Federer's Schedule 2019

[Moxie]

Yes because Rafa tards act like Federer was great that match. The guy played well beneath himself throughout the match and was ridiculously bad the first couple sets. Roger playing bad was a common occurrence that year. And of course there was a mental aspect after the RG beatdown. Roger barely won a big point until the 3rd set TB. The Rafa fan argument is basically Roger was amazing based on some points in a couple TB's. He certainly didn't impress first two sets or the 5th for that matter. It may have been a great match but Roger stunk. Novak lost the match today 7-5 in the 5th, does that automatically mean he played great?

You can only accept that Roger lost that match because he wasn't playing well. We "Rafatards" don't act like he played great that whole match, but you are ignoring reality to pretend that he didn't play great for a good deal of it. You hate that match, you've never watched it again, and so it lives in your memory of the worst match that Roger ever lost, and therefore, ever played. It doesn't make your memory accurate. And it doesn't mean he played crap.

 

[DarthFed]

You can only accept that Roger lost that match because he wasn't playing well. We "Rafatards" don't act like he played great that whole match, but you are ignoring reality to pretend that he didn't play great for a good deal of it. You hate that match, you've never watched it again, and so it lives in your memory of the worst match that Roger ever lost, and therefore, ever played. It doesn't make your memory accurate. And it doesn't mean he played crap.

Nah he played poorly for the most part, he just played a brilliant 3rd set TB and a great 2nd half of the 4th TB. First two sets were laughable and late in the 5th his forehand broke down. Against the weak Nadal serve he broke once all match. How brilliant is that? Meanwhile Nadal broke his much superior serve 4 times which is a lot on grass in just 30 service games.

 

[Moxie]

Nah he played poorly for the most part, he just played a brilliant 3rd set TB and a great 2nd half of the 4th TB. First two sets were laughable and late in the 5th his forehand broke down. Against the weak Nadal serve he broke once all match. How brilliant is that? Meanwhile Nadal broke his much superior serve 4 times which is a lot on grass in just 30 service games.

What do you know? You never watched it again. You will never admit that Nadal actually was just the better on the day, but I have to live with your never acknowledging it. Eternal impasse.

 

[DarthFed]

What do you know? You never watched it again. You will never admit that Nadal actually was just the better on the day, but I have to live with your never acknowledging it. Eternal impasse.

Of course Nadal was better on the day, kind of proves the point Roger was poor. Fed is the greatest grass court player ever, he didn't build that on losses at Wimbledon to an average server who at the time was allergic to the net and couldn't flatten out a forehand to save his life.

 

[Moxie]

Of course Nadal was better on the day, kind of proves the point Roger was poor. Fed is the greatest grass court player ever, he didn't build that on losses at Wimbledon to an average server who at the time was allergic to the net and couldn't flatten out a forehand to save his life.

This is the problem with your calculation: if Rafa was better on the day, Roger could only have been poor. I know it's because you have no respect for Nadal's talents, which brought him at full bore to the match on that day. But most of the world saw 2 great players go at each other, with a lot of full power on display. Since you've never re-watched that match, you only rely on your very prejudiced memory. And the grudge that you hold.

 

[DarthFed]

This is the problem with your calculation: if Rafa was better on the day, Roger could only have been poor. I know it's because you have no respect for Nadal's talents, which brought him at full bore to the match on that day. But most of the world saw 2 great players go at each other, with a lot of full power on display. Since you've never re-watched that match, you only rely on your very prejudiced memory. And the grudge that you hold.

I remember the match quite well, why would any Federer fan rewatch it? That's silly. Roger's level went from dismal to average. And that's the disconnect as Nad fans think his level went from average to incredible the last 3 sets.

People made a big deal about his serve that match when he ended up at a pretty average 65% and had an underwhelming 25 aces in a long 5 sets. People make a big deal about his forehand when it was really only lethal after his back was against the wall following 2.5 listless sets. And said forehand broke down and quickly lost him the match the last few games. They talk about how clutch Federer was, ignoring 1/13 on BP's and blowing a 4-1 lead in a must win 2nd set. Also ignoring the fact that he blinked first in set 5 after what should have been tons of momentum. Roger was clearly atrocious at net and his backhand and return that match were terrible. Give it a C- performance. The man was on a 65 match grass streak, even a piss poor match by his standards made it competitive but he still didn't win against a guy who was quite limited at the time.

 

[Moxie]

I remember the match quite well, why would any Federer fan rewatch it? That's silly. Roger's level went from dismal to average. And that's the disconnect as Nad fans think his level went from average to incredible the last 3 sets.

People made a big deal about his serve that match when he ended up at a pretty average 65% and had an underwhelming 25 aces in a long 5 sets. People make a big deal about his forehand when it was really only lethal after his back was against the wall following 2.5 listless sets. And said forehand broke down and quickly lost him the match the last few games. They talk about how clutch Federer was, ignoring 1/13 on BP's and blowing a 4-1 lead in a must win 2nd set. Also ignoring the fact that he blinked first in set 5 after what should have been tons of momentum. Roger was clearly atrocious at net and his backhand and return that match were terrible. Give it a C- performance. The man was on a 65 match grass streak, even a piss poor match by his standards made it competitive but he still didn't win against a guy who was quite limited at the time.

You don't remember a match from 11 years ago that you only watched once. You only read the stats now, and bemoan them. It was a long match, and there was a lot of subtlety in it, which completely eludes you. Roger didn't start strong, as I have always said, but there was more than "above-average" in his play, during it, even in the first two sets. There was also brilliance. That's why it was a great match. He only blinked at 7-7 in the 5th. Someone was going to. And to say that Nadal was "limited at the time" exposes your prejudice. Nadal had just turned 22 and was breaking out to his full potential. This is what you ignore, and can't face. If it were truly a C- by Roger, the rest of the world wouldn't have been awed by that match. You just hate that he lost it. I get that, and I'm sorry that it's so painful. But Federer wasn't that poor. Nadal was better on the day. End of story.

 

[DarthFed]

You don't remember a match from 11 years ago that you only watched once. You only read the stats now, and bemoan them. It was a long match, and there was a lot of subtlety in it, which completely eludes you. Roger didn't start strong, as I have always said, but there was more than "above-average" in his play, during it, even in the first two sets. There was also brilliance. That's why it was a great match. He only blinked at 7-7 in the 5th. Someone was going to. And to say that Nadal was "limited at the time" exposes your prejudice. Nadal had just turned 22 and was breaking out to his full potential. This is what you ignore, and can't face. If it were truly a C- by Roger, the rest of the world wouldn't have been awed by that match. You just hate that he lost it. I get that, and I'm sorry that it's so painful. But Federer wasn't that poor. Nadal was better on the day. End of story.

lol I remember the match, the brilliance you speak of from Federer basically just came during 2 tiebreaks. There was a ton of garbage from both players. Fed on BP's didn't even get a bunch of 2nd serves back in play, in a must win set he gives up 5 games on the trot like it was nothing. Nadal was serving 5-2 in the 4th set TB after horrific play from Roger and then he got tight. It was almost a very forgettable and easy 4 set match. Roger was so bad it was almost straight sets if Nadal converts any of the BP's after Fed blew more chances early in the 3rd set.

People were in awe of it (Rafa fans, Sampras fans and any others that hate Roger) mostly due to it being extremely close at the end and having a lot at stake. Fed did little right, just did enough to hang around which isn't hard to do on a grass court against Nadal in any form.

Any match that Nadal gets broken one time in 30 service games...how atrocious is the opponent's return and/or baseline play?

 

[Moxie]

Your analysis of a match that you only remember from stats is spurious, at best, since you look at all matches through Fed goggles. The fact that the rest of the world remembers it amazing has nothing on your memory of it, I guess. Stats don't tell the whole story. You are on the losing side of history on this one. But you can't rewrite it as terrible from Roger.

 

[DarthFed]

Your analysis of a match that you only remember from stats is spurious, at best, since you look at all matches through Fed goggles. The fact that the rest of the world remembers it amazing has nothing on your memory of it, I guess. Stats don't tell the whole story. You are on the losing side of history on this one. But you can't rewrite it as terrible from Roger.

The stats aren't everything but they do paint a picture of sloppy play. Of course I tell you I remember the match well and you ignore that even though most on this board realize I remember damn near any important sporting event that I watch. And you repeat the same rhetoric. The match, quality-wise didn't age well when you consider Roger closing in on age 40 often plays better than he did that day and when you consider everyone and their grandma has given to Nadal at Wimbledon over the years. Roger badly underperformed that match in just about any measurable way. Name me something of his that was actually impressive (for his standards) for the majority of that match. Again I stress, 1 break of serve against Nadal in 30 service games. He was almost sent off in an easy 3 or easy 4. Are you saying Roger played brilliantly to force a 5th set against grass court legend Nadal on a surface he won 65 straight on. Of course you are