Federer's Schedule 2018

[Jelenafan]

Of course Djokovic could go on a late career burst and get 21 Majors by age 35....

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

I have also commented in the past that Roger seems to have more choking big losses than, say, Rafa; but this may have more to do with Rafa's nerves of steel than any lack on Roger's part.

Coupled with higher-margin game

 

[Front242]

I have also commented in the past that Roger seems to have more choking big losses than, say, Rafa; but this may have more to do with Rafa's nerves of steel than any lack on Roger's part.
.

The reason for this is less about nerves of steel and imo has much more to do with way higher net clearance by Nadal with that loopy forehand and a hell of a lot more Godawful pushing, especially short balls straight down the middle of the court. Hard to hit balls wide when they're going WTA pace straight down the middle.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The point is the other players stood up and TOOK the match. Many players are given opportunities and mentally choke but they didn’t; they stayed tough. They WON and Federer lost.

.

That is a tautology. That can be said of every match. One can always say, the winner won because he deserves it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think the reason this narrative is popular among some Federer fans is as a kind of pre-emptive rationalization in case Rafa passes him in Slam count. Fast-forward to 2020 and Rafa has won four Slams to Roger's zero, so the final count is 21 to 20. I can hear the refrains already: "If Roger hadn't choked in X, Y, and Z, then he'd have 25 Slams easy."

.

What kind of logic are you using? If people say that (Roger would have won 25 if he has not choked), it does not strengthen his case. It only weakens it. So, it is not a pre-emptive rationalization.

Fed's 20 GS and no Chokes would be more valuable (and would paint him in a better picture) than Fed's 20 with 5 Chokes.

 

[Moxie]

That is a tautology. That can be said of every match. One can always say, the winner won because he deserves it.

Frankly, it should get said more often by Federer fans. Because it's pretty rare that someone wins and it can be said that s/he didn't deserve it at all, though it does happen. Roger is an intimidating and valiant opponent, so some credit should be given to those players that hold their nerve and take their chances when Roger offers opportunity. I think what El Dude and Jelenafan (and myself) are getting at is that it's a bit too much to insist that every match is on Roger's racquet and that he rarely loses but that he "choked." 9 years without a title there isn't all just choking.

 

[Moxie]

Darth, I have conceded that Roger underachieved a bit and at some USOs, but I think you exagerrate to fit your narrative. I'm just trying to bring balance to the Force .

I have also commented in the past that Roger seems to have more choking big losses than, say, Rafa; but this may have more to do with Rafa's nerves of steel than any lack on Roger's part. In the end, Roger has won more majors than any player in Open Era history--including five USO titles--so it is hard to call him an "underachiever," even if you want to build up the view that he "should have" won 25 Slams by now.

I think the reason this narrative is popular among some Federer fans is as a kind of pre-emptive rationalization in case Rafa passes him in Slam count. Fast-forward to 2020 and Rafa has won four Slams to Roger's zero, so the final count is 21 to 20. I can hear the refrains already: "If Roger hadn't choked in X, Y, and Z, then he'd have 25 Slams easy."

You might have to accept the possibility that to all but the most zealous superfans in both camps, Roger and Rafa will go down in the history books as co-GOATs.

I do appreciate your trying to be even-handed on this point, @El Dude. It may be at least somewhat semantic, but I agree that it's over-determined and even unseemly to call Roger an "underachiever." I'm not sure how much of the recent agitation over lack of results at the USO is pre-emptive, but there has been a lot of panic and crankiness amongst the hardcore Feddies, with Roger and Rafa both "back" and winning Majors, and trading #1, particularly with Roger being on the unhappy side of the age gap. You took a risk with the "co-GOAT" comment. I catch hell for that idea all the time, but I do think they will be, within their own era, at the very least.

 

[Moxie]

The reason for this is less about nerves of steel and imo has much more to do with way higher net clearance by Nadal with that loopy forehand and a hell of a lot more Godawful pushing, especially short balls straight down the middle of the court. Hard to hit balls wide when they're going WTA pace straight down the middle.

Forever characterizing it in your own way. How many insults can you pack into one short paragraph? Spin gives Nadal margin. It also makes the ball heavy and hard to handle, especially as he hits the ball very hard. There's nothing unfair about taking the angles away from players that hit flatter and with less margin. It's a calculation, and Nadal isn't the only one to do it. Perhaps the notion of strategy has escaped you, but Nadal is a great strategist and problem solver on the court. And, yes, he has nerves of steel, for the most part. Great concentration, focus, and ability to stay in each point/game/set. It's won him a lot of matches. Tsitsipas said this about Rafa after their final last week: "The patience that Rafa has is amazing. He never cracks. He will always grab you like a bulldog and always will have you — he will always make you suffer on the court." Any number of players have said that the greatest competitor and their least favorite player to play is Nadal. You will not like that, but there it is. And it's not because he hits a loopy, WTA ball short into the court.

 

[Jelenafan]

That is a tautology. That can be said of every match. One can always say, the winner won because he deserves it.

I just think at the level of tennis where you win Majors, fans naturally think that if their player is at their best, they’ll win. In the case of double digit Majors champs like Nadal, Novak and Federer who in addition have 20+ match victories over each other it’s even more understandable.

It’s harder to rationalize this if you have the player who more infrequently rises to the occasion who upsets the player with the much higher resume. Then the top player “ choked” a match they coulda/shoulda won, etc.

That’s what I love about Wawrinka, an older player who found his peak in what would have previously been his twilight years and bested all those top players ahead of him....

Getting back to top players choking/ giving away the match; sure Probably the top player wasn’t at his peak but it’s irrelevant , it’s how they played that particular match with the expectations/pressure weighing on him. Different strokes , but to me it’s somehow artificially elevating or lowering a player not on actual results but on expectations. The fact that some Fed fans think he’s underachieved by “only” winning 5 USO and none in the last 9 years to me simply underscores how friggin hard it is to win even one of these suckers...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I do appreciate your trying to be even-handed on this point, @El Dude. It may be at least somewhat semantic, but I agree that it's over-determined and even unseemly to call Roger an "underachiever." I'm not sure how much of the recent agitation over lack of results at the USO is pre-emptive, but there has been a lot of panic and crankiness amongst the hardcore Feddies, with Roger and Rafa both "back" and winning Majors, and trading #1, particularly with Roger being on the unhappy side of the age gap. You took a risk with the "co-GOAT" comment. I catch hell for that idea all the time, but I do think they will be, within their own era, at the very least.

There can only be one GOAT, even if it is not Federer.

If there are two goats, it means neither is the goat.

"Greatest" by definition means uniqueness.

I of course admit the possibility of there being no GOAT as well. But if a GOAT exists, it is unique.

 

[Moxie]

There can only be one GOAT, even if it is not Federer.

If there are two goats, it means neither is the goat.

"Greatest" by definition means uniqueness.

I of course admit the possibility of there being no GOAT as well. But if a GOAT exists, it is unique.

But that's the whole problem with your wanting there to be a GOAT. Too many variables. And the desperate need for there to be one. If you take out the acronym, I think you can agree that the greatest rivalry of this era is Fedal, for example. Then you can say they have been the greatest players of this era. They can, actually, both be the greatest, looking at the fine points. You're just looking for something more simplistic and unattainable.

 

[El Dude]

There can only be one GOAT, even if it is not Federer.

If there are two goats, it means neither is the goat.

"Greatest" by definition means uniqueness.

I of course admit the possibility of there being no GOAT as well. But if a GOAT exists, it is unique.

In principle, yes. But the problem is there is no agreed upon objective measure. And there is already a debate about the GOAT: Federer is obviously the popular choice, but some consider Laver to still be the GOAT.

If Roger and Rafa retired right now, I think you could safely give Roger the GOAT crown over Rafa. But my main point is that if the current trajectory holds and Rafa narrows the gap in terms of career accomplishments, the GOAT question will be debatable.

 

[El Dude]

What kind of logic are you using? If people say that (Roger would have won 25 if he has not choked), it does not strengthen his case. It only weakens it. So, it is not a pre-emptive rationalization.

Fed's 20 GS and no Chokes would be more valuable (and would paint him in a better picture) than Fed's 20 with 5 Chokes.

It is like a less extreme version of Cali's Nalbandian "hypothesis" - that he was actually the greatest tennis player of all time, in the brief moments that he played to his full potential. That way Cali could feel that his guy was the "best."

Not sure I agree about the second part there. It is like the view that I've heard that Agassi's 8-7 in Slam finals is better than Lendl's 8-11. That penalizes Lendl for reaching more Slam finals just because he lost a greater percentage. Or we could look at Kuerten's 3-0 vs. Murray's 3-8. I'd say Murray's 3-8 is far more impressive, especially considering the competition. He reached 11 Slam finals - the same as Stefan Edberg and one more than Boris Becker.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It is like a less extreme version of Cali's Nalbandian "hypothesis" - that he was actually the greatest tennis player of all time, in the brief moments that he played to his full potential. That way Cali could feel that his guy was the "best."

Not sure I agree about the second part there. It is like the view that I've heard that Agassi's 8-7 in Slam finals is better than Lendl's 8-11. That penalizes Lendl for reaching more Slam finals just because he lost a greater percentage. Or we could look at Kuerten's 3-0 vs. Murray's 3-8. I'd say Murray's 3-8 is far more impressive, especially considering the competition. He reached 11 Slam finals - the same as Stefan Edberg and one more than Boris Becker.

Wrong analogies. I am not talking about penalizing a player for losing in finals. Did I say anything about it. I was only talking about the manner of losing (independent of in what round it happens).

If Fed had 20 GS and no losses in GS due to his choking that is definitely better than he having 20 GS and choking in say 5 GSs.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

But that's the whole problem with your wanting there to be a GOAT. Too many variables. And the desperate need for there to be one. If you take out the acronym, I think you can agree that the greatest rivalry of this era is Fedal, for example. Then you can say they have been the greatest players of this era. They can, actually, both be the greatest, looking at the fine points. You're just looking for something more simplistic and unattainable.

Greatest rivalry has nothing to do with determining GOAT.

It is conceivable that two lowly players x and y might be involved in interesting rivalry matches. That does not mean they are the two greatest players. Your logic is completely inverted.

 

[Moxie]

Wrong analogies. I am not talking about penalizing a player for losing in finals. Did I say anything about it. I was only talking about the manner of losing (independent of in what round it happens).

If Fed had 20 GS and no losses in GS due to his choking that is definitely better than he having 20 GS and choking in say 5 GSs.

But you're getting into the weeds here, and you're still insisting that he's lost by "choking" in important moments, rather than just being out-played. In any case, this is equivalent to Darth's contention that Roger's then 7-3 in finals at Wimbledon was worse than Pete's 7-0 at Wimbledon finals, when that was applicable. Is it worse to have made a final and not have won it, then to have won all the finals you made? But we are talking about tournaments where Roger lost before the final. Well, he's had a longer career than Pete, and many others. He's going to have more losses. Still in all, you can't say he lost every important match that he did lose by "choking." So that point is off the mark. He will be judged by what he won, for the most part, not by what he lost. Except to his key rivals.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

But you're getting into the weeds here, and you're still insisting that he's lost by "choking" in important moments, rather than just being out-played. In any case, this is equivalent to Darth's contention that Roger's then 7-3 in finals at Wimbledon was worse than Pete's 7-0 at Wimbledon finals, when that was applicable. Is it worse to have made a final and not have won it, then to have won all the finals you made? But we are talking about tournaments where Roger lost before the final. Well, he's had a longer career than Pete, and many others. He's going to have more losses. Still in all, you can't say he lost every important match that he did lose by "choking." So that point is off the mark. He will be judged by what he won, for the most part, not by what he lost. Except to his key rivals.

Leaving aside whether Fed choked or not, what I am claiming is that 20 wins with no chokes is better than 20 wins with 5 chokes. Hence, no Fed fan would want to artificially call a non-choke loss as a choke loss as "preemptive rationalization" as Dude was alleging.

p.s. It has nothing to do with penalizing a player for reaching finals. It is unbelievable that on so many different issues, I have so much difficulty in making you understand my point, let alone making you agree to it.

 

[Moxie]

Greatest rivalry has nothing to do with determining GOAT.

It is conceivable that two lowly players x and y might be involved in interesting rivalry matches. That does not mean they are the two greatest players. Your logic is completely inverted.

Two lowly players don't have the history and mystique of Fedal, and you know it. ("Inverted logic?" GFYS.) I hate to break it to you, but the tennis world has long been obsessed with the Fedal rivalry, and it will out-live their active careers. I'm sure that you and your fannish ilk didn't bother with the documentary that TC put out in honor of the 10th anniversary of the match they played in the Wimbledon final 2008, widely considered to be the greatest match of all time. But you have to realize that no producer pours money into a documentary if they don't think there is interest and worth. A great rivalry has it's own life and and it does have something to do with how we determine a GOAT, if there is such a mythological creature.

 

[Moxie]

Leaving aside whether Fed choked or not, what I am claiming is that 20 wins with no chokes is better than 20 wins with 5 chokes. Hence, no Fed fan would want to artificially call a non-choke loss as a choke loss as "preemptive rationalization" as Dude was alleging.

p.s. It has nothing to do with penalizing a player for reaching finals. It is unbelievable that on so many different issues, I have so much difficulty in making you understand my point, let alone making you agree to it.

OK, perhaps I'm not understanding your point. You're trying to say that where Federer has "choked," it counts heavily against him, so why would Fed fans say he choked, is that correct?

 

[Jelenafan]

Fed's 20 GS and no Chokes would be more valuable (and would paint him in a better picture) than Fed's 20 with 5 Chokes.

Funny if there were two players with similar records and yet their Major record was 20-0 versus 20-5, I would take the player who had actually reached more finals.

It's kind of like SF Niner (American football ) fans who argued that Joe Montana was the better QB because he was 4-0 in Super Bowls versus Tom Brady who at that time was 4-2. The counterargument was that Brady played well enough to well 2 more conference championships. Ditto making five more finals is impressive.overall ie winning 5 more Major SF's but again I agree it's subjective.