Wimbledon 2014 final: Federer vs Djokovic

[Kieran]

At least with Darth, we know where he stands. He hates Rafa. He's stated that he can't wait until Rafa is gone from the sport. He breaks out in hives at the sight of the man. So we know where Darth is coming from, because he's honest enough to tell us. I dislike Federer because I dislike entitled prissy narcissists. He's just not my type of bloke. But I admire him to the hilt, and when I praise him for battling in matches, it's the same as when I praise others for this too. I can say good things about Federer and I'll miss him when he's gone, though I suspect that he'll be playing top five tennis beyond his forties. Leave Mirka's milk for the babies, ya blumming great lummox! :laydownlaughing

But I suspect that Darth will miss Rafa. Tennis misses him, it's bland when he's out, he has a distinctive swashbuckling, white-knuckle style, his face contorts with all the agonies, he's carries his wear and tear heavily, we can relate to him as an artisan, working his socks off out there...

Or you dislike him because he beat pretty much all of Pete's records and Rafa was the only thing that stopped him from making a total mockery out of the sport. :devil

This on the other hand, is spot on.

Ah brother, you were on a roll until this post. :cover

I've disliked Federer since long before 2009 and for all the reasons I gave. I like his play, but it's the personality I dislike...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Federerberg:

Re: The narrative that "most of Nadal's losses are due to injury." Can you please give me data to back this up? I mean, this is a bold statement. The guy loses, say, 10-12 matches per year on average (give or take), are you telling me Nadal fans claim 7 of these are due to injuries?

You know what, I'll bite, I want to look at every Nadal loss at a major since 2005:

Australian Open 2005: Lost a 5 setter to Hewitt that kind of put him on the map as the next prodigy. No excuses made.

Wimbledon 2005: Nobody says it's due to injury. Nadal lost to Gilles Muller when he was still pretty green on grass, no pun intended.

US Open 2005: Lost to Blake. Nadal was still not that great on hards and Blake was a tough match-up for him actually. Too much big hitting.

Wimbledon 2006: Lost to Federer in the final. Nadal had played less than 10 grass matches in his entire pro career at that point, and the narrative was that Rafa did admirably well to reach the final and challenge Federer. No injuries were ever brought up.

US Open 2006: Lost to Youzhny. No excuses were ever made.

Australian Open 2007: Got crushed by Fernando Gonzalez's onslaught of forehands. The narrative was that Nadal is vulnerable to big hitters. Not that he was injured.

Wimbledon 2007: Even though he did get injured during that match (and called a medical time out when he was 4-0 up in the 4th), the injury was never used as an excuse. I think the interruption killed some of his momentum but that's on him. Also, he clearly recovered well enough to get break points in two separate games on Roger's serve in the fifth. He couldn't convert. That's on him. No excuses. Again, the narrative was more along the lines of praise for both on a great match.

US Open 2007: Knee injury and it's not debatable. In fact, even non Rafa fans accept that one. Keep in mind, Nadal had retired in Cinci a few weeks earlier and he only decided to play the US Open at the last minute. He lost to Ferrer, which is probably why no one has a problem admitting that Nadal's injury played a factor since nobody can stand Ferrer for some reason (if you're keeping count, this would be the first injury excuse).

Australian Open 2008: Tsonga crushed him. Nuff said.

US Open 2008: Murray beat him. I heard rumblings among fans of Nadal maybe being a bit exhausted after playing so much and winning so much in the months leading up to that tournament (keep in mind he had won the Olympics in China shortly before the US Open and had went on a huge unbeaten run). This was never an excuse. People say someone might have been playing too much tennis and winning all the time, including now with Federer leading up to the WTF. It's just an observation.

French Open 2009: Yes. We do bring up tendinitis. We can forever debate how much it affected him, but it bears mentioning he wasn't moving great (as admitted to by Magnus Norman the following year in a link I posted to you once before) and he withdrew from Wimbledon. Regardless, that's 2 injury excuses so far.

I do wonder though: when can we accept that an injury played a part in someone losing? In other words, do injuries NEVER affect anyone? And if they do, what do we accept is proof? Because in my book, moving poorly, withdrawing out of a major if you're the defending champion, and most importantly, LOSING AT ROLAND GARROS DESPITE HAVING NEVER LOST THERE EVER, AND HAVING NEVER LOST THERE AGAIN, and missing 6 weeks afterwards due to injury, might be somewhat of a proof that maybe something was off?

US Open 2009: Yeah, people talk about the abdomen injury, which again, was getting brought up before Nadal lost to Del Potro. To be honest, I don't think Nadal was playing well enough or was confident enough to beat Del Potro regardless, but yeah, injury was brought up. That's 3.

Australian Open 2010: While Nadal did get injured and retired, he was already down two sets so nobody ever blamed the loss on the injury, not even Nadal himself.

Australian Open 2011: This one is not debatable. At 2-1 in the first set (on serve) Nadal tore his hamstring. Even non Nadal fans accepted that it was one of those $hit happens unfortunate moments. Surprisingly, everyone accepted it, presumably because it was against Ferrer, again.

Wimbledon 2011: Novak owned him at that point. No excuses.

US Open 2011: Ditto.

Australian Open 2012: Ditto.

Wimbledon 2012: Injury excuse, made by Nadal himself later on so it received quite a lot of backlash, understandably so. Proceeds to take 7 full months off. I don't know what bigger proof do you need but I digress. The cop out is "Nadal always struggled in the first week." Except, he actually always went past the first week, and always reached the final, 5 straight times too. And just because you normally "stink" (allegedly) doesn't mean you couldn't have been injured in one particular match.

Wimbledon 2013: He played like crap. No injury excuse. He was red hot right before Wimbledon, and was even hotter right after Wimbledon. So if anyone ever made an excuse, that's a huge reach because they'll have to justify what transpired after.

AO 2014: He got injured in the match. The debate of whether he would have won or lost is irrelevant because we'll never know and he was getting his butt kicked regardless. But my point is, the injury can't be debated since we all saw it and it affected his movement.

Wimbledon 2014: Got his butt kicked against a red hot opponent despite, surprisingly, not playing too badly. That's the one Wimbledon loss out of the 3 upsets (Rosol, Darcis) where I genuinely thought there wasn't much Rafa could do. He was moving fine, hitting the ball fine, but winners and aces were flying past him.

So ultimately, it's safe to say nowhere near "most of his losses" are blamed on injury, regardless of how we feel about the matches in which injury excuses ARE made.

PS: The number of injury excuses are 4.

Which if you combine Mono for Roger's losses at the AO in 2008 and Wimbledon 2008, back injury for his loss against Berdych in 2010, and back injuries last year, it would amount to the same number. Rafa fans are admittedly far more vocal about it though. You get no arguments from me there.

 

[Federberg]

For the sake of expediency I'll assume you're directing your question to me (Federerberg.. sic.. )

And obviously because of this..

"My final (and probably biggest) bug bear is the manufactured narrative in the media and also amongst his fans that most of his losses are due to injuries.. at least it feels that way to us non fans. "

Please excuse me as I haven't read the entirety of your rebuttal. I have a stack of research and charts to look at already! But you've collated specific events I'm guessing? As I said, non fans feel this to be the case. I'm not alone in this. I'm quite happy for you to disagree with the truth of the perceived narrative, but it doesn't change the feeling we non fans have following the post mortems of some of Nadal's losses. Please note.. I said most.. not all. I said feel.. I didn't and couldn't make statements of fact. Both in terms of private messages on these boards and from less committed tennis watchers I have often heard the question.. "how come when he loses it's because of injury?". I repeat.. that's how we feel. I'm not sure you can challenge "feelings" with sample rebuttals, that's just the way it is.

I wrote that specifically in response to a post which questioned Rafa's achievements/ability. If you read my post I argue that these things cannot be questioned. I then went into reasons why I don't particularly care for him, but as I said I do respect what he's done. Obviously you being a Rafa-fan disagree. But I think you know already.. you aren't going to change my mind about how I feel about him. There's not even any point trying

 

[brokenshoelace]

For the sake of expediency I'll assume you're directing your question to me (Federerberg.. sic.. )

And obviously because of this..

"My final (and probably biggest) bug bear is the manufactured narrative in the media and also amongst his fans that most of his losses are due to injuries.. at least it feels that way to us non fans. "

Please excuse me as I haven't read the entirety of your rebuttal. I have a stack of research and charts to look at already! But you've collated specific events I'm guessing? As I said, non fans feel this to be the case. I'm not alone in this. I'm quite happy for you to disagree with the truth of the perceived narrative, but it doesn't change the feeling we non fans have following the post mortems of some of Nadal's losses. Please note.. I said most.. not all. I said feel.. I didn't and couldn't make statements of fact. Both in terms of private messages on these boards and from less committed tennis watchers I have often heard the question.. "how come when he loses it's because of injury?". I repeat.. that's how we feel. I'm not sure you can challenge "feelings" with sample rebuttals, that's just the way it is.

I wrote that specifically in response to a post which questioned Rafa's achievements/ability. If you read my post I argue that these things cannot be questioned. I then went into reasons why I don't particularly care for him, but as I said I do respect what he's done. Obviously you being a Rafa-fan disagree. But I think you know already.. you aren't going to change my mind about how I feel about him. There's not even any point trying

If you don't have the time to read my post, I understand. It was long after all. But then kindly do not respond by making assumptions about what I wrote. If you ever get around to it, cool. If not, no big deal. But kindly understand why I can't respond to a post that just made assumptions without actually reading my arguments. "You assume I disagree" well, yeah. But perhaps if you read as to why, you'd have a different perspective.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I am planning to dig out the 2009 Wimby final...start sharpening the pencils

 

[Federberg]

^I've since read your post. Not sure if it's that different from my assumption uzzled You have an issue with my use of the word "most"? Seems like hyperbole to me. I expressed the feelings we non fans have, I don't see the value of having a debate about specifics... I am after all talking about feelings

 

[Kieran]

It's bogus to claim that Rafa and his fans use injury as an excuse "every time he loses." We've had this thread before and anyone who persists in it is being typically dishonest...

 

[Denis]

It's bogus to claim that Rafa and his fans use injury as an excuse "every time he loses." We've had this thread before and anyone who persists in it is being typically dishonest...

For me it's not so much the injury excuse, but more the excuses in general that are a bit annoying. The narrative is that as nobody is capable of beating Nadal when at his best. Losses can always be ascribed to something, as if everything is on his racket.

You are the main protagonist of that view btw.

 

[Federberg]

It's bogus to claim that Rafa and his fans use injury as an excuse "every time he loses." We've had this thread before and anyone who persists in it is being typically dishonest...

For me it's not so much the injury excuse, but more the excuses in general that are a bit annoying. The narrative is that as nobody is capable of beating Nadal when at his best. Losses can always be ascribed to something, as if everything is on his racket.

You are the main protagonist of that view btw.

It's like you took the words out of my mouth

 

[Fiero425]

It's bogus to claim that Rafa and his fans use injury as an excuse "every time he loses." We've had this thread before and anyone who persists in it is being typically dishonest...

For me it's not so much the injury excuse, but more the excuses in general that are a bit annoying. The narrative is that as nobody is capable of beating Nadal when at his best. Losses can always be ascribed to something, as if everything is on his racket.

You are the main protagonist of that view btw.

This is akin to The Williams who would say, "she didn't beat me; I beat myself!" No one alive has the real ability to defeat Rafa; has to be an injury, food poisoning, grass courts weren't bouncing his shots high enough, etc.! It's offensive to the rest of the tour; even if it's somewhat true at times! No one's more anal retentive in their "nervous ticks" than Rafa so it's hard to know when to accept his BS or not! I personally think he's been like a petulant child since the beginning and couldn't care less what we think! He hasn't sped up "his act" yet; still getting warnings from the umpire in each match!

 

[Kieran]

It's bogus to claim that Rafa and his fans use injury as an excuse "every time he loses." We've had this thread before and anyone who persists in it is being typically dishonest...

For me it's not so much the injury excuse, but more the excuses in general that are a bit annoying. The narrative is that as nobody is capable of beating Nadal when at his best. Losses can always be ascribed to something, as if everything is on his racket.

You are the main protagonist of that view btw.

You would do very well if you found posts to back this one up. I'm sitting down. I have time...

 

[Denis]

It's bogus to claim that Rafa and his fans use injury as an excuse "every time he loses." We've had this thread before and anyone who persists in it is being typically dishonest...

For me it's not so much the injury excuse, but more the excuses in general that are a bit annoying. The narrative is that as nobody is capable of beating Nadal when at his best. Losses can always be ascribed to something, as if everything is on his racket.

You are the main protagonist of that view btw.

You would do very well if you found posts to back this one up. I'm sitting down. I have time...

Why? You suffer from amnesia?

You know it very well. Just think of discussions during this years French or last years US Open. Yes, both GS Nadal actually won.

 

[Kieran]

It's bogus to claim that Rafa and his fans use injury as an excuse "every time he loses." We've had this thread before and anyone who persists in it is being typically dishonest...

For me it's not so much the injury excuse, but more the excuses in general that are a bit annoying. The narrative is that as nobody is capable of beating Nadal when at his best. Losses can always be ascribed to something, as if everything is on his racket.

You are the main protagonist of that view btw.

You would do very well if you found posts to back this one up. I'm sitting down. I have time...

Why? You suffer from amnesia?

You know it very well. Just think of discussions during this years French or last years US Open. Yes, both GS Nadal actually won.

Mm-kay...so I used threads where Rafa won a slam - to make excuses for his losses? Good luck scanning that one. :cover

Bear in mind that I'm not the poster who said Rafa would tank a match to avoid Novak - or that he had maybe 25% chance of winning against Nole in RG. :cover

We have one Federberg, brother, please don't be another one... :nono

 

[Denis]

^You are not getting yourself out of this one my friend. If you deny that you do not make up excuses for Rafa's losses let me ask you a very simple question:

Do you believe that Rafa is capable of losing a match while playing at his very best, even on clay, and even at Roland Garros?

 

[Kieran]

^You are not getting yourself out of this one my friend. If you deny that you do not make up excuses for Rafa's losses let me ask you a very simple question:

Do you believe that Rafa is capable of losing a match while playing at his very best, even on clay, and even at Roland Garros?

Hang on, first you have to post evidence that I make excuses every time Rafa loses. You even said that I'm the "main protagonist" in this. And yet, I congratulate Rafa's opponents when they beat him, like I did with Nick, and when Rafa was struggling on clay, I wondered if he was reaching the end.

I think that for somebody who believes that Rafa would have tanked a match to avoid Novak - in Paris :cover - you're a fine one to make allegations against me... :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

^I've since read your post. Not sure if it's that different from my assumption uzzled You have an issue with my use of the word "most"? Seems like hyperbole to me. I expressed the feelings we non fans have, I don't see the value of having a debate about specifics... I am after all talking about feelings

That's exactly the problem. You don't want to debate specifics, and instead would prefer throw generalities despite the fact that specifics are more telling.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's bogus to claim that Rafa and his fans use injury as an excuse "every time he loses." We've had this thread before and anyone who persists in it is being typically dishonest...

For me it's not so much the injury excuse, but more the excuses in general that are a bit annoying. The narrative is that as nobody is capable of beating Nadal when at his best. Losses can always be ascribed to something, as if everything is on his racket.

You are the main protagonist of that view btw.

Saying someone played badly is NOT an excuse. How many times do I have to keep saying this: If I say that Novak played well but Rafa played awful (just a random example), that's hardly discrediting. Why? Novak was good enough to be able to bring his game, Rafa wasn't. That's actually a big compliment in my book. Part of being a good player is being able to play well when you need to. If player A was able to do it and player B wasn't, player A outplayed player B.

For some reason though, people take issue with this because they somehow want every loss to be: Both player A and player B brought their A games, but player A won. No, it doesn't work that way, not most of the time anyway.

By the way, EVERY fanbase does this. How often do you really read ANYONE, regardless of allegiances say: Yeah, my favorite player lost, but he played great and there was nothing he can do? Pretty much never.

PS: Nadal fans are the most guilty of injury excuses. But the thing you describe above (ie "nobody can beat X player at his best" and the matches being on his racket) are 100% Federer fans trademarks. Novak fans have the mental/focus "excuse." We all specialize in different forms of excuse making.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's bogus to claim that Rafa and his fans use injury as an excuse "every time he loses." We've had this thread before and anyone who persists in it is being typically dishonest...

For me it's not so much the injury excuse, but more the excuses in general that are a bit annoying. The narrative is that as nobody is capable of beating Nadal when at his best. Losses can always be ascribed to something, as if everything is on his racket.

You are the main protagonist of that view btw.

You would do very well if you found posts to back this one up. I'm sitting down. I have time...

Why? You suffer from amnesia?

You know it very well. Just think of discussions during this years French or last years US Open. Yes, both GS Nadal actually won.

Did you think Novak played his best tennis against Wawrinka at the AO? How about at the FO final vs. Nadal? How about vs. Nishikori at the US Open? How about at the US Open last year vs. Nadal? How about vs. Murray at Wimbledon last year? Should I go on or do you spot the double standards in your argument?

Again, every fan base is guilty of this. This is REALLY starting to get old.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^You are not getting yourself out of this one my friend. If you deny that you do not make up excuses for Rafa's losses let me ask you a very simple question:

Do you believe that Rafa is capable of losing a match while playing at his very best, even on clay, and even at Roland Garros?

At his best, on clay, in Roland Garros, no.

I'm looked at as one of the "reasonable" Nadal fans, but I'll absolutely take you up on that one. Nadal is by far the best clay courter and as long as he's playing his best tennis at Roland Garros, nobody stands a chance. Hell, he's winning the tournament without playing his best tennis. That doesn't mean he'll keep winning it forever.

On other surfaces, in different tournaments? Of course he can lose while playing great. It's happened enough times anyway.

 

[Federberg]

^I've since read your post. Not sure if it's that different from my assumption uzzled You have an issue with my use of the word "most"? Seems like hyperbole to me. I expressed the feelings we non fans have, I don't see the value of having a debate about specifics... I am after all talking about feelings

That's exactly the problem. You don't want to debate specifics, and instead would prefer throw generalities despite the fact that specifics are more telling.

There is no problem here unless you make one I repeat I posted how much I respect Nadal's achievements and ability. I also talked about why I'm not a fan of his (and some of his fans). You don't have to like my reasons, you may disagree with those reasons, but I would encourage you not to waste energy trying to change them. It is what it is. Another poster expressed reasons why he doesn't like Federer. I might not agree with those reasons, but they are what they are. And frankly I don't care.. doesn't affect what I think about Roger's tennis (note.. his tennis, because that's what it's about at the end of the day).