Federer has a great opportunity

[icedevil0289]

It really depends on if you think ND still has a chance at winning several more slams or not (I do, many do not so then they assume an ND fan would rather Rafa "stay within reach")

Fair enough

 

[dh003i]

How a Federer fan should feel about AO F 2017 vs. Nadal:

 

[R_Federer]

FWIW, Vegas has implied odds at about 55/45 for Nadal

Isn't that fishy? Vegas likes Federer winning!

 

[The Fedfather]

I expected responses like these. To make it clear, the best part of winning a slam is winning a slam and the joy that comes with that obviously. So you're strawmanning me a bit here. I meant it would be the best in comparison to all the other records he'd get as part of winning the slam.

Like it or not, the way the 2 have matched up over the years against eachother on grand stages matter a lot to many people and the players themselves somwehat I'm sure.

Yes, overall records matters more, no one is denying that.

If you'd expected it why not edit your post so that people understand what you meant and don't end up accidentally strawmanning you? And you meant in comparison to all the other records like the ones you listed? No way.

So what? There are more people to whom it doesn't matter. Of course I know some folks here who consider Nadal greater because of his H2H with Federer. I find the idea preposterous.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

If you'd expected it why not edit your post so that people understand what you meant and don't end up accidentally strawmanning you? And you meant in comparison to all the other records like the ones you listed? No way.

So what? There are more people to whom it doesn't matter. Of course I know some folks here who consider Nadal greater because of his H2H with Federer. I find the idea preposterous.

I dont think Nadal is better because of H2H, but I think it is equally preposterous to think it counts for nothing.

 

[The Fedfather]

I dont think Nadal is better because of H2H, but I think it is equally preposterous to think it counts for nothing.

It can be a tiebreaker if the important achievements are equal.

 

[mtommer]

No, if Fed wins the Nahollers will just say it's due to his being out of prime, injury, old, this or that and revert back to H2H anyway.

 

[Gary Duane]

This sentence seems to be the key one. Grigor played the best you can possible ask, his backhand didn't give in, he didn't choke, he retrieved far more "should be winner shots" than Nadal did, and it still wasn't enough. Granted, Roger has a few advantages over Dimi, mainly the serve and forehand combination + the net, however I wouldn't be confident he would take out even Grigor in the finals. In fact, I almost think it doesn't matter who'd Rog play in the finals as based on the SF performances he'd be a huge underdog against both.

Now, I still believe he does have a chance, but he'll need to summon back his Nishikori groundstrokes form and have a superb serving day to be within touching distance of Rafa. Having watched Dimi play I don't think he was that bothered with the top spin forehand to backhand combination, it was more the sheer amount of backhands he had to hit and lose initiative to Rafa. Since Rog is now too slow to run around the backhand, I can see this only ending badly even if the backhand is on song at the start. Slice down the line and wait or move to the net perhaps?

All I can think of is Roger tries to attack the net more, serves wide to the BH on Deuce court and either moves forward or does Nadal in James Blake style. But the true problem will be breaking Rafa as even Dimi who is a much better returner now only managed 4 breaks in 5 sets. How many will Roger get? Probably less than Rafa. So how many does he need to even get to Tiebreaks? However, as for the OP's question, I don't really see this match as that a big deal. Rog has never before downplayed his chances, but here he kept saying he'll be happy with whatever he gets. The slam record is still a long way away and Rog is far from done, so I just hope he treats this one as a free swing. Then we might have a match on our hands. And yes, the 1st set is absolutely crucial for Rog, like always.

I see this as the front-runner against the Spanish Diesel.

This whole major has been an anomaly. Best to expect the unexpected!

 

[Inanimate_object]

I don't understand as to why a Djokovic fan, should have any strong preference for Federer winning his 18th slam or Nadal winning his 15th slam, beyond having specific preferences between Federer or Nadal. I should not think that fandom for Djokovic is predicated on his eligibility to break the slam record. A Federer win or a Nadal win has no serious impact on Djokovic whatsoever and it doesn't make him a better or worse player.

 

[dh003i]

I dont think Nadal is better because of H2H, but I think it is equally preposterous to think it counts for nothing.

It matters most in terms of how it reflects in their results. If Federer had won 2 more of the Major finals H2H, then they would now be sitting at 19-12 instead of 17-14, for example. So it is already reflected in huge swings in their relative Major counts.

What's at stake in this final is 18-14 vs. 17-15, so it is a 2-Major swing.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

It matters most in terms of how it reflects in their results. If Federer had won 2 more of the Major finals H2H, then they would now be sitting at 19-12 instead of 17-14, for example. So it is already reflected in huge swings in their relative Major counts.

What's at stake in this final is 18-14 vs. 17-15, so it is a 2-Major swing.

I know, you are putting forth the old "double counting" argument. That is to say, the H2H is already counted within the stats, so it doesn't matter.

Tricky and persuasive, but ultimately wrong imo of course

 

[Krish872007]

I dont think Nadal is better because of H2H, but I think it is equally preposterous to think it counts for nothing.

I think it counts for a lot here. Nadal leads 6-2 in Slam Finals (8 played). Now imagine if Federer actually won every meeting in some alternate reality. That would give him 23 Slams, and put Nadal behind Djokovic at just 8 Slams. Not only that, but Fed would have 2 x CYGS.
And even I, who don't believe in GOAT at all, would have said he was undeniably the best (no argument whatsoever). Each defeat means that we are now at 17-14 - so Federer's inability to handle Rafa is what has turned this into a debate in the first place. Make no mistake, it is pretty big.

 

[dh003i]

I know, you are putting forth the old "double counting" argument. That is to say, the H2H is already counted within the stats, so it doesn't matter.

Tricky and persuasive, but ultimately wrong imo of course

Again, it depends on what you mean by "matters" and ultimately for H2H to be a determination of greatness is flawed by definition, even to use it as a tie-breaker, because you can have a situation with A, B, C players with otherwise equal stats, but in terms of H2H, it's A>B, B>C, C>A. So B is greater than C, who is greater than A, who is greater than B.

It certainly "matters" in terms of predicting the results of future matches.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Again, it depends on what you mean by "matters" and ultimately for H2H to be a determination of greatness is flawed by definition, even to use it as a tie-breaker, because you can have a situation with A, B, C players with otherwise equal stats, but in terms of H2H, it's A>B, B>C, C>A. So B is greater than C, who is greater than A, who is greater than B.

It certainly "matters" in terms of predicting the results of future matches.

That doesn't invalidate it as meaningful because it can be tricky to apply

 

[dh003i]

I think it counts for a lot here. Nadal leads 6-2 in Slam Finals (8 played). Now imagine if Federer actually won every meeting in some alternate reality. That would give him 23 Slams, and put Nadal behind Djokovic at just 8 Slams. Not only that, but Fed would have 2 x CYGS.
And even I, who don't believe in GOAT at all, would have said he was undeniably the best (no argument whatsoever). Each defeat means that we are now at 17-14 - so Federer's inability to handle Rafa is what has turned this into a debate in the first place. Make no mistake, it is pretty big.

Sure, its big, but its already reflected in Federer have 17 Majors and not 23 and Nadal having 14 instead of 8. 17 Majors and 302 weeks at #1 still gives Federer a very solid argument over Nadal, even if he wins on Sunday.

So what you're criticizing Federer for is that he doesn't have more than 17 Majors...sounds kind of ridiculous, as if the standard of greatness is some ideal form, e.g., "the guy with Federer's talent who never lost a match he should have won or came out playing poorly"...but then why not just compare him to the Platonic ideal Tennis Player who won 4 Majors a year for 10 straight years.

Federer's 17 Majors sure come up short compared to the 40 achievable over a decade!

 

[dh003i]

That doesn't invalidate it as meaningful because it can be tricky to apply

It is meaningful because matchups matter, but it is difficult to argue that something is "meaningful" for comparing greatness when it can produce contradictory results.

 

[metsman]

if(lol) Federer wins the h2h stuff won't just go away cause Federer is 10 years past his AO peak, Nadal 8. Both way past their peak, h2h is only relevant for predicting peak for peak matchups. 09 AO was the chance to make the h2h irrelevant but Federer failed there.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Sure, its big, but its already reflected in Federer have 17 Majors and not 23 and Nadal having 14 instead of 8. 17 Majors and 302 weeks at #1 still gives Federer a very solid argument over Nadal, even if he wins on Sunday.

So what you're criticizing Federer for is that he doesn't have more than 17 Majors...sounds kind of ridiculous, as if the standard of greatness is some ideal form, e.g., "the guy with Federer's talent who never lost a match he should have won or came out playing poorly"...but then why not just compare him to the Platonic ideal Tennis Player who won 4 Majors a year for 10 straight years.

Federer's 17 Majors sure come up short compared to the 40 achievable over a decade!

I think ultimately he agreed with you and disagreed with me. He's saying it's already counted which is the bottom line. I think when the H2H is like this it adds an extra dimension beyond the achievements it helped create.

 

[dh003i]

Nadal with his 14 Majors also comes up short compared to the Platonic Ideal 40 Major champion, who of course never got injured

 

[Krish872007]

Sure, its big, but its already reflected in Federer have 17 Majors and not 23 and Nadal having 14 instead of 8. 17 Majors and 302 weeks at #1 still gives Federer a very solid argument over Nadal, even if he wins on Sunday.

So what you're criticizing Federer for is that he doesn't have more than 17 Majors...sounds kind of ridiculous, as if the standard of greatness is some ideal form, e.g., "the guy with Federer's talent who never lost a match he should have won or came out playing poorly"...but then why not just compare him to the Platonic ideal Tennis Player who won 4 Majors a year for 10 straight years.

Federer's 17 Majors sure come up short compared to the 40 achievable over a decade!

I think I'm agreeing with you, though the way I expressed it is probably too harsh on Federer. I do place him above Rafa (and will continue to do so regardless of Sunday's result), but I was referencing this "GOAT" debate (which will inevitably continue) and how the match-up has prevented Roger from attaining that title in my eyes.

What you're saying makes sense, though I'm happy to accept @125downthemiddle 's point of view as well.

 

[metsman]

I agree with your analysis and that is why I think Nadal is the favorite

But possible mitigating factors are:

-Nadal with a day less rest off a 5 setter, we have seen this before in 2009, but Rafa is not 22 anymore

-Faster surface seems to allow Fed to play his offensive game more freely and maybe he could blitz Rafa if Nadal is off to a slow start

-Nad hasn't been in a slam final in almost 3 years, so maybe he has lost a bit of his unbeatable aura, particular vs. Fed

highly doubt it. We saw it in Basel. Fairly fast court, indoors, Federer is punking Nadal like he should and then boom lets him back into the match and comes within a hair of losing in the 3rd set. Old habits never ever change.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

It is meaningful because matchups matter, but it is difficult to argue that something is "meaningful" for comparing greatness when it can produce contradictory results.

There are many metrics that could produce contradictory results when applied dogmatically, but that doesn't completely invalidate them on a case by case, especially if it's not a cariciatured scenario to prove a point.

 

[dh003i]

There are many metrics that could produce contradictory results when applied dogmatically, but that doesn't completely invalidate them on a case by case, especially if it's not a cariciatured scenario to prove a point.

I see little need to look beyond metrics that don't produce contradictory results and already incorporate a lot of data. In fact, I'd be quite content to rate players solely based on weeks #1, despite a few results that would defy my instincts such as Djokovic being ahead of Nadal.

We're all welcome to our opinions and I do agree that Federer not having won a few more of the H2H is why there is even a possible debate to be had, but I still don't think there is a good argument for Nadal over Federer with so many fewer weeks at #1, for example, even if he pulls even on Majors. I don't think that is a good tie-breaker.

I think you would have to make a far more qualitative argument to place Nadal as GOAT and it would revolve around mental strength and intangibles. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that argument as I'd have counterpoints, but that is the kind of argument you need to put Nadal as the greatest all time.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

-18th slam
- 5th AO (5+ titles at 3 different slams, absolutely insane)
-winning a slam at 35
-slam record would become probably impossible to surpass

But here is the best part for him if he wins, he would quiet a lot of the Nadal H2H stuff, with a win now here. Is it fair? tons of people say the h2h doesn't matter anyway, players shouldn't be punished for making the final and losing etc....but it does matter in a lot of people's minds and I don't think Federer could ask for a better shot at this late stage in his career for such a sweet slam win.

The flipside is if Nadal wins, for better or worse, whether you want to argue Fed did well to even make the final at 35 etc, people will look at it as another slam loss to Nadal (off clay as well) and Nadal will be within 2 slams. An incredible amount at stake here in terms of legacy. Fed has the opportunity to close the door on Nadal, but if he loses the door remains wide open more than ever.

Prediction: Nadal in 4

Full disclosure: As a Djoko fan I still think he has 1 or 2 good bursts left and would definitely prefer a Rafa win here rather than Fed getting to 18. I'd be in awe of Roger if he could manage the win here, but history says he can't handle Nadal in slam finals away from Wimbledon.

I'm thinking Federer in 4, a repeat of the '02 USO.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I'm thinking Federer in 4, a repeat of the '02 USO.

If he pulls that off, I'd admit he shut the door on the convo of greatest (of open era at least) for now.

Im not sure he can do it, Sampras never had an issue playing Agassi like Fed does with Capyba*a (lol this is banned)

 

[Deleted member 307496]

If he pulls that off, I'd admit he shut the door on the convo of greatest (of open era at least) for now.

Im not sure he can do it, Sampras never had an issue playing Agassi like Fed does with Capyba*a (lol this is banned)

But the H2H between Sampras and Agassi sit at 20-14 IIRC. Sampras was not that far ahead of Agassi in terms of H2H.

I think Federer has a legitimate chance if he ups his level and serves like he did against Andy Murray at 2015 Wimbledon. He just needs one of THOSE matches. Nadal of today won't be able to handle it the same as peak Rafa did.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

But the H2H between Sampras and Agassi sit at 20-14 IIRC. Sampras was not that far ahead of Agassi in terms of H2H.

I think Federer has a legitimate chance if he ups his level and serves like he did against Andy Murray at 2015 Wimbledon. He just needs one of THOSE matches. Nadal of today won't be able to handle it the same as peak Rafa did.

He definitely has a chance; a better shot than usual vs. Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He definitely has a chance; a better shot than usual vs. Nadal.

Nadal usually waits it out and strikes when Federer has a dip guys like Murray can't sense/capitalize on so it may be a different story... but I have hope and I still have a gut feeling Federer will win. But guts can be wrong.

 

[metsman]

But the H2H between Sampras and Agassi sit at 20-14 IIRC. Sampras was not that far ahead of Agassi in terms of H2H.

I think Federer has a legitimate chance if he ups his level and serves like he did against Andy Murray at 2015 Wimbledon. He just needs one of THOSE matches. Nadal of today won't be able to handle it the same as peak Rafa did.

you people are forgetting that despite slow balls, whatever, this is still a slow HC. It's going to be the same old story. If Fed plays well, it's going to be 2012, if not 2014.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

you people are forgetting that despite slow balls, whatever, this is still a slow HC. It's going to be the same old story. If Fed plays well, it's going to be 2012, if not 2014.

It's the quickest I've seen the AO in a while though, Nadal is also not as good as he was in 2014.

 

[metsman]

It's the quickest I've seen the AO in a while though, Nadal is also not as good as he was in 2014.

He always raises his level against Federer.

 

[xFedal]

FWIW, Vegas has implied odds at about 55/45 for Nadal

Gambling is bad, but people win big on Nadal!!!! few grand to make few grand on Nadal.

 

[Terry Tibbs]

Jesus, why is everyone on here saying Fed is a massive unde

Federer has to take his own advice when he talks about massive underdogs: they have nothing to lose.

So he has to know he is playing with house money and just go for it.

Jesus, why are so many people on here talking about Federer being a massive underdog? Bookies don't tend to get things wrong and the current odds on betfair are Fed 2.1, Nedal 1.75. They have this as a close match.

 

[Legends of Sport]

-18th slam
- 5th AO (5+ titles at 3 different slams, absolutely insane)
-winning a slam at 35
-slam record would become probably impossible to surpass

But here is the best part for him if he wins, he would quiet a lot of the Nadal H2H stuff, with a win now here. Is it fair? tons of people say the h2h doesn't matter anyway, players shouldn't be punished for making the final and losing etc....but it does matter in a lot of people's minds and I don't think Federer could ask for a better shot at this late stage in his career for such a sweet slam win.

The flipside is if Nadal wins, for better or worse, whether you want to argue Fed did well to even make the final at 35 etc, people will look at it as another slam loss to Nadal (off clay as well) and Nadal will be within 2 slams. An incredible amount at stake here in terms of legacy. Fed has the opportunity to close the door on Nadal, but if he loses the door remains wide open more than ever.

Prediction: Nadal in 4

Full disclosure: As a Djoko fan I still think he has 1 or 2 good bursts left and would definitely prefer a Rafa win here rather than Fed getting to 18. I'd be in awe of Roger if he could manage the win here, but history says he can't handle Nadal in slam finals away from Wimbledon.

I think this is an excellent summary. I dont think you can ignore the Head to head stuff. Roger doesnt. He even said in the post match interview on Thursday that 'I think Rafa got me a lot of times early on clay and that influenced what happened on other surfaces', and I think he is right. But he can put that to bed if he wins. If Nadal wins, then the monkey on the back will stay there, which will be a shame.

 

[-NN-]

18-14 vs 17-15. A lot of steaks.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Fed hasn't beaten Nadal on outdoor court in over 10 years so if outdoor, rafa win.

Sorry.. I happened to be in the 16th row (still have the ticket stub) at Indian Wells in 2012 which is definitely an outdoor court. Fed trounced him 6-3, 6-4. Believe me when I tell you that IW is outdoors. Fed also beat him outdoors in Madrid in 2009. That's also outdoors.

Get your facts straight before posting errant nonsense.

 

[cc0509]

yeah, I guess Im saying if he wins I'll concede he's the GOAT and unlikely to be surpassed for a long time. But a loss opens the door more than ever. An incredible disparity in outlook for one match.

For whom? Possibly for Nadal but definitely not for Djokovic. Also, if Nadal wins this slam it doesn't mean that he will easily win two or three more. It doesn't work that way for greats past the age of 29. Slams are much harder to win in succession at that point.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

For whom? Possibly for Nadal but definitely not for Djokovic. Also, if Nadal wins this slam it doesn't mean that he will easily win two or three more. It doesn't work that way for greats past the age of 29. Slams are much harder to win in succession at that point.

How do you get "easily win 2 or 3 more" from "a loss opens the door"?

Your translation service needs some work

 

[cc0509]

How do you get "easily win 2 or 3 more" from "a loss opens the door"?

Your translation service needs some work

I'm just speaking in generalities from the reactions on this forum to every win or every loss. A player wins a slam and it translates into that player will win the next six in a row and the reverse with a loss. It's annoying. 30 year old players don't tend to dominate tennis and win multiple slams in succession.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I'm just speaking in generalities from the reactions on this forum to every win or every loss. A player wins a slam and it translates into that player will win the next six in a row and the reverse with a loss. It's annoying. 30 year old players don't tend to dominate tennis and win multiple slams in succession.

You seem to be annoyed by much

 

[cc0509]

You seem to be annoyed by much

No, I'm annoyed by stupid and inexperienced fans who read too much into a win or a loss especially when it concerns a player who is 29 or 30+. History shows that 29/30+ year old greats don't tend to dominate the sport and win multiple slams in a row. A Nadal or Federer AO win doesn't mean they are going to go on and win the next three slams in a row IMO.

 

[cc0509]

Wouldn't Novak fans want fed to win to prevent the gap between Nadal and Novak.I mean cmon feds window is closing here but nadals should he win, forget nole at fo

Obviously that is the intelligent reaction. Djokovic can still possibly catch Nadal's slam count(and even that is questionable as we don't know what's going on with Djokovic) but IMO there's very little chance that Djokovic will catch Federer whether Federer wins one more or not.

Slams are hard to come by for all time greats once they hit 29/30+. Some posters on this forum are talking like it's easy to do.

 

[Sentinel]

Federer has one big advantage in this final, he has nothing to lose. Meanwhile Nadal has much more to lose. Never underestimate a guy who has nothing to lose.

What does Nadal have to lose ?

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Obviously that is the intelligent reaction. Djokovic can still possibly catch Nadal's slam count(and even that is questionable as we don't know what's going on with Djokovic) but IMO there's very little chance that Djokovic will catch Federer whether Federer wins one more or not.

Slams are hard to come by for all time greats once they hit 29/30+. Some posters on this forum are talking like it's easy to do.

 

[FiReFTW]

What does Nadal have to lose ?

18 vs 14 is pretty much unreachable.
35 year old granpa main rival beating u in a grand slam final.
Thats a big hit on his resume.

What does Fed lose? Another loss against the 2nd best player ever 5 years younger than him against whom he has a bad matchup anyway.
Coming back after 6 month layoff at 35 years old.

If Federer losses it will be no suprize to many people and rather they will be impressed that he even reached the final, Nadal who has a good matchup against Fed, losing to a 35 year old coming from 6 months layoff, that would be a big blow.

 

[Sentinel]

18 vs 14 is pretty much unreachable.
35 year old granpa main rival beating u in a grand slam final.
Thats a big hit on his resume.

What does Fed lose? Another loss against the 2nd best player ever 5 years younger than him against whom he has a bad matchup anyway.
Coming back after 6 month layoff at 35 years old.

If Federer losses it will be no suprize to many people and rather they will be impressed that he even reached the final, Nadal who has a good matchup against Fed, losing to a 35 year old coming from 6 months layoff, that would be a big blow.

Sadly that's not how@sureshs and his bouncer @Rusty Shackleford see things. They are gonna bring the forum down all of next week. Sewretchs will be taking a week off work just to start threads dissing federer, LOL.