Roger should send Novak flowers

[Front242]

And don't forget he owes a lot to Roger for getting to the number he has now for being such an easy out in so many of their encounters

Sad but true. 2011 RG is the perfect example. Roger was so kind to take out Novak in the semis for Rafa, only to bend over in the final.

Yup :nono

 

[Front242]

He should've won that first set after being up 5-2. That was inexplicable but still, that was a good match apart from that and the blowout 4th set. But the result is the same. He still lost another slam to Nadal.

 

[the AntiPusher]

The record is in the bag for Rafa. People don't realize that he will be the #1 or #2 favorite at the French for the next 5+ years. He doesn't even need to move well on that surface to be overwhelming favorite over everyone except Nole. 3 slams is nothing, that's just 1 great year or 2 good ones. The record is done and dusted, this was Roger's last stand. And what a pathetic effort it was.

Only himself to blame, the stupendous 2-9 in slams vs. Rafa and all the other countless late slam disasters (Safin 05, DP 09, Djoker 2010 and 2011 USO, Berd 2012 USO). Roger should have reached 20+ in his career but wasn't tough in the biggest moments when it came to crunch time.

I guess what you are really saying is that its too bad Federer just continue live on a staedy diet of Roddick for every grand slam final.

 

[DarthFed]

The record is in the bag for Rafa. People don't realize that he will be the #1 or #2 favorite at the French for the next 5+ years. He doesn't even need to move well on that surface to be overwhelming favorite over everyone except Nole. 3 slams is nothing, that's just 1 great year or 2 good ones. The record is done and dusted, this was Roger's last stand. And what a pathetic effort it was.

Only himself to blame, the stupendous 2-9 in slams vs. Rafa and all the other countless late slam disasters (Safin 05, DP 09, Djoker 2010 and 2011 USO, Berd 2012 USO). Roger should have reached 20+ in his career but wasn't tough in the biggest moments when it came to crunch time.

I guess what you are really saying is that its too bad Federer just continue live on a staedy diet of Roddick for every grand slam final.

What are you talking about? I'm saying that it's too bad that the guy performed poorly in tight situations most of his career. It cost him a lot more slams.

What you see now is just a player on his last legs. He has great moments (see last 2 matches) but the norm is that he isn't good anymore.

 

[Front242]

Bear in mind the guy is 32 years old and wasn't really expected to win. To even make the semis at 32 is outstanding rather than the need to compare him to Roddick in a demeaning way. Plus Roddick's losses to Federer were often decided by mere points. Nothing to be too ashamed about. He had a great career and just as with Roger losing to Rafa, Roddick would have a lot more slams if not for Roger.

 

[TsarMatt]

I know Federer wasn't exactly 'sublime' last night, but I am surprised how many people thought he gave a poor performance. Considering his form prior to the AO, especially that woeful match against Hewitt at Brisbane, he wasn't that bad at all. I agree he should have replicated the same style of play we saw in his encounters with Tsonga and Murray, but he was hitting the ball nicely for most of the match, and the unforced errors really stemmed from Nadal's deep hitting right into Federer's backhand wing.

This is just the epitome of a bad matchup for Federer, and anyone who saw the baseline rallies can see why.

 

[Front242]

He missed tons of easy put aways at the net that had nothing to do with any matchup issues but just poor execution and his forehand was astray for much of the match. Both variables controllable by him rather than Nadal. Empty court to hit into having constructed the point and he nets routine forehands. Not to mention his serving, bar a couple of clutch moments saving break points, was slower than his last two matches and in a word subpar. So it was imo still a poor performance, especially since he didn't even get a set. Once I saw him lose the first points in the tiebreak dismally the match was already over.

And above all else he went too passive as usual and ended up getting run ragged with Nadal dictating practically every rally, and he simply can't do that at 32 years of age. The few rallies he managed to get control of usually resulted in a netted forehand or FH hit miles wide or else he got fed up rallying and made his way to the net on a poor approach shot and got passed like a donkey. To have stood any chance at all of even making the scoreline somewhat respectable he simply had to win the first set and failed miserably. Ok there were only 3 points in it to decide it but he threw away the first few with careless slop and never really stood any chance of recovering from there onwards.

 

[the AntiPusher]

The record is in the bag for Rafa. People don't realize that he will be the #1 or #2 favorite at the French for the next 5+ years. He doesn't even need to move well on that surface to be overwhelming favorite over everyone except Nole. 3 slams is nothing, that's just 1 great year or 2 good ones. The record is done and dusted, this was Roger's last stand. And what a pathetic effort it was.

Only himself to blame, the stupendous 2-9 in slams vs. Rafa and all the other countless late slam disasters (Safin 05, DP 09, Djoker 2010 and 2011 USO, Berd 2012 USO). Roger should have reached 20+ in his career but wasn't tough in the biggest moments when it came to crunch time.

I guess what you are really saying is that its too bad Federer just continue live on a steady diet of Roddick for every grand slam final.

What are you talking about? I'm saying that it's too bad that the guy performed poorly in tight situations most of his career. It cost him a lot more slams.

What you see now is just a player on his last legs. He has great moments (see last 2 matches) but the norm is that he isn't good anymore.

Ok.. Darth.. I just really didnt know where you were going with this post. I gotcha now

 

[atttomole]

These guys should send each other flowers. Roger should send flowers to Rosol (Wimby 2012), Rafa to Roger (French 2011), Rafa to Wawrinka (AO2014?), Murray to Stakovsky/Darcis (Wimby2013). So we can see that all these guys have benefited from the elimination of difficult opponents. As for Roger's problems with Rafa, most posters here have dealt with the reasons and I think its a combination of what all you guys have said. From the technical aspects (backhand), physical (Nadal is physically a machine because he does not tire easily), psychological (Rafa knows that he beats Roger regardless of how each of them plays, and Roger's state of mind is opposite of that). Nadal knows that he wins most long points against Roger, which makes it so hard for Roger to have any confidence. Unfortunately Roger can do little about it at this point, and as some of you have said, Roger will get his chances to win slams if Nadal is taken out of the draw.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not necessarily. The record may be equaled but it'll still take some work to break it. Also, Nadal's been losing early at Wimbledon the past 2 years and who knows who's gonna win the US Open. Nadal's still the favourite at the French of course. If he wins here and he likely will he has 14. To break it needs 4 more slams. 3 if he wins the French Open.

Honestly Front, considering Ralf's h2h over the present "goat", and how much time he's missed do to injuries, if he ties Roger at 17, I think that will be enough to put him on top... imo.

The thought had crossed my mind but then you could argue Federer's record versus the field is better

To be clear, it isn't. Nadal has no losing H2H records, his record against the top 30 is ridiculous, has an even more ridiculous record against Murray/Djokovic/Federer and has a higher winning percentage in general than Federer (obviously that might change once he gets older). But for now, Nadal clearly has a better record against the field whichever way you look at it. That argument used to get thrown around in 2008.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And don't forget he owes a lot to Roger for getting to the number he has now for being such an easy out in so many of their encounters

Sad but true. 2011 RG is the perfect example. Roger was so kind to take out Novak in the semis for Rafa, only to bend over in the final.

Like I said before, it's still not nearly as kind as Novak taking out Nadal in 3 consecutive GS finals and protect Roger's record...for a while.

Novak should have been so pissed at Roger for that FO gift that he just allows Nadal to beat him 3 times in order to get him closer to Fed's record

 

[brokenshoelace]

Serious question:

Has there ever been a Federer loss at a Grand Slam in the past 6 years that Federer fans didn't deem "pathetic"?

The only one I can think of is his loss to Novak at the Australian Open in 2011, where people accepted that he played a good match but was just outplayed.

Fed fans' comeback to the above question: Has there been any Nadal loss at a slam that wasn't blamed on injuries?

Broken_Shoelace: Yes, his losses to Novak.

So, back to my original question

 

[rafanoy1992]

Not necessarily. The record may be equaled but it'll still take some work to break it. Also, Nadal's been losing early at Wimbledon the past 2 years and who knows who's gonna win the US Open. Nadal's still the favourite at the French of course. If he wins here and he likely will he has 14. To break it needs 4 more slams. 3 if he wins the French Open.

Honestly Front, considering Ralf's h2h over the present "goat", and how much time he's missed do to injuries, if he ties Roger at 17, I think that will be enough to put him on top... imo.

The thought had crossed my mind but then you could argue Federer's record versus the field is better

To be clear, it isn't. Nadal has no losing H2H records, his record against the top 30 is ridiculous, has an even more ridiculous record against Murray/Djokovic/Federer and has a higher winning percentage in general than Federer (obviously that might change once he gets older). But for now, Nadal clearly has a better record against the field whichever way you look at it. That argument used to get thrown around in 2008.

Yup you are right, Broken.

Here are the Nadal's Grand Slam record against the other members of the Big Four:

vs. Federer: 9-2
vs. Djokovic: 8-3
vs. Murray: 6-2

Overall: 23-7 (76.6%)

By the way, he is 12-7 against these guys outside of Roland Garros. Which even makes it more remarkable.

 

[DarthFed]

Not necessarily. The record may be equaled but it'll still take some work to break it. Also, Nadal's been losing early at Wimbledon the past 2 years and who knows who's gonna win the US Open. Nadal's still the favourite at the French of course. If he wins here and he likely will he has 14. To break it needs 4 more slams. 3 if he wins the French Open.

Honestly Front, considering Ralf's h2h over the present "goat", and how much time he's missed do to injuries, if he ties Roger at 17, I think that will be enough to put him on top... imo.

The thought had crossed my mind but then you could argue Federer's record versus the field is better

To be clear, it isn't. Nadal has no losing H2H records, his record against the top 30 is ridiculous, has an even more ridiculous record against Murray/Djokovic/Federer and has a higher winning percentage in general than Federer (obviously that might change once he gets older). But for now, Nadal clearly has a better record against the field whichever way you look at it. That argument used to get thrown around in 2008.

Except he isn't anywhere near as good historically against the field in slams which is what counts the most. For instance, if the slam H2H was even between Roger and Nadal there would literally be 10 slams separating them right now.

 

[Moxie]

Not necessarily. The record may be equaled but it'll still take some work to break it. Also, Nadal's been losing early at Wimbledon the past 2 years and who knows who's gonna win the US Open. Nadal's still the favourite at the French of course. If he wins here and he likely will he has 14. To break it needs 4 more slams. 3 if he wins the French Open.

Honestly Front, considering Ralf's h2h over the present "goat", and how much time he's missed do to injuries, if he ties Roger at 17, I think that will be enough to put him on top... imo.

The thought had crossed my mind but then you could argue Federer's record versus the field is better

To be clear, it isn't. Nadal has no losing H2H records, his record against the top 30 is ridiculous, has an even more ridiculous record against Murray/Djokovic/Federer and has a higher winning percentage in general than Federer (obviously that might change once he gets older). But for now, Nadal clearly has a better record against the field whichever way you look at it. That argument used to get thrown around in 2008.

Except he isn't anywhere near as good historically against the field in slams which is what counts the most. For instance, if the slam H2H was even between Roger and Nadal there would literally be 10 slams separating them right now.

I'm not getting you…any stats for that? Or at least explain more broadly.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Except he isn't anywhere near as good historically against the field in slams which is what counts the most.

Really? Then how is he nearing his 14th slam? I don't get this...

Also, the above argument is laughable since you're conveniently ignoring Roger's record at the slams before 2003. And sorry, it's not my fault Nadal bloomed at 19 while it took Roger far longer to do so. If anything, Nadal should be praised for that while it's a knock against Roger.

Now sure, you might argue that Nadal will not do as well once he gets old, and that's probably true, but the fact is, WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET.

So based on facts, your above argument is false.

Also: that "if" hypothetical is pointless. Let's go with what we know, not with what would have happened if Roger was good enough to beat Nadal more...

 

[DarthFed]

Nah, you guys aren't following, if we are talking Rafa vs. the field (meaning everyone except Roger) and Roger vs. the field (meaning everyone except Rafa) then you DO make the H2H even in order to have accurate information. And if you make 9-2 into 5.5-5.5 guess what happens, Roger has 3.5 more slams right now and Rafa has 3.5 less slams. Or we could say that there is one slam Rafa didn't win when he beat Roger and it is possible Roger loses to Puerta or Wawrinka in the...scratch that, no it is not. So let's throw away that 2012 AO match because Roger wouldn't have won that final either. That gets us to 8-2 and I think in those 8 losses for Roger it is pretty safe to say he wins the tournament and we know the 2 losses for Rafa he would have. So if we change that to 5-5 which you have to in order to gage how they do vs. the REST of the field you have a 10 slam difference right now.

I don't even need to go into such numbers as 23 straight semis and 18 of 19 finals, or the fact Roger has had 3 seasons of making ALL 4 finals where Rafa has zero. They all point to the obvious.

 

[Moxie]

^The first paragraph above you may as well have written in Latin, for all I got. Sorry to be obtuse. But I was asking for clarification. Now I get hieroglyphics.

As to the last, those numbers are merely about consistency, not winning. You, of all people, Darth, should know better, since you completely trash Roger over a loss, and say that there are no good losses in your book. Rafa has not been to as many Slams as Roger, but his winning percentage, when he does, is better.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nah, you guys aren't following, if we are talking Rafa vs. the field (meaning everyone except Roger) and Roger vs. the field (meaning everyone except Rafa) then you DO make the H2H even in order to have accurate information. And if you make 9-2 into 5.5-5.5 guess what happens, Roger has 3.5 more slams right now and Rafa has 3.5 less slams. Or we could say that there is one slam Rafa didn't win when he beat Roger and it is possible Roger loses to Puerta or Wawrinka in the...scratch that, no it is not. So let's throw away that 2012 AO match because Roger wouldn't have won that final either. That gets us to 8-2 and I think in those 8 losses for Roger it is pretty safe to say he wins the tournament and we know the 2 losses for Rafa he would have. So if we change that to 5-5 which you have to in order to gage how they do vs. the REST of the field you have a 10 slam difference right now.

Huh?

Sorry, I didn't get any of that.

Whatever it was, why do we have to make the H2H even? Roger IS part of the field, and so is Nadal. You don't do anything. You just look at how they performed against all the players, including themselves (ie for Roger you add Rafa to the field, for Rafa you add Roger to the field). That's "the field." Or, you disregard their matches, and just check how they did against everyone else, without coming up with weird formulas and making the H2H even for god knows what reason.

I don't even need to go into such numbers as 23 straight semis and 18 of 19 finals, or the fact Roger has had 3 seasons of making ALL 4 finals where Rafa has zero. They all point to the obvious.

Roger has been more consistent at slams. Who's debating that? That said, I don't understand why we're acting like the first years of his career did not take place. It's not my fault he didn't peak early. That said, he has been playing on tour longer, so it wouldn't be a fair conversation which is why, for this particular assessment (ie their performances in slams from day one until the end), we have to wait till they both retire.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Rafa has not been to as many Slams as Roger, but his winning percentage, when he does, is better.

Yeah, this.

But again, this would probably change as Nadal gets older, which is why this particular conversation is premature.

However, overall, they both did very well against "the field" I would say, and I don't see how you can give a clear edge to one over the other, or why we just want to limit this to slams.