The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[mrzz]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Look, mods! Fedal discussions on the Fedal thread!!! You guys must be in tears!

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Look, mods! Fedal discussions on the Fedal thread!!! You guys must be in tears!

The porterhouse is still up for grabs though...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Speaking of how good Roger was on clay in his peak or thereabouts, we all heard the argument that Rafa's H2H against Roger is what it is , because Roger has been so good on clay he ended up meeting Rafa in countless clay finals and ended up losing to him. Had Roger not been so good on clay, he would have a much better H2H against Rafa. That is the argument we all have heard.

But, those folks have no problem using the "weeks at number 1" criteria when they are arguing who is the better player. Well, had Roger not made all those clay finals and accumulated those points, he would not have been able to stay at number 1 for all those weeks, no? Cannot have it both ways...

Bite of a steak at least???:snicker

 

[tented]

^ Hmm ... maybe tofurky.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^ Hmm ... maybe tofurky.

I think I just threw up a tad in my mouth...:gross:

 

[DarthFed]

Roger was probably the 2nd best clay player by 2005. The semi at RG that year was the defacto final and Roger won Hamburg. I'd say 2005-2011 Roger was for the most part the 2nd best on clay.

 

[Federberg]

Speaking of how good Roger was on clay in his peak or thereabouts, we all heard the argument that Rafa's H2H against Roger is what it is , because Roger has been so good on clay he ended up meeting Rafa in countless clay finals and ended up losing to him. Had Roger not been so good on clay, he would have a much better H2H against Rafa. That is the argument we all have heard.

But, those folks have no problem using the "weeks at number 1" criteria when they are arguing who is the better player. Well, had Roger not made all those clay finals and accumulated those points, he would not have been able to stay at number 1 for all those weeks, no? Cannot have it both ways...

Bite of a steak at least???:snicker

I think I've probably the main proponent of that argument on these boards I can see your point, but I don't see why it diminishes Federer at all. My argument has always been in relation to the fallacy of the importance of h2h's. It certainly isn't meant to diminish Rafa in anyway. I may not like the guy, but I believe I have been consistent in acknowledging his greatness. My only point is that it's daft to use the h2h as a weapon against Federer. Perhaps I'm missing your point?

For those who don't recall, this is exactly what I said on the matter...

I think the reason why Fed apologists - of which I'm not one - bring up the clay issue, is because it points to the major contradiction in the H2H. Because of Rogers success on all surfaces, he was able to contend with Rafa on all surfaces. But because Rafa was not as good a player in the earlier years, he was unable to meet Roger in his domain on a regular basis.

I do have some sympathy with the argument. How can it be, that if Federer had been a less complete player, the H2H would not have become so skewed against him. How can it be that his very success penalises him. It's a conundrum, perhaps even the fatal flaw against the primacy of H2H in determining a champions place in history.

Consider it... if Mac had been a better clay courter his record would be less good against Borg. If Sampras had been a better clay courter, would his record be as dominant against Agassi? In a very real way, Rogers inferior H2H record against Rafa actually augments his claim to GOAThood, btw it augments Rafa's claims too. Federer is unique in history in this regard. The idea that the H2H diminishes him when you look at it in this light is a factual incosistency in my humble opinion...

 

[Moxie]

^Oh, I see now, my remark could be read in a different way than I originally intended.

I was not implying (please believe me) anything about your general objectivity. I was acknowledging the fact that you addressed directly a very tricky and sensitive subject for a Nadal fan, I would guess.

And repeat with me: Kuerten, Kuerten, Kuerten.

Oh, and not to forget: Rosol, Rosol, Rosol.

P.S. In your original possible steak winning post, it all goes down to what you meant with your sentence which ends in "helped Nadal". If you are only saying that the absence of the previous best clay courters helped him win tittles on clay, that's just logical (and you forgot Ferrero's injuries). If you wanted to consider the Fedal implications of this, however, then I could support your steak claims.

For at least 15% of the steak, obviously.

There...see? I deserve the steak. Because of course I meant (and said) that my point was in reference to the Fedal conversation, which is the point of the thread, anyway. I will give you 10% of my steak for brokering my claim, a standard agent's fee. :hug

PS: Whatever your point about Rosol is, however, I don't get, as I'm talking about the clay. :dodgy: :angel:

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Speaking of how good Roger was on clay in his peak or thereabouts, we all heard the argument that Rafa's H2H against Roger is what it is , because Roger has been so good on clay he ended up meeting Rafa in countless clay finals and ended up losing to him. Had Roger not been so good on clay, he would have a much better H2H against Rafa. That is the argument we all have heard.

But, those folks have no problem using the "weeks at number 1" criteria when they are arguing who is the better player. Well, had Roger not made all those clay finals and accumulated those points, he would not have been able to stay at number 1 for all those weeks, no? Cannot have it both ways...

Bite of a steak at least???:snicker

I think I've probably the main proponent of that argument on these boards I can see your point, but I don't see why it diminishes Federer at all. My argument has always been in relation to the fallacy of the importance of h2h's. It certainly isn't meant to diminish Rafa in anyway. I may not like the guy, but I believe I have been consistent in acknowledging his greatness. My only point is that it's daft to use the h2h as a weapon against Federer. Perhaps I'm missing your point?

I agree with you myself, for the most part. I do not pay too much attention to H2H because tennis is played against a field. Last man standing wins. Roger has done that better than anyone. And I am glad Roger was as spectacular as he was on clay, despite the fact that meant he had to meet Rafa in a lot of finals and lose to him. That got him points and kept him the overall best player for years. Rafa could not do that on hards when Roger was peaking and I cannot worry about that. Match-ups are what they are.

 

[Moxie]

Roger was probably the 2nd best clay player by 2005. The semi at RG that year was the defacto final and Roger won Hamburg. I'd say 2005-2011 Roger was for the most part the 2nd best on clay.

At the risk of splitting hairs, I don't quite agree with this. It's a bit of a retrospective POV. Coria played the two best clay matches of 2005, MC and Rome, both of which he lost to Nadal, and he was generally perceived as the best clay-courter at that time. Re-watch either of those matches and you'll see how brilliantly Coria played on clay. Roger's game is so multi-faceted and adaptable that he fitted it to clay, too. But he really wasn't a better clay player than Coria in 2005.

Also, there was no concept that the RG semi of Fed v Nadal was the "de facto final" when it happened. Roger only played 3 clay tournaments that year, and won Hamburg. Of course, he was already considered a formidable player, in general. I really do think he became the 2nd-best on clay in 2006. Otherwise, I agree that he was until 2011.

 

[Federberg]

Roger was probably the 2nd best clay player by 2005. The semi at RG that year was the defacto final and Roger won Hamburg. I'd say 2005-2011 Roger was for the most part the 2nd best on clay.

At the risk of splitting hairs, I don't quite agree with this. It's a bit of a retrospective POV. Coria played the two best clay matches of 2005, MC and Rome, both of which he lost to Nadal, and he was generally perceived as the best clay-courter at that time. Re-watch either of those matches and you'll see how brilliantly Coria played on clay. Roger's game is so multi-faceted and adaptable that he fitted it to clay, too. But he really wasn't a better clay player than Coria in 2005.

Also, there was no concept that the RG semi of Fed v Nadal was the "de facto final" when it happened. Roger only played 3 clay tournaments that year, and won Hamburg. Of course, he was already considered a formidable player, in general. I really do think he became the 2nd-best on clay in 2006. Otherwise, I agree that he was until 2011.

And yet of the 3 time Roger played Coria he was unbeaten. Two of those on clay. Go figure

 

[Moxie]

Roger was probably the 2nd best clay player by 2005. The semi at RG that year was the defacto final and Roger won Hamburg. I'd say 2005-2011 Roger was for the most part the 2nd best on clay.

At the risk of splitting hairs, I don't quite agree with this. It's a bit of a retrospective POV. Coria played the two best clay matches of 2005, MC and Rome, both of which he lost to Nadal, and he was generally perceived as the best clay-courter at that time. Re-watch either of those matches and you'll see how brilliantly Coria played on clay. Roger's game is so multi-faceted and adaptable that he fitted it to clay, too. But he really wasn't a better clay player than Coria in 2005.

Also, there was no concept that the RG semi of Fed v Nadal was the "de facto final" when it happened. Roger only played 3 clay tournaments that year, and won Hamburg. Of course, he was already considered a formidable player, in general. I really do think he became the 2nd-best on clay in 2006. Otherwise, I agree that he was until 2011.

And yet of the 3 time Roger played Coria he was unbeaten. Two of those on clay. Go figure

Are you willfully missing the point? It's not the H2H with Roger. It is that Coria was considered a superior clay player in 2005. Roger was passing Coria and everyone else but Rafa on clay, but it's not clear in 2005 that he had, yet. The results don't point to a clear 2nd-best over Nadal that year.

 

[Federberg]

At the risk of splitting hairs, I don't quite agree with this. It's a bit of a retrospective POV. Coria played the two best clay matches of 2005, MC and Rome, both of which he lost to Nadal, and he was generally perceived as the best clay-courter at that time. Re-watch either of those matches and you'll see how brilliantly Coria played on clay. Roger's game is so multi-faceted and adaptable that he fitted it to clay, too. But he really wasn't a better clay player than Coria in 2005.

Also, there was no concept that the RG semi of Fed v Nadal was the "de facto final" when it happened. Roger only played 3 clay tournaments that year, and won Hamburg. Of course, he was already considered a formidable player, in general. I really do think he became the 2nd-best on clay in 2006. Otherwise, I agree that he was until 2011.

And yet of the 3 time Roger played Coria he was unbeaten. Two of those on clay. Go figure

Are you willfully missing the point? It's not the H2H with Roger. It is that Coria was considered a superior clay player in 2005. Roger was passing Coria and everyone else but Rafa on clay, but it's not clear in 2005 that he had, yet. The results don't point to a clear 2nd-best over Nadal that year.

The point is that you consider Coria to have had a superior 2005 clay season. Your opinion, not fact. Federer played MC, Hamburg and RG. Won one, got upset by Gasquet in another and lost to Rafa in the RG semi. Coria contested the Rome and MC finals. Don't believe he made the semi at RG but correct me if I'm wrong. I'll take a masters series win and slam semi over two masters series finals, but hey...maybe that's just meuzzled

 

[mrzz]

There...see? I deserve the steak. Because of course I meant (and said) that my point was in reference to the Fedal conversation, which is the point of the thread, anyway. I will give you 10% of my steak for brokering my claim, a standard agent's fee. :hug

PS: Whatever your point about Rosol is, however, I don't get, as I'm talking about the clay. :dodgy: :angel:

On on hand it is obvious that the point is Fedal, but as it is not exactly clear how this particular "help" would affect the dynamic of their rivalry, and as you simply did not address it, it leaves a bit of room for doubt. But on my second post I made the leap of faith, anyway.

You misspelled KuertEn. And Rosol is for sure the most misspelled name in this boards, so it is always good to practice.

 

[Carol]

Rosol is not even known in his own home but he is very known by the Federer's fans lol
What if we would start to talk about Stakhovsky? is it worth? I don't think so
Come on guys, this thread is getting boring!

 

[mrzz]

I mentioned Rosol ONLY because his is routinely misspelled. And who is Satchovasky?

 

[Carol]

I mentioned Rosol ONLY because his is routinely misspelled. And who is Satchovasky?

Try to read the name again.....

 

[tented]

I mentioned Rosol ONLY because his is routinely misspelled. And who is Satchovasky?

Try to read the name again.....

[He's joking.]

 

[Carol]

I mentioned Rosol ONLY because his is routinely misspelled. And who is Satchovasky?

Try to read the name again.....

[He's joking.]

Ah!

 

[Moxie]

There...see? I deserve the steak. Because of course I meant (and said) that my point was in reference to the Fedal conversation, which is the point of the thread, anyway. I will give you 10% of my steak for brokering my claim, a standard agent's fee. :hug

PS: Whatever your point about Rosol is, however, I don't get, as I'm talking about the clay. :dodgy: :angel:

On on hand it is obvious that the point is Fedal, but as it is not exactly clear how this particular "help" would affect the dynamic of their rivalry, and as you simply did not address it, it leaves a bit of room for doubt. But on my second post I made the leap of faith, anyway.

You misspelled KuertEn. And Rosol is for sure the most misspelled name in this boards, so it is always good to practice.

Oh, now you're splitting hairs. You know I've made a point that has never been made. (Though, actually, I've tried to make it before, but no one has ever bitten.) Had Rafa not become the uncontested best player on clay in 2005, and had he had stronger clay court competition in the first couple of years of his dominance, then things might look different in the Fedal argument. Not vastly different, but possibly different.

I like my steak rare and with frites.