournaments in particular the slams.

Yeah great point. I will add one important thing, if they were the only one playing bad matchup wouldn't even exist, so Fed has way more chances.

Now Fed doesn't need to adjust extra to a lefty, he would be practicing vs a lefty from the start. Rafa wouldn't be much different player since Rafa uses the same tactic vs Fed than vs other righties, since most of the field are righties or what's more important most of the top dogs are righties, who cares if lower guys are lefties.

In this case Federer would be a bad matchup for Nadal if they were the only ones playing.

 

[hawkeye63]

Yeah, everything makes "sense".

Besides 10:23 = 5:6

Pretty exact according to fedfan calculus.

 

[jg153040]

Yeah, everything makes "sense".

Besides 10:23 = 5:6

Pretty exact according to fedfan calculus.

And also 9 FO = 12 slams.

10:23 = 5:6 makes much more sense than 9=12.

 

[Inanimate_object]

If Nadal and Federer were the only two people who ever played tennis you might have a compelling argument - unfortunately for you and many other Nadal fans they are not.

Think of it like this - Nadal developed a style of play that happened to allow him great success against another great player unfortunately though it didn't allow him success across the range of surfaces or allow him to play for long periods of tiem without getting injured - consequently he achieved significantly less. Federer developed a game that allowed him to dominate across all surfaces and against nearly the entire field. Hence why he has achieved so much more than Nadal.

Nadal has a great H2H against Federer but in the end it means squat as it hasn't allowed him to break any of tennis's most important records other than his achievements at Roland Garros. His resume is pretty average when compared to Federer.

As I have often said Nadal won the battle but Federer won the war. Tennis is about winning tournaments in particular the slams.

Who said I am a Nadal fan? Listen, people simply aren't reading properly, or are choosing not to read properly. Once they get the GOAT-craziness out of their head they'd realize, I am NOT talking about inferring from H2H which of Nadal or Federer is greater. I simply don't care about that debate. The H2H is a means of inferring how Federer has responded over 10 years of his career to the persistent threat of Nadal. His competitive evolution tells us volumes about his competitive ingenuity (as opposed to his natural tennis genius). That Federer is very much an athlete and a competitor, and that he has been unable to solve the problem that Nadal poses, is a failure on his part. Regardless of Federer's unfair matchup problems, surface skews, age discrepencies and whatever else - this is not an arena of artificially imposed fairness, this is competition - and the goal is to win.

 

[Inanimate_object]

And also 9 FO = 12 slams.

10:23 = 5:6 makes much more sense than 9=12.

That might be the stupidest thing I've seen in this thread...

 

[SLD76]

Who said I am a Nadal fan? Listen, people simply aren't reading properly, or are choosing not to read properly. Once they get the GOAT-craziness out of their head they'd realize, I am NOT talking about inferring from H2H which of Nadal or Federer is greater. I simply don't care about that debate. The H2H is a means of inferring how Federer has responded over 10 years of his career to the persistent threat of Nadal. His competitive evolution tells us volumes about his competitive ingenuity (as opposed to his natural tennis genius). That Federer is very much an athlete and a competitor, and that he has been unable to solve the problem that Nadal poses, is a failure on his part. Regardless of Federer's unfair matchup problems, surface skews, age discrepencies and whatever else - this is not an arena of artificially imposed fairness, this is competition - and the goal is to win.

Bad matchup plus age gap = fed was always destined to lose this battle. Bad luck for Fed that Rafa was an early bloomer. If Pete had lasted longer on tour he would have been abused more and more by the likes of Safin Hewitt and Roddick . And that wasn't even a matchup issue so much as being eaten by the new.

Fed has dominated 3 or 4 tennis generstions.... he failed to dominate one guy. I'll take the former.

 

[Inanimate_object]

Bad matchup plus age gap = fed was always destined to lose this battle. Bad luck for Fed that Rafa was an early bloomer. If Pete had lasted longer on tour he would have been abused more and more by the likes of Safin Hewitt and Roddick . And that wasn't even a matchup issue so much as being eaten by the new.

That sort of defeatist argument doesn't belong anywhere in competitive sport. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't deny Federer is at a disadvantage. But it really doesn't matter how much the cards are stacked against Federer. Neither he nor his fans should resign themselves to having lost a battle. It is no excuse of a competitor to cry woe at the unfairness of his rivals - rather we expect them to find ways of overcoming them.

 

[jg153040]

That might be the stupidest thing I've seen in this thread...

I don't know if you really think it's stupid or you just didn't understand what the argument was about.

The guy said that 23:10=5:6 was a stupid argument, while just a while ago making thread 9 slams = 12 slams.

I was pointing out the irony. My point was to say that Fed fan stupid argument while stupid is still less stupid than 9=12 argument. Also the irony is that he was laughing at 23:10=5:6 while making 9=12 argument.

Trust me, you didn't understand. You have to be very smart to be stupid.

Did you ever try to achieve 0 points in multiple choice test? It's hard and you still have to have the same knowledge if you want to achieve 100%, since it's impossible to get all wrong even by luck.

So, please, don't underestimate my stupidity .

 

[SLD76]

That sort of defeatist argument doesn't belong anywhere in competitive sport. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't deny Federer is at a disadvantage. But it really doesn't matter how much the cards are stacked against Federer. Neither he nor his fans should resign themselves to having lost a battle. It is no excuse of a competitor to cry woe at the unfairness of his rivals - rather we expect them to find ways of overcoming them.

First of all this isn't a video game, this is real life. There aren't cheat codes.

I never said Federer didn't try like hell or was resolved to losing. And that fact that he is one of few players to beat Nadal more than ten times says alot . But again, there are matchups in tennis. Why does Nadal have a miserable losing record to Davydenko on HC? Why does Safin have a losing record to Santoro? Why has Sharapova not beaten Serena in 11 years?? What, Sharapova is defeatest?

Now make Sharapova 5 years older than Serena and see her get beat down worse than she already does.

when has Federer ever cried woe or disadvantage? You may want to ask Nadal himself who when asked about the head to head said that alot of matches were on clay (implying his inherent advantage) why are you putting words to Federer? ?

In other words sir, you are starting to sound ridiculous.

 

[Inanimate_object]

First of all this isn't a video game, this is real life. There aren't cheat codes.

I never said Federer didn't try like hell or was resolved to losing. And that fact that he is one of few players to beat Nadal more than ten times says alot . But again, there are matchups in tennis. Why does Nadal have a miserable losing record to Davydenko on HC? Why does Safin have a losing record to Santoro? Why has Sharapova not beaten Serena in 11 years?? What, Sharapova is defeatest?

Now make Sharapova 5 years older than Serena and see her get beat down worse than she already does.

In other words sir, you are starting to sound ridiculous.

Don't put words in my mouth. Obviously there are no cheat codes and there won't be some eureka moment for Federer where everything makes sense and he is able to deal with Nadal no problem. But you are acting as if Federer was destined to lose this battle to Nadal, thus making the actual loss less impactful, when in reality, that is not the case. If we expect our competitors do anything less than the utmost to win, we can't be honest with our evaluation of them as athletes. This holds, most definitely for Federer. His calibre as a tennis player is beyond reproach. His calibre as a competitor is not.

 

[SLD76]

Don't put words in my mouth. Obviously there are no cheat codes and there won't be some eureka moment for Federer where everything makes sense and he is able to deal with Nadal no problem. But you are acting as if Federer was destined to lose this battle to Nadal, thus making the actual loss less impactful, when in reality, that is not the case. If we expect our competitors do anything less than the utmost to win, we can't be honest with our evaluation of them as athletes. This holds, most definitely for Federer. His calibre as a tennis player is beyond reproach. His calibre as a competitor is not.

Don't put words in your mouth. .the same guy putting words in Federer's mouth. Ridiculous.

Of course I expect Fed to lose now that he is well past it and he and Rafa are unlikely to meet on any faster courts.

Bad luck for Fed that Rafa wasn't more consistent/injured during summer and fall hc season.

 

[Inanimate_object]

Don't put words in your mouth. .the same guy putting words in Federer's mouth. Ridiculous.

How have I put words in Federer's mouth? I have no idea what he's said or what he's thinking, and in some ways I am not interested. I am interested in his level of competitive drive and what we can say about his historic rivalry with Nadal. You seem very keen on misinterpreting what I write.

 

[jg153040]

Don't put words in my mouth. Obviously there are no cheat codes and there won't be some eureka moment for Federer where everything makes sense and he is able to deal with Nadal no problem. But you are acting as if Federer was destined to lose this battle to Nadal, thus making the actual loss less impactful, when in reality, that is not the case. If we expect our competitors do anything less than the utmost to win, we can't be honest with our evaluation of them as athletes. This holds, most definitely for Federer. His calibre as a tennis player is beyond reproach. His calibre as a competitor is not.

So, what are you saying he lost vs Nadal on purpose? He didn't try to beat him on purpose?

What would be his motivation to do that?

 

[SLD76]

How have I put words in Federer's mouth? I have no idea what he's said or what he's thinking, and in some ways I am not interested. I am interested in his level of competitive drive and what we can say about his historic rivalry with Nadal. You seem very keen on misinterpreting what I write.

Re read your inane post.

 

[SLD76]

So, what are you saying he lost vs Nadal on purpose? He didn't try to beat him on purpose?

What would be his motivation to do that?

As I said...ridiculous.

 

[Sysyphus]

Don't put words in my mouth. Obviously there are no cheat codes and there won't be some eureka moment for Federer where everything makes sense and he is able to deal with Nadal no problem. But you are acting as if Federer was destined to lose this battle to Nadal, thus making the actual loss less impactful, when in reality, that is not the case. If we expect our competitors do anything less than the utmost to win, we can't be honest with our evaluation of them as athletes. This holds, most definitely for Federer. His calibre as a tennis player is beyond reproach. His calibre as a competitor is not.

If his calibre as a competitor is in fact in doubt, you still have not succeeded in showing it. Saying that he should have been able to do more against Nadal does not make it so. I think he did the best he could relative to the situation.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The match-up is not an excuse, it is a fact.