mrzz said:^Hey, I am SUPPORTING your claim, remember? I just explained my train of tought... but I can refrain from supporting you, Murat wouldn't mind.
Moxie629 said:DarthFed said: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.
DarthFed said:Moxie629 said:DarthFed said: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.
Let's see, Coria won no MS events on clay in 2005 and lost in the 4th round of RG. You don't get credit for near misses vs. Rafa or anyone else.
And yes, even in 2005 everyone knew that semi at RG was the real final much like the 2013 semi with Rafa-Djokovic. Rafa had already gone on a crazy tear on clay and Roger had 2 losses on the season at the time of that match (and if we are giving credit for near misses we might mention that he had match point in both of those matches). It's kind of a stretch to think Puerta or Davydenko would've had even a puncher's chance vs. him. And FWIW had they met at 2005 RG I think it's pretty clear Roger would've been favored over Coria too.
Moxie629 said:^ For the guy not giving credit for near misses, you're the one that brought up the RG SF, for which you are giving Roger credit, but no credit to Coria for much closer finals in two events. I still think your POV is too retrospective, but it's not completely wrong, I just don't think it's that clear, either.
Moxie629 said:^ For the guy not giving credit for near misses, you're the one that brought up the RG SF, for which you are giving Roger credit, but no credit to Coria for much closer finals in two events. I still think your POV is too retrospective, but it's not completely wrong, I just don't think it's that clear, either.
Carol35 said:Today 11 years ego a very young player named Rafael Nadal beat at that time the #1 named Roger Federer in Miami on HC 6-3 6-3 in just 69 minutes :clap :angel: :eyepopCode:
1972Murat said:Carol35 said:Today 11 years ego a very young player named Rafael Nadal beat at that time the #1 named Roger Federer in Miami on HC 6-3 6-3 in just 69 minutes :clap :angel: :eyepopCode:
Yeah but Roger was sick, he had food poisoning, back pain, mono, stereo, etc...and he played with his left hand that day because right one was hurting...:snicker
Carol35 said:1972Murat said:Carol35 said:Today 11 years ego a very young player named Rafael Nadal beat at that time the #1 named Roger Federer in Miami on HC 6-3 6-3 in just 69 minutes :clap :angel: :eyepopCode:
Yeah but Roger was sick, he had food poisoning, back pain, mono, stereo, etc...and he played with his left hand that day because right one was hurting...:snicker
:snicker:laydownlaughing:lolz:devil
DarthFed said:Moxie629 said:^ For the guy not giving credit for near misses, you're the one that brought up the RG SF, for which you are giving Roger credit, but no credit to Coria for much closer finals in two events. I still think your POV is too retrospective, but it's not completely wrong, I just don't think it's that clear, either.
How am I giving Roger credit for the RG Semifinal? He lost the match and in fairly easy fashion too. Unless you're still hung up on me calling that semi the true final. If that's the case we will agree to disagree. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Puerta wasn't going to take Roger in the final.
federberg said:Moxie629 said:^ For the guy not giving credit for near misses, you're the one that brought up the RG SF, for which you are giving Roger credit, but no credit to Coria for much closer finals in two events. I still think your POV is too retrospective, but it's not completely wrong, I just don't think it's that clear, either.
If you're referring to my comment, I'm not trying to give Federer credit. I'm merely pointing out that your statement that Coria had a better clay season in 2005 than Federer is questionable. Not sure what the point of trying to deflect from what was clearly my point. One guy wins a masters series and loses to Nadal in the RG semi. The other guy loses 2 masters series finals. I know whose results I would rather have, but then perhaps it's personal taste :blush:
And for the record I wasn't the one who felt anything was clear..
1972Murat said:Carol35 said:1972Murat said:Yeah but Roger was sick, he had food poisoning, back pain, mono, stereo, etc...and he played with his left hand that day because right one was hurting...:snicker
:snicker:laydownlaughing:lolz:devil
What, you don't believe me? Here is him playing with Rafa, left handed. Miami was clay in those days....
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoILJdC8Bxc[/video]
kskate2 said:This just goes to show how many Fedal fans there are: only 4 days old and already 5 pages long w/o a potential match on the horizon. :eyepop
tented said:kskate2 said:This just goes to show how many Fedal fans there are: only 4 days old and already 5 pages long w/o a potential match on the horizon. :eyepop
It also goes to show what a great idea Murat had to open this thread.
1972Murat said:Ok, now that Rafa is out of yet another hard court tournament early, the question is this: Will the red stuff give him enough confidence for the rest of the year and he will be much better once Canada/Cincy/Open time arrives, or this poor showing will affect the clay performance as well ?
What is the short term prognosis for the guy, for this year?
Moxie629 said:DarthFed said:Moxie629 said:^ For the guy not giving credit for near misses, you're the one that brought up the RG SF, for which you are giving Roger credit, but no credit to Coria for much closer finals in two events. I still think your POV is too retrospective, but it's not completely wrong, I just don't think it's that clear, either.
How am I giving Roger credit for the RG Semifinal? He lost the match and in fairly easy fashion too. Unless you're still hung up on me calling that semi the true final. If that's the case we will agree to disagree. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Puerta wasn't going to take Roger in the final.
In your list of reasons for making Roger the #2 on clay that year, you cited the RG semi, and called it the de facto final. I'm not hung up on whether that was right or wrong, as the de facto final (and I do agree with you how it would have likely gone,) I'm only saying that you were mentioning it as a point in Roger's favor, as to who should be considered the 2nd best that year. By that reasoning, I should be able to mention Coria's losses, but close misses, as well. While Rafa was only beginning to be considered the gold standard on clay that year, he has been since. Coria took 4 sets off of Rafa that year, to Roger's one. And Roger has only taken Rafa to 5 on red clay once, the following year. Coria did it twice in 2005. My point is only that Coria was still in the conversation strongly in 2005, and so it's not so clear that Roger was the #2 on clay, that year, specifically.
federberg said:Moxie629 said:^ For the guy not giving credit for near misses, you're the one that brought up the RG SF, for which you are giving Roger credit, but no credit to Coria for much closer finals in two events. I still think your POV is too retrospective, but it's not completely wrong, I just don't think it's that clear, either.
If you're referring to my comment, I'm not trying to give Federer credit. I'm merely pointing out that your statement that Coria had a better clay season in 2005 than Federer is questionable. Not sure what the point of trying to deflect from what was clearly my point. One guy wins a masters series and loses to Nadal in the RG semi. The other guy loses 2 masters series finals. I know whose results I would rather have, but then perhaps it's personal taste :blush:
And for the record I wasn't the one who felt anything was clear..
I was referring to Darth in my comment, and we posted at the same time, so sorry for the confusion. I agree that it is questionable as to who was the better clay player in 2005, Federer or Coria. At the time, Coria was considered to be. In retrospect, you might say that Roger had slightly better results, but it's a murky judgement, at best, IMO. As I pointed out to Darth, it was Coria who pressed Rafa harder, when Nadal was supplanting Coria as best on clay.
DarthFed said: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.
DarthFed said:Moxie629 said:DarthFed said:How am I giving Roger credit for the RG Semifinal? He lost the match and in fairly easy fashion too. Unless you're still hung up on me calling that semi the true final. If that's the case we will agree to disagree. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Puerta wasn't going to take Roger in the final.
In your list of reasons for making Roger the #2 on clay that year, you cited the RG semi, and called it the de facto final. I'm not hung up on whether that was right or wrong, as the de facto final (and I do agree with you how it would have likely gone,) I'm only saying that you were mentioning it as a point in Roger's favor, as to who should be considered the 2nd best that year. By that reasoning, I should be able to mention Coria's losses, but close misses, as well. While Rafa was only beginning to be considered the gold standard on clay that year, he has been since. Coria took 4 sets off of Rafa that year, to Roger's one. And Roger has only taken Rafa to 5 on red clay once, the following year. Coria did it twice in 2005. My point is only that Coria was still in the conversation strongly in 2005, and so it's not so clear that Roger was the #2 on clay, that year, specifically.
federberg said:If you're referring to my comment, I'm not trying to give Federer credit. I'm merely pointing out that your statement that Coria had a better clay season in 2005 than Federer is questionable. Not sure what the point of trying to deflect from what was clearly my point. One guy wins a masters series and loses to Nadal in the RG semi. The other guy loses 2 masters series finals. I know whose results I would rather have, but then perhaps it's personal taste :blush:
And for the record I wasn't the one who felt anything was clear..
I was referring to Darth in my comment, and we posted at the same time, so sorry for the confusion. I agree that it is questionable as to who was the better clay player in 2005, Federer or Coria. At the time, Coria was considered to be. In retrospect, you might say that Roger had slightly better results, but it's a murky judgement, at best, IMO. As I pointed out to Darth, it was Coria who pressed Rafa harder, when Nadal was supplanting Coria as best on clay.
Moxie, it really sounds like your basing clay prowess solely off of how competitive someone is vs. Nadal. Needless to say it doesn't work like that. Overall results, general consistency and a player's ceiling should rank higher than that and by 2005 Roger was 2nd to Nadal in those areas. Not mentioned before is that you could claim Soderling was 2nd best in 2010 on the surface because Nadal mopped up everything and Sod made the finals of RG again.