Rafael Nadal rises to challenge of Roger Federer’s genius
TT
Matthew Syed
It has become something of a truism to say that progress emerges from
conflict. In The Fruits of War, Michael White shows how everything from
encryption to the internet was born out of military rivalry. “Almost all
major technological developments can be traced back to times of war . .
. the best of humanity often flows from the worst,” he writes.
In his book Rivals, White takes the point even farther, examining the
lives of some of the world’s greatest scientists, such as Darwin, Newton
and Edison. He shows that these remarkable men were motivated not by the
greater good of humanity nor even by the pure love of science, but by
grittier and altogether more primal instincts.
Alexander Graham Bell worked day and night to invent the telephone
largely because he was in competition with Elisha Gray, whom he beat to
the patent office by a matter of hours. Crick and Watson followed a
similar work ethic, spurred by the knowledge that rival teams were on
the verge of cracking the structure of DNA. Joseph Priestley and
Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier battled around the clock to discover the
elegant secrets of chemistry.
The idea of beauty and truth emerging from intense, almost demented
rivalry seems particularly pertinent whenever a grand-slam tennis
tournament comes around in the calendar. Roger Federer was already a joy
to watch while he was dominating the sport like a benign dictator, a
kind of latter-day philosopher king with sweatbands. But when Rafael
Nadal, his first credible rival, came into view, everything changed.
The Spaniard made his first mark on the clay of Roland Garros, of
course, but over time he dared to dispute Federer’s supremacy on hard
courts, indoor courts and even grass. He chased and snarled, and
eventually made the great man cry. The consequence has been one of the
most thrilling rivalries in sport, each man coaxing the other towards
ever more thrilling evocations of greatness.
It is not just the on-court collisions that have revealed the fruits of
this rivalry, although the finals at Wimbledon in 2007 and 2008, and in
Australia in 2009, rank among the most revelatory tennis matches to have
been played. It is also the duel beyond the duel as both men grapple
with new techniques and strategies in the quest to exploit the other’s
weaknesses.
Federer has not only constructed a subtly different second serve, which
has created a conundrum for Nadal’s double-hander, but has also modified
his backhand in an attempt to nullify the steep bounce of Nadal’s
cross-court forehand. The Swiss has also learnt the art of greater
disguise on his drop shot, although Nadal’s agility is often equal to
it. Nadal has responded with enhanced power, greater technical variety
and an even more audacious inside-out forehand, if such a thing is
possible.
What new tactical innovations in Australia, assuming they meet in the
final?
Many rivalries are constructed upon personal enmity, but a defining
feature of the Federer-Nadal confrontation is that it has always been
conducted in the context of camaraderie and, to use an old-fashioned
word, honour. You only have to witness the two men talking and joshing
to see that they share not only respect, but a deep friendship, too.
When promoting their Match for Africa last year, they hugged and giggled
as they attempted to get through the script.
Nadal is conspicuous for his modesty and civility. In every interview
and magazine profile, a constant truth emerges of a young man with
values and grounding. He is rarely, if ever, impolite to opponents or
umpires, even during the white heat of competition. His only vice, if we
can call it that, is greed. He has won the past three grand slams, but
his appetite for a fourth in succession has not been dimmed. In this
instance, perhaps we might agree with Gordon Gekko: greed is good.
Federer shares Nadal’s virtuous greed, of course, but some would suggest
that he occasionally lacks his grace. Many have criticised the
ostentation of the white blazers he occasionally takes on to court and
the self-pity that sometimes accompanies defeat, particularly in
grand-slam tournaments. Others are appalled by some of his post-match
interviews. After losing to Tomas Berdych at Wimbledon last year, for
example, he blamed sore limbs without crediting the performance of his
opponent. “I definitely gave away this match,” he said.
But these surely amount to minor quibbles. Federer is a sportsman of
genius who has invariably conducted himself with aplomb since arriving
on the scene as a teenager. His prickliness in defeat is not so much a
revelation of meanness, still less malice, but of humanity. Find me a
person who is without bitterness after defeat and I will show you a chap
who has learnt to act out the required part during a post-match press
conference.
Of course, even the friendliest rivalries have the potential to decay
over time. Crick and Watson almost came to blows with fellow researchers
after harnessing their ideas to boost their own research. Newton spent
most of his later life slandering Leibniz over the question of who
invented calculus. Joe Frazier has nursed a grudge against Muhammad Ali
since their bout in Manila more than 30 years ago.
But whatever happens in the Federer-Nadal rivalry — and my hunch is that
Nadal will ultimately emerge as the greater player — we may be sure that
it will continue to be contested in the right spirit. The conflict has
taken each man, as well their sport, to new heights of greatness, but it
has also demonstrated that a rivalry can be fierce without being bitter,
intense without becoming morally suspect. And that, perhaps, is the most
valuable lesson of all.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/columnists/matthewsyed/article2879732.ece
RzR
> Rafael Nadal rises to challenge of Roger Federer’s genius
> since their bout in Manila more than 30 years ago.
>
> But whatever happens in the Federer-Nadal rivalry — and my hunch is that
> Nadal will ultimately emerge as the greater player — we may be sure that
> it will continue to be contested in the right spirit. The conflict has
> taken each man, as well their sport, to new heights of greatness, but it
> has also demonstrated that a rivalry can be fierce without being bitter,
> intense without becoming morally suspect. And that, perhaps, is the most
> valuable lesson of all.
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/columnists/matthewsyed/article2879732.ece
>
hahah how all of these semi-journalists will take this offline in a
couple of years, and say they never doubted federer
luckily, google remembers everything
Joe Ramirez
> Rafael Nadal rises to challenge of Roger Federer’s genius
>
> Matthew Syed
>
> Nadal, his first credible rival, came into view, everything changed.
This is a blatant mischaracterization of tennis history. Nadal
obviously has been Federer's *greatest* rival, but he was not Fed's
first "credible" one. Roddick and Hewitt certainly were credible
rivals at the time of Fed's emergence (slam winners & No. 1 players),
as was Agassi for a couple of years, and Nalbandian and Safin to a
lesser extent. It's only in hindsight that we can declare that none of
them were up to the challenge that Federer presented. But if you play
a good player and beat him, that doesn't mean he was not a credible
opponent. E.g., Roddick may not seem like a credible rival in 2011,
but he did in 2003-05 or so.
TT
> On Jan 21, 12:52 pm, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>> Rafael Nadal rises to challenge of Roger Federer’s genius
>>
>> Matthew Syed
>>
>> But when Rafael
>> Nadal, his first credible rival, came into view, everything changed.
> This is a blatant mischaracterization of tennis history. Nadal
> obviously has been Federer's *greatest* rival, but he was not Fed's
> first "credible" one. Roddick and Hewitt certainly were credible
> as was Agassi for a couple of years, and Nalbandian and Safin to a
> lesser extent. It's only in hindsight that we can declare that none of
> them were up to the challenge that Federer presented. But if you play
> a good player and beat him, that doesn't mean he was not a credible
> opponent. E.g., Roddick may not seem like a credible rival in 2011,
> but he did in 2003-05 or so.
You have a point. However they lost their credibility rather
quickly...especially Hewitt's career going down the drain.
Any other comments on the article, says lots of things about Federer's
character that you guys always claim is not discussed outside RST...
MBDunc
I presented the theory of "carefully selected losses" already decade
ago.
Had Fed lost Wim04 final to Roddick (as Roddick really had a chance
then) then 2003-2005 would be considered historically totally
differently: "great wimbledon rivals", "the era of a golden fast court
duo".
The "problem" was that Fed did smt. that was never seen before. He
just won too much on too short time frame (Wimb03 - USO 07 = 12 slams
out of 18 possible)...the pace never seen before. Of course that meant
that he had to make his rivals mincemeat (otherwise numbers had not
been that big). And if you do something like that in non-measurable
sport....some flatearthsociety people start screaming "clown era" no
matter the sport (seen in Soccer, seen in Ice Hockey, seen in every
non-measurable sport - some still think that Muhammad Ali is the man
to beat at boxing ring...).
.mikko
Joe Ramirez
> 21.1.2011 20:08, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 12:52 pm, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
> >> Rafael Nadal rises to challenge of Roger Federer s genius
>
> >> Matthew Syed
>
> >> But when Rafael
> >> Nadal, his first credible rival, came into view, everything changed.
> > This is a blatant mischaracterization of tennis history. Nadal
> > obviously has been Federer's *greatest* rival, but he was not Fed's
> > first "credible" one. Roddick and Hewitt certainly were credible
> > rivals at the time of Fed's emergence (slam winners& No. 1 players),
> > as was Agassi for a couple of years, and Nalbandian and Safin to a
> > lesser extent. It's only in hindsight that we can declare that none of
> > them were up to the challenge that Federer presented. But if you play
> > a good player and beat him, that doesn't mean he was not a credible
> > opponent. E.g., Roddick may not seem like a credible rival in 2011,
> > but he did in 2003-05 or so.
>
> You have a point. However they lost their credibility rather
> quickly...especially Hewitt's career going down the drain.
That kind of "loss of credibility" eventually happens to everyone who
fails to become a 6+ slam champion, as most players do. The norm is
two, maybe three such champions in their primes at the same time, no
more. Fed & Nadal have had each other.
> Any other comments on the article, says lots of things about Federer's
> character that you guys always claim is not discussed outside RST...
The other himself calls the criticisms "minor quibbles" -- what
further analysis is needed? I note, however, that he resorts to the
slippery tactic of attributing the negative views to anonymous others,
almost "Das Man" per Heidegger: "some would suggest," "many have
criticised," "others are appalled." The author also fails to
acknowledge that "many have criticized" some of Nadal's on-court
behavior, so he can't be regarded as even-handed.
Joe Ramirez
Oops -- "author himself." :)
TT
> On Jan 21, 1:14 pm, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>> 21.1.2011 20:08, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 21, 12:52 pm, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>>>> Rafael Nadal rises to challenge of Roger Federer s genius
>>>> Matthew Syed
>>>> But when Rafael
>>>> Nadal, his first credible rival, came into view, everything changed.
>>> This is a blatant mischaracterization of tennis history. Nadal
>>> obviously has been Federer's *greatest* rival, but he was not Fed's
>>> first "credible" one. Roddick and Hewitt certainly were credible
>>> rivals at the time of Fed's emergence (slam winners& No. 1 players),
>>> as was Agassi for a couple of years, and Nalbandian and Safin to a
>>> lesser extent. It's only in hindsight that we can declare that none of
>>> them were up to the challenge that Federer presented. But if you play
>>> a good player and beat him, that doesn't mean he was not a credible
>>> opponent. E.g., Roddick may not seem like a credible rival in 2011,
>>> but he did in 2003-05 or so.
>> You have a point. However they lost their credibility rather
>> quickly...especially Hewitt's career going down the drain.
> That kind of "loss of credibility" eventually happens to everyone who
> fails to become a 6+ slam champion, as most players do. The norm is
> two, maybe three such champions in their primes at the same time, no
>
They rarely fall off the cliff though, as Hewitt did...unable to rank,
say top 10. It's rather obvious that Hewitt didn't have that much game
to begin with.
>> Any other comments on the article, says lots of things about Federer's
>> character that you guys always claim is not discussed outside RST...
> The other himself calls the criticisms "minor quibbles" -- what
> further analysis is needed? I note, however, that he resorts to the
> slippery tactic of attributing the negative views to anonymous others,
> almost "Das Man" per Heidegger: "some would suggest," "many have
> criticised," "others are appalled." The author also fails to
> acknowledge that "many have criticized" some of Nadal's on-court
> behavior, so he can't be regarded as even-handed.
>
>
>
>
Irrelevant, what I said is that this writer thinks this way...something
you guys have been claiming that no one outside silly discussion forums
does.
TT
> On Jan 21, 1:39 pm, Joe Ramirez<josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 1:14 pm, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 21.1.2011 20:08, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>>> On Jan 21, 12:52 pm, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>>>>> Rafael Nadal rises to challenge of Roger Federer s genius
>>>>> Matthew Syed
>>>>> But when Rafael
>>>>> Nadal, his first credible rival, came into view, everything changed.
>>>> This is a blatant mischaracterization of tennis history. Nadal
>>>> obviously has been Federer's *greatest* rival, but he was not Fed's
>>>> first "credible" one. Roddick and Hewitt certainly were credible
>>>> rivals at the time of Fed's emergence (slam winners& No. 1 players),
>>>> as was Agassi for a couple of years, and Nalbandian and Safin to a
>>>> lesser extent. It's only in hindsight that we can declare that none of
>>>> them were up to the challenge that Federer presented. But if you play
>>>> a good player and beat him, that doesn't mean he was not a credible
>>>> opponent. E.g., Roddick may not seem like a credible rival in 2011,
>>>> but he did in 2003-05 or so.
>>> You have a point. However they lost their credibility rather
>>> quickly...especially Hewitt's career going down the drain.
>> That kind of "loss of credibility" eventually happens to everyone who
>> fails to become a 6+ slam champion, as most players do. The norm is
>> two, maybe three such champions in their primes at the same time, no
>>
>>> Any other comments on the article, says lots of things about Federer's
>>> character that you guys always claim is not discussed outside RST...
>> The other himself
> Oops -- "author himself." :)
Yeah, figured that.
TT
Your theory doesn't bare daylight though. Losing to Hewitt would add his
slam count by one but he still would have fallen off the cliff and being
unable to compete for top positions.
Roddick, though has been consistently up there, yet coming of Nadal etc
showed us that he neither is not quite the same level as the next gen was.
What I'm saying is that we would have seen this regardless of some
"selective losses". Besides, your theory is about making them looking
better than they are...they still wouldn't be better than they
are...it's self deception.
Manco
>
> But whatever happens in the Federer-Nadal rivalry — and my hunch is that
> Nadal will ultimately emerge as the greater player — we may be sure that
Ah yes this was the intended punchline right....
Joe Ramirez
Hewitt finished in the top 10 five separate years -- what's so
terrible about that? Two of those years he finished as No. 1. He spent
most of 2003 in the top 10 as well, but slumped somewhat; still
finished in the top 20 for that year. Also finished in the top 20 for
2006. He had plenty of game at his peak, for a non-6+ type of player.
But his biggest asset was his speed, and when that began to decline,
he suffered disproportionately.
TT
He may have lost some of his footspeed, his fall from the grace was also
because he has rather soft game to begin with...and his effort to
unbalance his opponents mentally. What I'm saying is that he didn't have
tools to be a great...which you seem to agree with. Fed didn't have any
greats on his path for many years...usually this is not the case for up
and coming greats so it was a clown era in that respect. Nadal was
trouble only on clay and much later everywhere...and even then he was
injured in 2009, gifting Roger couple more slams even.
kaennorsing
> Fed didn't have any greats on his path for many years...
Federer had many greats to contend with; Roddick, Hewitt, Safin,
Ferrero and even Nalbandian and Davydenko were all considered fierce
competitors before Fed starting dominating them badly for years...
They were considered at least as good as Djoker and Murray are now.
Also, Agassi was considered pretty good, even at an advanced age.
> usually this is not the case for up and coming greats
> so it was a clown era in that respect. Nadal was trouble only
> on clay and much later everywhere...and even then he was
> injured in 2009, gifting Roger couple more slams even.
If it was a clown era for Fed it's been a clown era for Rafa. Fed's
won his last 10 slams from early 2006 until early 2010 (4 years),
while Rafa's won all his 9 slams from mid 2005 until late 2010 (5+
years)... So, if it was such a clown era why did Rafa win less slams
than Fed over a longer period of time?
Maybe Rafa's not so great after all and also benefited from the very
same clown era?
TT
> On 21 jan, 22:02, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>
>> Fed didn't have any greats on his path for many years...
> Federer had many greats to contend with; Roddick, Hewitt, Safin,
> Ferrero and even Nalbandian and Davydenko were all considered fierce
> competitors before Fed starting dominating them badly for years...
> They were considered at least as good as Djoker and Murray are now.
> Also, Agassi was considered pretty good, even at an advanced age.
>
Roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc hardly qualify as "greats".
>> usually this is not the case for up and coming greats
>> so it was a clown era in that respect. Nadal was trouble only
>> on clay and much later everywhere...and even then he was
>> injured in 2009, gifting Roger couple more slams even.
> If it was a clown era for Fed it's been a clown era for Rafa. Fed's
> won his last 10 slams from early 2006 until early 2010 (4 years),
> while Rafa's won all his 9 slams from mid 2005 until late 2010 (5+
> years)... So, if it was such a clown era why did Rafa win less slams
> than Fed over a longer period of time?
>
Biased statistic.
Nadal has won more slams in last years. Also age-wise Nadal leads.
> Maybe Rafa's not so great after all and also benefited from the very
> same clown era?
Nadal won his first non-clay slam 2008 Wimbledon.
You stats are age-biased, it's reverse comparison would be comparing 24
year old Federer against 29 year old Nadal on clay...wow...
kaennorsing
No, it's a logical conclusion of your silly clown theory; All Rafa-
slams came in the very period Fed won the bulk of his slams... How's
this biased? It's a plain fact: If Fed benefited from a clown era, so
has Rafa.
TT
Rafa had a great rival when coming to age...
TT
But who knows, maybe it evens out and Nadal will have no serious
competition rest of his career and wins a total of 25 slams and 3
Olympic golds.
Pedro Dias
So Nadal is great because Federer is great, except that Federer isn't
great.
Hmmm...
You're either pretending to be dumb, or the genuine article: the point
is that the field is the same for both players, and in that setting
Federer has done better. The reasons you give for *why* Nadal isn't as
good - age, mainly - don't have any bearing on *conditions*, like
surface and opposition, which are the same for both players. It may or
may not be the case that this will reverse itself as Federer grows
older and Nadal remains in his prime. But the future does not alter
the past.
TT
You're too dumb to understand this, and I'm too dumb to explain it
simple enough.
Let's try this...Forget that Nadal won any slams on clay before 2008 and
start your comparison there.
Before that Nadal's game was not fully developed, and he was only able
to win clay slams - Same with Federer at same age, his game was not
fully developed either and he couldn't win slams on ANY surface.
...Federer and Nadal won their first Wimbledon at same age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry#Career_evolution
> It may or
> may not be the case that this will reverse itself as Federer grows
> older and Nadal remains in his prime. But the future does not alter
> the past.
It's been reversed for long time already: Nadal has won 6 slams (+OG)
since 2008 - and Federer has won 4, despite playing one more major
during that stretch.
Superdave
If Fed was not there Rafa would not be Rafa today. He owes everything to Roger and he knows it.
Whisper
> On 21 jan, 22:02, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>
>> Fed didn't have any greats on his path for many years...
>
> Federer had many greats to contend with; Roddick, Hewitt, Safin,
> Ferrero and even Nalbandian and Davydenko were all considered fierce
> competitors
Davydenko?
Go & get fucked.
Whisper
> 22.1.2011 2:03, kaennorsing kirjoitti:
>> On 21 jan, 22:02, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>>
>>> Fed didn't have any greats on his path for many years...
>> Federer had many greats to contend with; Roddick, Hewitt, Safin,
>> Ferrero and even Nalbandian and Davydenko were all considered fierce
>> competitors before Fed starting dominating them badly for years...
>> They were considered at least as good as Djoker and Murray are now.
>> Also, Agassi was considered pretty good, even at an advanced age.
>>
>
> Roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc hardly qualify as "greats".
>
>
The 3 combined they won less slams (5) than Edberg (6) or Becker (6) on
their own.
If those 3 are 'great' then Becker/Edberg must be gods.
TT
He just tried to fuck you.
Pedro Dias
Just lucky not to have to play Federer.
Makes them Gods of Fortune, possibly.
Pedro Dias
That's an awfully convoluted argument to try to make a pretty vapid.
The whole thing being based on the silly assumption that careers all
follow similar arcs, I'll go with "No!" as a response.
> > It may or
> > may not be the case that this will reverse itself as Federer grows
> > older and Nadal remains in his prime. But the future does not alter
> > the past.
>
> It's been reversed for long time already: Nadal has won 6 slams (+OG)
> since 2008 - and Federer has won 4, despite playing one more major
> during that stretch.
Too short, streaky, and arbitrary a time-frame. Why pick that
particular snapshot, except for the fact that it gives Nadal a (pretty
small) edge? Especially since no other will do it...
TT
Nadal's and Federer's arcs follow exactly identical age pattern, the
only difference being that Nadal won a lot on clay while Fed didn't win
anything.
>>> It may or
>>> may not be the case that this will reverse itself as Federer grows
>>> older and Nadal remains in his prime. But the future does not alter
>>> the past.
>> It's been reversed for long time already: Nadal has won 6 slams (+OG)
>> since 2008 - and Federer has won 4, despite playing one more major
>> during that stretch.
> Too short, streaky, and arbitrary a time-frame. Why pick that
> particular snapshot, except for the fact that it gives Nadal a (pretty
> small) edge? Especially since no other will do it...
3 years, hardly a small timeframe.
And it's not a slight lead, Federer would have 3 majors if he had played
same tournaments Nadal did, 3 against 6.
And I'm not even bothering to point out that if Nadal had not been
injured in 2009 it would most likely be: Nadal 8 - Federer 2. Ooops.
Joe Ramirez
Regardless of the players being compared, there are really only three
meaningful and fair frames of reference:
1. Entire careers -- Ultimately, the comparison that matters most.
Neither Federer nor Nadal has completed his career yet, so this
measure is indeterminate. Fed has a lead that *may* prove temporary.
2. Individual years -- Because we measure just about *everything* in
our culture by individual years. Nadal's 2010 was superior to
Federer's, no doubt. Federer has had his share of superior years.
3. Time since launch -- When players are rough contemporaries but
their ages differ by more than a year or two, the best way to compare
them against the same field is to look at the period after both have
launched (reached first slam final). Nadal launched at the 2005 FO.
Since then, he has won nine slams, and Federer has won 12, against the
exact same field.
Arbitrary multiyear periods, "peak" or "prime" comparisons, age-based
comparisons, etc. -- all are subject to excessive bias and
manipulation.
TT
Time since launch is flawed and you know it (I hope). Nadal's launch was
Wimbledon 2008, before that he had only 1 slam to compete with, his game
was not formed for other surfaces.
> Arbitrary multiyear periods, "peak" or "prime" comparisons, age-based
> comparisons, etc. -- all are subject to excessive bias and
> manipulation.
As is your "launch" bs.
Joe Ramirez
Ridiculous. I define launch the same way for *every* player. No
subjective favoritism is involved. Your approach apparently permits
choosing whatever date you please, based on how good or bad it makes a
particular player look. Not to mention that it requires ignoring
absurdities such as claiming that a player who makes two consecutive
Wimbledon finals can't "compete" at Wimbledon.
TT
In this case it's unfair though - and the term is manufactured EXACTLY
to make this unfair comparison.
> Your approach apparently permits
> choosing whatever date you please, based on how good or bad it makes a
> particular player look. Not to mention that it requires ignoring
> absurdities such as claiming that a player who makes two consecutive
> Wimbledon finals can't "compete" at Wimbledon.
The same problem can be found in your "launch" crap. When was Lendl's
launch...
kaennorsing
> 3 years, hardly a small timeframe.
> And it's not a slight lead, Federer would have 3 majors if he had played
> same tournaments Nadal did, 3 against 6.
> And I'm not even bothering to point out that if Nadal had not been
> injured in 2009 it would most likely be: Nadal 8 - Federer 2. Ooops.
You can't take out one guys misfortune without considering the rest.
Or this coulda woulda can extend to; if Fed never had mono, he woulda
won 6 slams since 2008, for a total of 18...
And your assuming Fed and Rafa both have the exact same longevity in
the game, or even project Rafa ending up having more productive, slam
winning years than Federer. We'll certainly have to wait at least a
few years to be sure - but my guess is he won't.
TT
> On 22 jan, 23:35, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>
>> 3 years, hardly a small timeframe.
>> And it's not a slight lead, Federer would have 3 majors if he had played
>> same tournaments Nadal did, 3 against 6.
>> And I'm not even bothering to point out that if Nadal had not been
>> injured in 2009 it would most likely be: Nadal 8 - Federer 2. Ooops.
> You can't take out one guys misfortune without considering the rest.
> Or this coulda woulda can extend to; if Fed never had mono, he woulda
> won 6 slams since 2008, for a total of 18...
The point being that Rafa has been clearly the better player since 2008.
Patrick Kehoe
Feds an old man now... still capable of sublime moments but not as
consistant match after match... so Rafa better win, should win... he's
in his prime of his athletic career... though Rafa's physical peek
(defensive coverages) is now past... over all Rafa is da man right now
and should win this AO... slow, high bouncing hard court is primo for
Rafa and Murray... they have 'surface' advantages over Sods and Fed on
the court surface as it now is... Djokovic seem adaptable to this
surface given his astonishing defensive coverages... he's sort of a
tweener...
P
Joe Ramirez
You have a regrettable tendency to believe -- without evidence -- that
any criterion that does not elevate Nadal above all other players must
have been deliberately concocted to disadvantage Nadal. This paranoid
outlook hinders rational debate, yet you apply it to even the most
seemingly uncontroversial tennis metrics: "Who says slams are the most
important tournaments? Nadal has more Masters titles than anyone else
-- those are really the most important! Slammists just want to put
down Rafa!!"
The launch date concept, which I first discussed in March of 2006, had
absolutely nothing to do with direct comparisons between Federer and
Nadal:
"I define the top champions of men's tennis in the open era as those
who
have won six or more slam titles. There seems to me to be a clear
difference -- in terms of career achievements, short-term dominance,
reputation, and lasting impact on the game -- between the players in
the 6+ group and those below. For example, many more people are
likely
to consider Becker a true all-time great than, say, Vilas.
"For the purpose of this analysis, a champion's career is 'launched'
when the player reaches his first slam final (doesn't have to win it,
although most of them do). That's the point at which he truly
announces
himself as a force to be reckoned with in the game."
>
> > Your approach apparently permits
> > choosing whatever date you please, based on how good or bad it makes a
> > particular player look. Not to mention that it requires ignoring
> > absurdities such as claiming that a player who makes two consecutive
> > Wimbledon finals can't "compete" at Wimbledon.
>
> The same problem can be found in your "launch" crap. When was Lendl's
> launch...
FO 1981.
Patrick Kehoe
>
>
>
> > > Your approach apparently permits
> > > choosing whatever date you please, based on how good or bad it makes a
> > > particular player look. Not to mention that it requires ignoring
> > > absurdities such as claiming that a player who makes two consecutive
> > > Wimbledon finals can't "compete" at Wimbledon.
>
> > The same problem can be found in your "launch" crap. When was Lendl's
> > launch...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't let TT worry you Joe... we know you are brilliant and your
'launch' theory has indeed stood the test of time and critique...
don't fret... TT hasn't even come up with a decent theory here at RST
or essentialist critique of a player/generation... he still has a lot
to learn about what is valuable and original in terms of intellectual
content...
P
TT
I just pointed out that it can be unfair. You can't use these sort of
definitions/theories without actually looking at the individual case -
or otherwise you can cherry pick what theories you use for specific case
to support your biased view.
> don't fret... TT hasn't even come up with a decent theory here at RST
I have, multiple. Doesn't mean I would be naming them with silly
sounding definitions though.
> or essentialist critique of a player/generation...
Is that a must?
> he still has a lot
> to learn about what is valuable and original in terms of intellectual
> content...
>
> P
While you dear Patrick usually write a lot and say very little. Your
intellectual honesty is easily measured by your usual running away from
counter.arguments.
TT
Maybe it's because that's what I honestly think...At Masters there are
all the best players too.
Have to admit, though that the longer you stay here - the more slammist
you're likely to become...which is actually happening to me too
currently. Now of course you say it's because of Nadal's recent slam
success...
You on the other hand have tendency to claim that your opinions have
nothing to do with Fed.Nad comparison...h2h doesn't matter etc. Right...
> The launch date concept, which I first discussed in March of 2006, had
> absolutely nothing to do with direct comparisons between Federer and
> Nadal:
>
> "I define the top champions of men's tennis in the open era as those
> who
> have won six or more slam titles. There seems to me to be a clear
> difference -- in terms of career achievements, short-term dominance,
> reputation, and lasting impact on the game -- between the players in
> the 6+ group and those below. For example, many more people are
> likely
> to consider Becker a true all-time great than, say, Vilas.
>
> "For the purpose of this analysis, a champion's career is 'launched'
> when the player reaches his first slam final (doesn't have to win it,
> although most of them do). That's the point at which he truly
> announces
> himself as a force to be reckoned with in the game."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_thread/thread/947659e74466421b/6a25de981a9fa034?q=
>
I stand corrected. However as I pointed out to Patrick, one should still
consider circumstances before using this sort of general
application...otherwise you can pick and choose which theories support
your pow.