AUSTRALIAN OPEN, Melbourne, ATP GRAND SLAM

[mrzz]

you are putting words in my mouth inyour last statement\
\where did you learn how to do that?

You actually wrote: "i think it's been one of the under-appreciated parts of his game." Maybe I have missed, but I have never seen anyone under appreciate his skill as a returner, not even as serve reader. In general, people praise this part of his game, even if mentioning more returning per se then the serve reading, but still. So my point is, what are you expecting, apart than the credit of being a great returner and at least a very good serve reader?

even in wiombledon -- rafa would beat him AT THE NET?

Do what @masterclass did and collect Nadal´s data at Wimbledon if you want to have a serious conversation about it . For now, you are sticking to one match (forgetting the others), which in the end was basically a base line match.

and then nadal shows up - and BEATS HIM!!

Let ´s see this time, IF they both make it. I am not worried one bit.


















ok, big lie. But this Nadal is more than beatable.

 

[mrzz]

If Dimitrov beats Nadal it counts as half a win for Federer, right? The Bulgarian is called baby-Fed, after all....

 

[teddytennisfan]

oh dear... the Fedal wars are starting early. Wouldn't it be funny if it's a Stan-Dimi final after all this?

HEHE...GOOD POINT !1

 

[Moxie]

If Dimitrov beats Nadal it counts as half a win for Federer, right? The Bulgarian is called baby-Fed, after all....

And vice-versa. Watch out...the lefty buzz saw is coming after all those one-handers.

 

[Carol]

My goodness, I will see later the replay at home but now watching the highlights Raonic also has moved all over the place pretty well, maybe more than he can

 

[Cosmo]

I have zero, zip, nada interest in a Fedal final.
So that means that Nadal has to go out in the semis.

 

[Moxie]

I have zero, zip, nada interest in a Fedal final.
So that means that Nadal has to go out in the semis.

No faith in ol' Wodge from his fans? Because a good deal of the tennis world will be hoping for exactly that final. I wonder, if the order of the SFs were reversed, and Rafa had already won, who would the Fed fans rather: Roger or Stan? Roger's playing very well, and he's not going to get many (any?) more chances like this, with the top seeds out.

 

[Carol]

Watching the match doubles between Bryan brothers and Carrero-Garcia Lopez. The match was stopped by the rain and now they start to play again, 7-6 -1-1 vamos!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tennis Fan]

The sample makes plenty of sense because, as others have tried to explain, part of the reason Roger goes to net a ton more than Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray, is that he is more comfortable up there and has better volleys than all of them. I don't know career %'s at net for all these players but if Roger's is higher than them that'd be insane since the others go up there to just finish off easy points.

No, the sample doesn't make sense in regards to the actual points that were being made. It might answer some questions, but it doesn't address the original points, and no matter how many people say it, it still isn't true. My original comment was about volleying. It had nothing to do with how many times they went to net, serve and volley, major totals in service. I think you guys got off track in thinking that people were comparing who was the "best" volleyer, and that was never the case. Because of that people started inserting all of this other nonsense into the debate. Now, you're changing the argument again. We were never talking about who goes to the net more. Ever. That's just BS people are putting in there to change the narrative, again.

Zimmerman explained it well, but you all aren't saying anything to him because he's a Fed Fan. End of story.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Then how do you explain that having so

Yes, then I don't understand why having so good volley he hasn't used so much against Nadal and having so good serve and Rafa waiting far back of the baseline why he haven't used more the S&V

That would make sense if it was as good as people are trying to tell us it is, only a fool wouldn't utilize it. Only thing wrong with that argument is that we have eyes too and watch tennis just as much as they do. We have a right to our own opinion. Period.

 

[Tennis Fan]

I think this point that Federer faces more difficult volleys is a tad overstated. Yes, Fed attacks more, but he also only goes in when he can. He just plays way more aggressive from the back in order to get to the net quickly, hence his proness to shank. He takes risks in order to get at the net, he doesn't take that much risk at the net.

This was the original issue. It had nothing to do with how many times Federer goes to the net, in majors, or in matches. I don't understand why people always have to have this Federer vs. the world debate. Thanks for sticking to the real issue.

 

[Carol]

Bryan Brothers win 7-6 6-3

 

[Tennis Fan]

Well, sone people forget things very easy, and the negativity always is there, sigh!
Rafa has played brilliant, his backhand going straight to Raonic feet made to this one suffering a back lower pain. I'm very happy the way he is playing, getting his lost confidence back but he clearly has not forgot to play, vamos!!!!!!!

^100!

 

[Tennis Fan]

well -== i joined the argument because of the claims..

that are belied by the RESULTS.

now i just borke down the specific wordings of those claims -- words -- as we realize are VERY powerful..they can be made to mean many things -- as often as not -- even NOT what they are supposed to say..

and the case of roger -- is a classic example.

so -- you then ''bother to respond"

and what do we have?

you then cite the record of success -- THIS IN ITSELF is not being argued against..

HE DID WIN 17 majors, the highest numbers of wins of this and that -- FACTS. RECORDS. no one is pretending they are not what they ARE.

but then keep returning the ''qualitative" descriptions:

roger is the ''most complete ever"
question -- HOW SO? in the actual GAME itself? in the SHOT MAKING ?
IF SO -- break it down one by one -

serve? - and against whom returning? or compared to WHOSE?
FOREHAND -- how so ? better than whose? if so does THIS make roger "the most complete ever?"
backhand -- how so? did he actually win more backhand to backhand against another ''best backhander?" does THIS make him the most complete EVER?

and we can keep going down the list of qualifications...

but at the end of the day -- call the game ''most beautiful, most complete ever, the best ever, the greatest ever..the most super duper whatever ever".

NADAL OWNS him in their career. even NOVAK who matured much later than roger and at times was even vilified for daring to state ''i also want to be number one -- i also want to show i also have some quality" began novak's/ now VERY good record against the ''best, most complete, greatest ever".

so -- how can MERELY SAYING that because people LOVE the way roger plays and being successful at it MORE than anyone in history --

is the SAME as ''best, most complete, greatest ever" superlatives -- when his RECORD against some of his own rivals -- EACH OF WHOM had to grow into the game DURING ROGER'S dominance years but started beating him soon --

is NOT SUBSTANTIATING these words that people like to describe him

"best, most complete, greatest EVER?"

this is like arguing that the ONLY way to say a mountain is the tallest peak on earth -- is MOUNT EVEREST (IT IS) -- IS because we CAN see it and admire it with our own naked eyes if we went to see it ourselves. fine.

EXCEPT that - now we learn the TRUE tallest peak is UNDER the ocean in the pacific. (whatever the name of that is-- but to FISH that's even taller) .

so -- it is also a matter of how one defines those things.

but in the case of using them for roger -- there are TOO MANY QUALIFYING FACTORS that speak against those words and superlatives.

and it's not good enough to just respond with ''we said so== take it or leave it"

because there are those factors that speak against it. if there were NO such factors -- OF COURSE no one would say anything ''against' it - .

This to me is the biggest problem.

 

[Moxie]

YOu're right. SF should be on the same day, even if one is at day and the other at night.

And I'm just noticing...both women's SFs are being played today. So what's up with not playing the men's SFs on the same day?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Part timer? He didn't miss any time in 2015 and just a couple months of 2016.

Meh, you know what I mean. In 2015, he had return from missing a significant chunk of the 2014 and was garbage all year as a result. And last year, well, it's more or less the same.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Overall since 2011 since Nole came into his own and went from good to great player it's been 19-7. And if Nadal had worse years at 29-30 than Roger had as a geriatric at 33-34 how is that a point in his favor?

Who said Nadal's relative lack of longevity vis-a-vis Roger is a point in his favor? But it just means that those 7 Novak victories came over at a time where Nadal looked flat out washed up (no exaggeration).

I mean, in your post above you qualify your argument with "since Novak came into his own." Well, by the same token, why are you disregarding the matches that happened prior to "Novak coming into his own"? How is Novak's inability to peak as early as Nadal did a point in his favor? (and it's really weird that winning a major in 2008 doesn't qualify as coming into his own, or do we only count matches when someone is at his absolute peak?)

Fact is, the overall head to head record is very close.

 

[Moxie]

Who said Nadal's relative lack of longevity vis-a-vis Roger is a point in his favor? But it just means that those 7 Novak victories came over at a time where Nadal looked flat out washed up (no exaggeration).

I mean, in your post above you qualify your argument with "since Novak came into his own." Well, by the same token, why are you disregarding the matches that happened prior to "Novak coming into his own"? How is Novak's inability to peak as early as Nadal did a point in his favor? (and it's really weird that winning a major in 2008 doesn't qualify as coming into his own, or do we only count matches when someone is at his absolute peak?)

Fact is, the overall head to head record is very close.

For all of the Novak beating Rafa at a trot, it's worth remembering that he only got ahead in that H2H just a few months before Novak got ahead of Roger. It took both of them being past prime for Novak to pass them. And yes, Novak won a Major in '08, so why did it take 3 more years to win another? Probably strong Rafa and Roger had something to do with it. Those years ('06-'10) do count. Especially if the ones when Roger and Rafa are more in decline can be held against them, regards Djoker.

 

[britbox]

No faith in ol' Wodge from his fans? Because a good deal of the tennis world will be hoping for exactly that final. I wonder, if the order of the SFs were reversed, and Rafa had already won, who would the Fed fans rather: Roger or Stan? Roger's playing very well, and he's not going to get many (any?) more chances like this, with the top seeds out.

Roger all the way.

 

[Moxie]

Roger all the way.

Good man.