Federer News

I agree with everything you said. And for those H2H nuts out there, they never bother to explain Nadal simply wasn't good enough on HC to meet Fed in countless majors at the USO and AO since 2005. When Fed showed up in those major finals (except AO 2009), Nadal wasn't good enough to be in the final. he was either "injured" or lost in earlier rounds. While Roger made 5 FO finals, thus skewing the H2H even more. He was great enough to meet Nadal in endless clay finals, Nadal was not good enough to meet Fed in major finals on HC's most of the time.

If Fed plays until he's 42, he will almost certainly lose 90%+ of the matches he will ever play again against either Nole or Rafa because of the age differential. Which happens to be another reason H2H's are meaningless.
Wikipedia needs to figure out a way to rectify this discrepancy. :sneaky:

Seriously, I hope this is highlighted—one way or another—in the history books (or at least becomes common knowledge amongst the hoi polloi).
 
It’s going to be really, really, really tough for Federer to win this. It’s beyond asinine thet he gets “punished” in these GOAT narratives for being good enough to get to back to back SFs while Nadal spent 2012-2017 losing to everyone at Wimbledon.
Nothing can be done about it though. Its unfortunate but the slam race or the H2H will not matter anymore. Its just a matter of time before Novak and/or Rafa catch up especially with the current state of the non big 3 players and the way the courts are playing. And what's more infuriating is how tennis experts and pundits totally disregard these facts and go into overdrive hyping the slam race when its not a level playing field. The likes of Brad Gilbert et al openly acknowledged loving the slowing down of the grass. Its a testament to Federer's greatness that he's fighting on.
Coming to Friday, I hope Federer fights and fights hard.
 
Great set of posts.

The more Fed prolongs his career, the more irrelevant H2H becomes. That one player who can boast of a better H2H against Fed was missing mysteriously in so many events between 2005-2008 where Fed was in fine form. That player went mysteriously missing again from 2014 —2015.

The GOAT discussion will always continue with one blooper. Where were the younger generation when Nadal and Djoko was aging?
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
His legendary status is in concrete. But his GOAT status is not. Let's not pretend otherwise.
.
I'm pretending nothing. GOAT is not just slams and anyone that thinks it is has a very limited ..... But whatever, work yourself into a lather. I'm thrilled he made the SF so convincingly. I'm pulling for him, I'm hoping he wins but other than uttering one cuss world if he loses (it'll be a good one) nothing else in my or anyone else's life will have changed.

I have so much fun when I watch tennis, then I come here and often I don't even know if we're discussing the same sport.

It's just a game.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
Great set of posts.

The more Fed prolongs his career, the more irrelevant H2H becomes. That one player who can boast of a better H2H against Fed was missing mysteriously in so many events between 2005-2008 where Fed was in fine form. That player went mysteriously missing again from 2014 —2015.

The GOAT discussion will always continue with one blooper. Where were the younger generation when Nadal and Djoko was aging?
Nadal will never be GOAT. He's the King of Clay but not of tennis.
 
I'm pretending nothing. GOAT is not just slams and anyone that thinks it is has a very limited ..... But whatever, work yourself into a lather. I'm thrilled he made the SF so convincingly. I'm pulling for him, I'm hoping he wins but other than uttering one cuss world if he loses (it'll be a good one) nothing else in my or anyone else's life will have changed.

I have so much fun when I watch tennis, then I come here and often I don't even know if we're discussing the same sport.

It's just a game.
I don't care too much for GOAT debates. It is all opinion, but if we are going to do it, Rafa needs at least 21 to even be considered.
 
Last edited:
GOAT debate has always been opinion, and before I came here it only mattered to me who I thought was the greatest of all time. When I stop coming here, it will still be my opinion I care about.

Sure, others might disagree more often then they used to, but it does not bother me. I will have my GOAT and they will have theirs. Heck, even Laver is considered GOAT by many.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
I don't care too much for GOAT debates. It is all opinion, but if we are going to so it, Rafa needs at least 21 to even be considered.
Rafa needs to win something besides the FO over the next 5 years or he won't even be considered.

If Djoker could hit 21 with his ability to win on all surfaces, it will be a worthy debate.

Roger to those that watched him from the beginning will know he's still the GOAT because had they played each other in their true prime, Fred would have killed gluten sensitive Djoker with all the bagels... And I couldn't give two sheets about the clowns that have only been fans since 2015. Hell I have friends that still believe Sampras in GOAT runner-up and nothing Nadal or Djoker can ever do that will change that. I have an uncle that still thinks Borg's the GOAT and listening to him is pretty damned convincing. Only on the internet, which is inundated with clueless children, is GOAT so tied up with number of slam titles.

TTW is not reality.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
Yeah rafa has to win on some more surfaces (could do it here), and win at least one WTF and regain number one again at some point.

If Djoker gets to 20/21, that will be hard to argue with.
Rafa will need to win more than one W and the WTF.

Djoker will be easy to argue with if the person actually knows tennis. Djoker is winning everything in the weakest tennis era I've ever lived through -- and I will never let the obnoxious children forget it.
 
The person who defeated Nishikori won the last 4 slems.

Fedr just beat Nishikori, so... :happydevil:
Not just that, the last time all of the big 3 lost sets in the first week was in 2012 and Federer went onto beat Djokovic and Murray..Plus Federer has beaten every other Big-4 member in the semis at Wimbledon. The only one remaining is Nadal....And lastly each time Federer's won Miami, he's won Wimbledon. The more I think of all these, the more the rationalist in me kicks in and reminds me its not happening. Not wrong to hope though...
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
GOAT debate has always been opinion, and before I came here it only mattered to me who I thought was the greatest of all time. When I stop coming here, it will still be my opinion I care about.

Sure, others might disagree more often then they used to, but it does not bother me. I will have my GOAT and they will have theirs. Heck, even Laver is considered GOAT by many.
Of course it's mostly down to an opinion. A lot of factors go into who ends up with most accolades and even then people will put different weight on different stats.

However, regardless of who people back as their favourite, media fixation and tailoring surfaces to hype the slam race is not going to be good for the game in the long run.

Same reason FO should never play fast is why Wimbledon should never play slow but all that is lost on some people who're cheering on just because they're so enamoured with the idea of their guy ending up with the bigges tally.
 
His legendary status is in concrete. But his GOAT status is not. Let's not pretend otherwise.

The same things were said years ago. But imagine if he retired after his 2016 injury with 17 slams. Rafa would've already gone on to pass him in the slam count, become world #1 at an older age and set a host of new records, leaving Fed in the dust. 2017-18 proved that he needs to stay vigilant and keep adding to his own resume or he'll be surpassed. Novak wouldn't be far behind and there's a good chance Federer would go on to be an afterthought of this era, no matter how much we love him. His legacy would be irrevocably altered for the worse.
You didn't say anything about the Majors race. You are trying to change your position by switching from the H2H on grass argument to Majors race argument.

Here

100%Novak's the dominant player and 4 time Wimby champ. Combined with the 2014-15 losses, Roger is expected to lose that match. But we've been talking a big game for so many years about Rafa avoiding his losses to Fed on grass, that it feels like Roger HAS to capitalize now to back that up. An even H2H on grass does not look good at the end of the day.
Also, blue bolded: here you are, talking about "we" again. For example, I don't think that you represent my thoughts on the matter very well, and I am sure that the same applies to other Federer fans. I have also asked you multiple times not to do it.

:cool:
 
You didn't say anything about the Majors race. You are trying to change your position by switching from the H2H on grass argument to Majors race argument.

Here



Also, blue bolded: here you are, talking about "we" again. For example, I don't think that you represent my thoughts on the matter very well, and I am sure that the same applies to other Federer fans. I have also asked you multiple times not to do it.

:cool:
Why are we talking h2h again? So meaningless.
 
You didn't say anything about the Majors race. You are trying to change your position by switching from the H2H on grass argument to Majors race argument.

Here



Also, blue bolded: here you are, talking about "we" again. For example, I don't think that you represent my thoughts on the matter very well, and I am sure that the same applies to other Federer fans. I have also asked you multiple times not to do it.

:cool:
At this point I could say the sky is blue and you would disagree with it because I'm the one saying it.
 
I can dissect your previous comment further to illustrate my point, but this is not the place for it.

Also, I am surprised that you didn't say " At this point we could say the sky is blue and you would disagree with it, because we, the Fed fans, are the ones saying it."

:cool:
So which part did I actually misrepresent this time with "we?"

Please don't tell me you've never talked about the H2H being BS because it was surface skewed. That is page 1 of the Fedfan defensive playbook in Fedal arguments and we all know it. There's no need to deny it.
 
So which part did I actually misrepresent this time with "we?"

Please don't tell me you've never talked about the H2H being BS because it was surface skewed. That is page 1 of the Fedfan defensive playbook in Fedal arguments and we all know it. There's no need to deny it.
Full blown Fedfan TM vocabulary now.

Alright.

1) You changed your position as evidenced by what I quoted. You chose to address the less obvious problem with your last several posts, because, well, at least there you can argue

2) Even if we accept that such an argument has been made by the vast majority of the fans, the idea that Federer has to back up argument made many years ago when he he was somewhat in position to prove such an argument, is deliberately ignoring the obvious. You boast about taking well accepted (supposedly) views, but abandon reasonable approach immediately at such opportunities as this one. Why would you do that? Isn't a well accepted view that Federer is very far from his best years too? Why would you ignore that well accepted argument and go for a full blown 90s clay statements (except, he made them two and a half years ago. Try to wrap your head around that: you are making a worse point than 90s clay)?

3) the argument about "an even H2H on grass not looking good". Why wouldn't an even H2H on grass look good? What would that prove? That Nadal is equal to Federer on grass?

4) the fixation on the H2H: the favourite of the V amos Brigade schtick. The importance of the H2H has been discussed many times. I haven't seen a single knowledgeable person putting huge premium on the H2H compared to other metrics. Again, your purported support of reasonable views goes out of the window the moment there is an opening to stir the pot. Why would a non-subject be brought to the fore, if you too know what is the weight of such a factor in the grand scheme of things. Instead, you chose to focus on it. Ah, reasons!

In short: you like to pretend to be a beacon of reasonable opinions, yet in one post you:

1) ignored the reasonable view that Federer is well past it, for the result to have any meaningful impact or any meaningful conclusion to be derived from it
2) ignored the reasonable view that a single match won't skew the perception about what is what on the surface
3) ignored the reasonable view that H2H is insignificant in the grand scheme of things
4) ignored the reasonable view that one shouldn't be using the vocabulary used by some of the worst trolls on this site, and with the same context and lines of reasoning, down to discussing the opponent's opinions as "defensive playbook". From only your three posts I can make a pretty concise list of words used specifically by such in exactly the same context

For all these positions there is a pretty strong perception that they are true amongst the people that argue from somewhat neutral and reasonable position, so when you ask "which part I misrepresent with "we"" the answer is, you misrepresented the opinion on these matters of those people.

Of course, you also ignored the reasonable view that you are not speaking on behalf of the Federer fans, as I already told you probably ten times already. Even in that post here you continue to use "we" as though you are some sort of Vox populi?

The biggest giveaway of what you are doing is that you always choose to address the most stupid arguments and then go on to assign it to the Federer fans as a group. Anyone with half a brain would understand that there will always be stupid opinions in any group, but to assign those to most/entire group, is, to put it mildly, trying to aggravate the people by forcing on them opinions that they haven't won't and wouldn't like to share. The H2H plague has been around for at least a decade, so don't tell me that you don't know the nuances associated with every straw man thrown in.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Federer was a betting favorite over Nadal before the tournament, but Nadal has opened up a slight favorite before this match. The age difference (a 38 year old shouldnt even be in back to back SFs let alone a favorite in one), the RG match (though it wasn’t that bad considering conditions and how well the BH held up),
how well Nadal is serving and returning, and how slow Centre Court is playing all add up to why Nadal’s being favored. It will be interesting to see how the line moves, but I’m thinking Nadal will become a more solid favorite before the match.

Nadal is playing with ultra confidence right now, serving really well and returning well with the BH, typically a weakness, especially on grass. Centre Court is playing the slowest I’ve ever seen it, so looks like easy points on serve will be a problem. Federer has defended his serve extremely well, but he’s not getting as many free points as he’s used to. Nishikori is a good returner, but he had difficulty against the other players as well relative to what he usually gets.

It’s going to be really, really, really tough for Federer to win this. It’s beyond asinine that he gets “punished” in these GOAT narratives for being good enough to get to back to back SFs while Nadal spent 2012-2017 losing to everyone at Wimbledon.
People remember your successes and not your failures... If you are Rafa. So arrogant of Fraud to incite such double standards.
 
Full blown Fedfan TM vocabulary now.

Alright.

1) You changed your position as evidenced by what I quoted. You chose to address the less obvious problem with your last several posts, because, well, at least there you can argue

2) Even if we accept that such an argument has been made by the vast majority of the fans, the idea that Federer has to back up argument made many years ago when he he was somewhat in position to prove such an argument, is deliberately ignoring the obvious. You boast about taking well accepted (supposedly) views, but abandon reasonable approach immediately at such opportunities as this one. Why would you do that? Isn't a well accepted view that Federer is very far from his best years too? Why would you ignore that well accepted argument and go for a full blown 90s clay statements (except, he made them two and a half years ago. Try to wrap your head around that: you are making a worse point than 90s clay)?

3) the argument about "an even H2H on grass not looking good". Why wouldn't an even H2H on grass look good? What would that prove? That Nadal is equal to Federer on grass?

4) the fixation on the H2H: the favourite of the V amos Brigade schtick. The importance of the H2H has been discussed many times. I haven't seen a single knowledgeable person putting huge premium on the H2H compared to other metrics. Again, your purported support of reasonable views goes out of the window the moment there is an opening to stir the pot. Why would a non-subject be brought to the fore, if you too know what is the weight of such a factor in the grand scheme of things. Instead, you chose to focus on it. Ah, reasons!

In short: you like to pretend to be a beacon of reasonable opinions, yet in one post you:

1) ignored the reasonable view that Federer is well past it, for the result to have any meaningful impact or any meaningful conclusion to be derived from it
2) ignored the reasonable view that a single match won't skew the perception about what is what on the surface
3) ignored the reasonable view that H2H is insignificant in the grand scheme of things
4) ignored the reasonable view that one shouldn't be using the vocabulary used by some of the worst trolls on this site, and with the same context and lines of reasoning, down to discussing the opponent's opinions as "defensive playbook". From only your three posts I can make a pretty concise list of words used specifically by such in exactly the same context

For all these positions there is a pretty strong perception that they are true amongst the people that argue from somewhat neutral and reasonable position, so when you ask "which part I misrepresent with "we"" the answer is, you misrepresented the opinion on these matters of those people.

Of course, you also ignored the reasonable view that you are not speaking on behalf of the Federer fans, as I already told you probably ten times already. Even in that post here you continue to use "we" as though you are some sort of Vox populi?

The biggest giveaway of what you are doing is that you always choose to address the most stupid arguments and then go on to assign it to the Federer fans as a group. Anyone with half a brain would understand that there will always be stupid opinions in any group, but to assign those to most/entire group, is, to put it mildly, trying to aggravate the people by forcing on them opinions that they haven't won't and wouldn't like to share. The H2H plague has been around for at least a decade, so don't tell me that you don't know the nuances associated with every straw man thrown in.

:cool:
You assume these are my actual positions. I'm not obsessed with the H2H like the VB is (although I do think it's more important than you make it sound). I want Fed to make more progress in it so that they have less of a leg to stand on in arguments.

3-1 is a lot harder to argue with than 2-2.
 
You assume these are my actual positions. I'm not obsessed with the H2H like the VB is (although I do think it's more important than you make it sound). I want Fed to make more progress in it so that they have less of a leg to stand on in arguments.

3-1 is a lot harder to argue with than 2-2.
You are wrong. I never said anything about your "actual positions" as in what your opinion on the subject is. I object on your insistence to imply that those are someone else's positions (as a group, nonetheless), so your effort of a cop out is unsuccessful. BTW, it is even worse, if those are not your own positions, but you use "we". That means that not only you are trying to talk on behalf of an entire group, but you also deliberately make it look that you share that view to give more credibility to your argument when talking on behalf of those people.

The bolded assumes that either:

1) they have a leg to stand on in the first place, which is again agreeing with them, and ignoring all I talked about in my previous post (and also contradicting your statement that that is not your own view on that matter) or

2) you deliberately are going against the most stupid arguments in an effort to disprove them

The second, while possible and being your own decision, doesn't give you the right to assign them to an entire fanbase.

BTW, if you are "not obsessed" with the H2H, why would you bring it up as a sole point of your post and in a Federer News thread, with the same arguments the VB uses, without any preface stating that you are addressing a stupid position of certain trolls, but instead trying to make it look like it was a shared opinion and also prevalent amongst the Federer fanbase? We both know why.

Bolded red: straw men all over the place.

:cool:
 
Ultimately, interpreted misrepresentation aside, it seems @MeatTornado wants even the most unconvincing arguments (such as H2H) to be shagged beyond practical use by those that historically purport them. It would be the equivalent of taking a Flat-Earther into space. Is it necessary to combat the argument? Not really. But does it quash the argument from even being used in the first place? Well, that's a different kettle of cheese.
 
I agree with everything you said. And for those H2H nuts out there, they never bother to explain Nadal simply wasn't good enough on HC to meet Fed in countless majors at the USO and AO since 2005. When Fed showed up in those major finals (except AO 2009), Nadal wasn't good enough to be in the final. he was either "injured" or lost in earlier rounds. While Roger made 5 FO finals, thus skewing the H2H even more. He was great enough to meet Nadal in endless clay finals, Nadal was not good enough to meet Fed in major finals on HC's most of the time.

If Fed plays until he's 42, he will almost certainly lose 90%+ of the matches he will ever play again against either Nole or Rafa because of the age differential. Which happens to be another reason H2H's are meaningless.
You never bother to mention that Nadal result at 2005 AO was better than Feds in 2000 AO.....
 
If the answer to the bolded is supposed to be "yes" you will be bitterly disappointed. There is a reason why some people repeat those arguments ad nauseam, and some of it has nothing to do with the facts. This has been proven again and again, so regardless of how accurate and factological the disproval is, it will not affect the said arguments.

However, the one thing that proves that that is not what he is trying to do is the fact that the guy insists on putting everyone else under his reasoning, and, as it appears, he doesn't even believe in the said arguments.

:cool:
OK, let's just assume that in the extreme example, if Fed somehow turned the head to head around, was 6-1 on grass or something stupid etc., do you think the H2H argument would be made by fans of Nadal?
 
You know probably better than me. The only way the H2H wouldn't exist is if Federer dominates every category, and that is nigh impossible. I don't think that anyone would argue in favour say of the H2H in a comparison between say Federer and Ferrer, but that is so far removed from any reality that one has to literally be posting from a mental institution for that to occur. Context matters, and ignoring it is the best indication that a person is talking porkies. There is a reason why younger ATGs have almost exclusively winning H2Hs with older ATGs. Anyone "overseeing" that is either ignorant, or deliberately doing it. I wouldn't have a problem with either, as long as he is not trying to cram it down my throat. I can still argue with him as much as I see fit, but from a different position.

Also, consider the following: let's assume that Nadal beats Federer in the next three Wimbledons and has a dominant H2H on grass. What would that mean to you?

:cool:
I wouldn't think that much about it in a 'global' sense, but Nadal winning and Federer losing happening at the same time is just flat out unethical. That x 3 plus Fed getting denied at the late (presumably) stages three more times would suck. It would also suck that someone who returns from the moon and prioritizes topspin more than any other player can perform so strongly at a (the) grass slam... Again.

Of course absolutely agree with the bolded.

Regarding every category needing to be filled, I agree. However, the removal of a category would still cut off a single angle, at least. "Nadal leads Federer on his best surface" or something that misses the forest for the trees (as you correctly suggest) like that, simply couldn't be stated.
 
Whether it could be stated is irrelevant for the correct representation, and that is what matters. The important thing is that people arguing from a relatively neutral point of view wouldn't view either H2H as particularly meaningful without a proper context. I would like to believe that such people would go as far as to show that the proper context is not shown. What the trolls do is their own problem as long as it is shown where the problems with their reasoning lie There is only so much that can be done, and it is a mistake to stoop to their level, by trying to fight every imaginable scenario. That would mean to accept their way of thinking before fighting it.

Anyway, that is not the problem here. I don't mind the poster having delusions about H2Hs (although it looks like he says that he is just trolling). I mind him putting all/the majority of the Federer fanbase as one having those.

:cool:
Swat the wasp or have one less wasp to swat... Happy with the result either way. I get the bolded - By saying 'ah look it's the other way around now' has the potential to legitimize their initial contention. I don't think that's necessarily so though, as I'm simply looking at the shutting out of a particular frequency of noise in that instance, as opposed to actual refutation of an argument - Because, as you say, it has no merit.
 
BeatlesFan, I really think Roger is going to show how great he is.
please give me some of your optimism, I just how? even if he gets through nadal, novak though? also i'm still not seeing how he is getting through nadal, considering nadal seems to be playing well. Granted apart from nick, I don't think his opponents were all that time, maybe querrey but i missed that match so not sure how bad querrey was outside of serving. Maybe i'd feel differently if rafa was challenged a bit more
 
Its an interesting point to note that Federer's the only one of the Big 3 to have gone through each of his designated seeds. Be it Pouille, Berrettini, Nishikori and now Nadal. The other two especially Djokovic have have had it fairly easy whilst Nadal hasn't faced a seed. Not sure if this will in any way play a role in the dynamics for tomorrow. But Federer comes in firmly battle tested having had to go through Pouille and Nishikori who return well. Nadal conversely has been serving well but has faced a slew of poor returners.

And to those holding on to a glimmer of hope for tomorrow- Djokovic's QF and SF opponents before he dismantled Nadal this year in the AO final- Nishikori (though he retired in the second) and Pouille....
 
Last edited:
Top