Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Don't we all miss Rafa?

469 views
Skip to first unread message

Whisper

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 10:47:46 AM7/16/17
to


: (

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Federer Fanatic

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 10:48:38 AM7/16/17
to
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:47:39 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
|
|
|: (
|


Not really ;-)

FF

--





The measure of a man is what he does with power.
- Plato

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 10:48:38 AM7/16/17
to
Rafa? lol

Court_1

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 10:49:08 AM7/16/17
to
But he couldn't make it past the QF for the sixth year in a row.

Whisper

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 10:50:44 AM7/16/17
to
On 17/07/2017 12:49 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> But he couldn't make it past the QF for the sixth year in a row.
>



Yeah but he wouldn't be caving mentally like this.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 10:52:11 AM7/16/17
to
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 10:50:44 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> On 17/07/2017 12:49 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> > But he couldn't make it past the QF for the sixth year in a row.
> >
>
>
>
> Yeah but he wouldn't be caving mentally like this.

But what does it matter if he couldn't make the final?

calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 10:52:52 AM7/16/17
to
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 4:47:46 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> : (
>


The great clay bum rooter?
Does he still play?


Max

SliceAndDice

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 10:54:24 AM7/16/17
to
So if Nadal wins in a rout, it is because he is in "ferocious form"?

Whisper

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 10:56:16 AM7/16/17
to
It's a shame because he woulda put in a much better performance.

The game is overrun with mental midgets.

Maybe Roger can win slams for the next 2 yrs or so?

Heck he may even give Margaret Court's 24 a real shake.

SliceAndDice

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 11:10:19 AM7/16/17
to
Probably, but he seemed to be injured no? But regardless, don't think he would have beaten this Roger.

John Liang

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 11:10:43 AM7/16/17
to
Put it this way he caved in to even lesser player at Wimbledon six times in a row.

undecided

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 2:33:29 PM7/16/17
to
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 10:47:46 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
I had the same discussion with a friend after Cilic's awful performance in the final. If Rafa were there we would have been treated to another thriller,probably 5 sets.

Gracchus

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 2:36:49 PM7/16/17
to
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 11:33:29 AM UTC-7, undecided wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 10:47:46 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:

> > : (

> I had the same discussion with a friend after Cilic's awful performance in the final. If Rafa were there we would have been treated to another thriller,probably 5 sets.

The tournament already had a 5-set Rafa thriller--his 4th-round loss to the titan Gilles Müller.

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 3:04:50 PM7/16/17
to
I agree if Rafa would have made it to the QF it would have been great.

Carey

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 3:28:17 PM7/16/17
to
This.

And of course the Great Man thrashed the guy who beat Müller...

grif

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 3:29:50 PM7/16/17
to
Sad when a boxing press conference is more entertaining than the Wimbledon final.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCT7vXrrqFk#t=2m30s

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 4:18:44 PM7/16/17
to
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 7:48:38 AM UTC-7, Federer Fanatic wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:47:39 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> |
> |
> |: (
> |
>
>
> Not really ;-)
>
> FF
>

Well, he was there; he was at Wimbledon.

:)))

P

jdeluise

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 4:21:46 PM7/16/17
to
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 13:18:42 -0700, Patrick Kehoe wrote:

> Well, he was there; he was at Wimbledon.

bob and Whisper will say he skipped it due to injury from now on, just
like they do with the '09 FO.

stephenJ

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 5:01:50 PM7/16/17
to

I only miss players who had to miss the event for some good reason, like
Serena at the FO and W this year. Rafe? He was here, he just got beat.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The Iceberg

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 5:07:50 PM7/16/17
to
Like this classic Fedfan response!

The Iceberg

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 5:09:16 PM7/16/17
to
Bet first thing you did was give your Nadal dartboard a big punch before laughing your head off and dancing wildly in the front garden! :)

undecided

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 6:56:22 PM7/16/17
to
Yeah, he shouldn't have lost that one. He basically fucked around for 2 sets before he got serious.

Giovanna

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 7:16:24 PM7/16/17
to
No way

Carey

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 7:49:56 PM7/16/17
to
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 3:56:22 PM UTC-7, undecided wrote:

>
> Yeah, he shouldn't have lost that one. He basically fucked around for 2 sets before he got serious.


Interesting. And your explanation for N's early losses in the five previous years?

RaspingDrive

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 8:19:02 PM7/16/17
to
Not to forget W 2010 when Petzchner (sp?) almost got him. That was a time when Nadal was supposedly at the peak of his powers! The truth may be that his game is not tailored for continued success on grass -- there being only so much success that growls snarls etc combined with aura can produce on a GC. Mostly Brown-types will have a hearty laugh 'drop-shotting' him on their way to a win. Next year perhaps he should skip FO and practice rigorously on GCs in Mallorca for about three months. He may then be competitive in the early rounds at W.

undecided

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 8:21:52 PM7/16/17
to
You guys don't need to be dicks with Nadal. He has 2 wimbies and made a lot of finals. Some other guys would call that a career. You have to recognize that although his game is not suited to grass, by sheer will and effort he accomplished a lot on that surface.

undecided

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 8:24:47 PM7/16/17
to
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
Come on man, everyone except 1 guy loses at Wimbledon each year. We know his game is not suited to grass and yet he has achieved more there than most players dream of achieving. This year, his game looked great even on grass. He poor ROS got exposed by Muller but Muller was the exact stereotypical bad match up for him on grass. Had he gotten past Muller I am confident that he would have been in the final against Fed and we would have seen an awesome final.

RaspingDrive

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 8:26:51 PM7/16/17
to
Just offering the helpful insight that it has not been easy for Nadal even during his best years. If by sheer will and effort Nadal can achieve more on GC, by all means let him practice hard for about three months in Mallorca as suggested.

RaspingDrive

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 8:28:51 PM7/16/17
to
Be mindful he would have crossed paths with a blister-less Cilic before the final.

jdeluise

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 8:32:42 PM7/16/17
to
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 17:24:45 -0700, undecided wrote:

> Come on man, everyone except 1 guy loses at Wimbledon each year. We know
> his game is not suited to grass and yet he has achieved more there than
> most players dream of achieving. This year, his game looked great even
> on grass. He poor ROS got exposed by Muller but Muller was the exact
> stereotypical bad match up for him on grass. Had he gotten past Muller I
> am confident that he would have been in the final against Fed and we
> would have seen an awesome final.

You sound bitter.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 12:16:02 AM7/17/17
to
He's right though. IF Nadal had somehow made it to the final vs Federer, it would have likely been a competitive match. Much more competitive than the horrible Cilic-Federer final or the just as horrible Wawrinka-Nadal final at the FO.

Nobody wants to see lopsided finals, or at least I don't. The FO and Wimbledon were mostly snoozers this year--for both the men and women. That Ostapenko-Halep FO final was an embarrassment for Halep after being up a set and a break. Then we got the Wimbledon final between Venus and Muguruza where Venus had a meltdown after almost winning the first set. Then we had the thrashing of Wawrinka by Nadal in the FO final (never in doubt but not interesting to watch) and then we had this Cilic-Federer Wimbledon clunker where Cilic basically had his own meltdown. Bad tennis for the past few months. No truly memorable matches.

SliceAndDice

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 12:20:09 AM7/17/17
to
Muller-Nadal was memorable. Among the women, Muguruza-Kerber. If Kerber made it past Mugu, I sincerely think she would have won Wimbledon. She played the best I have seen her since the Open.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 12:26:07 AM7/17/17
to
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:20:09 AM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:

> Muller-Nadal was memorable. Among the women, Muguruza-Kerber. If Kerber made it past Mugu, I sincerely think she would have won Wimbledon. She played the best I have seen her since the Open.

Ok, those two matches were good and I agree that it's good to see Kerber playing well again. She's a great fighter.

I was speaking more about the finals of the FO and W--all were stinkers--both men and women.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 12:28:18 AM7/17/17
to
I think Nadal would have defeated Cilic.

John Liang

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 1:02:55 AM7/17/17
to
I doubt it and even if he get past Cilic, he could lost to the next guy. He just does not do well against the big hitters, it is not just this year but for the past 6 Wimbledons. I think Cilic was overwhelmed by the occasion in playing a final. In an earlier round he might not be as nervous as he was in the final. Remember last year in his QF against Federer Cilic was fearless in his ball striking and was certainly not handicapped by his emotion. It is often easier to upset a great player in early round than in the final when the occasion often get to the lesser guy.

Whisper

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 8:45:46 AM7/17/17
to
Fed was 2 pts from losing in 2nd rd when he won 2012 Wimbledon. Rafa
always has a match he can lose at Wimbledon. Lately he's been losing
them. When he wins them he most likely makes the final where he plays
extremely well.

RaspingDrive

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 8:52:41 AM7/17/17
to
I would say 50-50. Nadal would have been full of confidence with that win against Muller and Cilic, being on a serving spree at that stage, would have offered stiff resistance.

RaspingDrive

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 8:59:00 AM7/17/17
to
After 2007, and excluding his favorite clay, he won five and lost five. Over his career he won five and lost more (perhaps 7).

stephenJ

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 9:00:19 AM7/17/17
to
On 7/16/2017 11:16 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 2:36:49 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 11:33:29 AM UTC-7, undecided wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 10:47:46 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>> : (
>>
>>> I had the same discussion with a friend after Cilic's awful performance in the final. If Rafa were there we would have been treated to another thriller,probably 5 sets.
>>
>> The tournament already had a 5-set Rafa thriller--his 4th-round loss to the titan Gilles Müller.
>
> He's right though. IF Nadal had somehow made it to the final vs Federer, it would have likely been a competitive match. Much more competitive than the horrible Cilic-Federer final or the just as horrible Wawrinka-Nadal final at the FO.
>
> Nobody wants to see lopsided finals, or at least I don't.

I've never understood that thinking. I only want to see a 'classic'
final when I don't have a rooting interest. If my favorite player or
team is in it, I want them to squash the competition like a bug. No need
to experience the stress of a close game/match, LOL.




---

heyg...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 9:58:29 AM7/17/17
to
A beat down is no fun when there's a mis-match or injured player, but a beat down among top rivals is its own type of classic (like Serena crushing Sharapova at the 07AO).

SliceAndDice

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 10:23:39 AM7/17/17
to
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:00:19 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
Ha ha exactly. As a Fed fan, rooting for him in an epic match creates a lot of stress. If he wins one of those epics a la Australia, it is incredibly satisfying. But I would rather he not make things too complicated, for my own mental well-being. :)

I really do not know how the Nadal fans deal with this, as most of his later stage matches outside of clay end up being epic seesaw five setters? Maybe they just approach these matches with a "any win outside of clay is gravy" mindset? I also feel that is how *he* viewed these matches in the earlier stages of his career and it helped him win a lot of them.

ahonkan

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 2:03:25 PM7/17/17
to
On Monday, 17 July 2017 00:03:29 UTC+5:30, undecided wrote:

> I had the same discussion with a friend after Cilic's awful performance in the final. If Rafa were there we would have been treated to another thriller,probably 5 sets.

Sadly, the field has 128 players and Rafa doesn't get to play Roger in the
final without facing some other bums along the way. 5 different bums have
beaten Rafa (Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown, Muller) the last 5 times he
played at W and none of them reached even an SF.
Here's their respective record over the last 5 times Rafa played:
Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Rafa R2 R1 R4 R2 DNP R4
Fed W R2 F F SF W

Fed straight-setted Cilic who beat Muller in 5 who beat Rafa in 5.
Why should Rafa be more competitive against Fed? He's lost thrice to
him already this year on HC where Rafa has a better record vs Fed.

ahonkan

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 2:09:33 PM7/17/17
to
On Monday, 17 July 2017 09:58:18 UTC+5:30, Court_1 wrote:

> I think Nadal would have defeated Cilic.

Repeat after me: Rafa lost to Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown & Muller
before QF and none of them made it even to SF. Why should he be better
in the later rounds if he is not good enough to get through the earlier
rounds. You have this love affair with Rafa that causes you to pick him
year after year for at least making the final when simple logic and
past history suggests his glory days at W are long past.
It is illogical to suggest that Rafa woulda beaten Cilic.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 12:37:59 AM7/18/17
to
Because I think if he got past that Muller match he would have been more prepared to dispose of Cilic who has a terrible record vs Big Four players including Nadal.

I also agree with undecided that there is no question that if Nadal made the final to play Federer, he would have been a much better challenge for Federer and it probably would have gone to four or five sets. Where I disagree with undecided is with my opinion that Federer and not Nadal would likely win the match on a grass surface.

We'll never know obviously and it's all speculation. Maybe we can see a Fedal final at the USO. I hope so. Why? Because they are the two best players this year and they are two of the best competitors of all time. I'm sick and tired of watching a lot of these horrible competitors. Cilic was injured so it's understandable why he couldn't compete well vs Federer in the final but that match was a complete letdown.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 1:13:13 AM7/18/17
to
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:00:19 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:

> > Nobody wants to see lopsided finals, or at least I don't.
>
> I've never understood that thinking. I only want to see a 'classic'
> final when I don't have a rooting interest. If my favorite player or
> team is in it, I want them to squash the competition like a bug. No need
> to experience the stress of a close game/match, LOL.

That's how I feel about it. I don't mind seeing my favorite players issue beatdowns on lesser players in earlier rounds of slams but when it comes to the SFs or final, I want to see competitive matches. I don't want to watch finals like the FO 2017 final where Wawrinka struggled to get a few games from Nadal or like Wimbledon 2017 where Cilic was injured and couldn't move. It's ridiculous. Give me an AO 2017 type final any day even though I was full of anxiety watching that one because I was afraid Federer would lose.

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 1:59:19 AM7/18/17
to
The difference with 2017 RG and Wimbledon finals was that probably
nobody would have been able to do much better against Nadal than
Wawrinka did, Rafa was playing that well. That's worth the admission.

Meanwhile the Wimbledon final was mainly due to Cilic's abysmal
performance. Put Nadal, Djokovic or Murray in the final and it would
have been much more exciting, Federer could easily have lost.

And what's up with all the zillion posts here, looks like Fedfans have
completely lost the plot...

ali...@alinefx.com

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 2:57:38 AM7/18/17
to
It's you who has lost the plot

ahonkan

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 3:01:08 AM7/18/17
to
I didn't know you had such a great sense of humour! Fed beat the guy who
beat the guy who beat Rafa, he beat the guy who beat Djoker and he beat
the guy who beat the guy who beat Andy. So why could he 'easily have lost'
to them? He is 8-0 vs top 10 this year, incl 3 wins over Rafa. If they
want to meet Fed in the semi/final, they better win 5/6 matches to
achieve that. Rafa hasn't reached the QF since 2011 and you think he'd
beat Fed easily? He had never lost to Fed at AO until this year too and
hadn't lost 4 in a row to Fed until this year either.
>
> And what's up with all the zillion posts here, looks like Fedfans have
> completely lost the plot...

No, it's the Fedhaters that have gone bonkers ...

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 3:35:21 AM7/18/17
to
ahonkan kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 10:01:
> On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 11:29:19 UTC+5:30, TT wrote:
>> Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 8:13:
>>> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:00:19 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nobody wants to see lopsided finals, or at least I don't.
>>>>
>>>> I've never understood that thinking. I only want to see a 'classic'
>>>> final when I don't have a rooting interest. If my favorite player or
>>>> team is in it, I want them to squash the competition like a bug. No need
>>>> to experience the stress of a close game/match, LOL.
>>>
>>> That's how I feel about it. I don't mind seeing my favorite players issue beatdowns on lesser players in earlier rounds of slams but when it comes to the SFs or final, I want to see competitive matches. I don't want to watch finals like the FO 2017 final where Wawrinka struggled to get a few games from Nadal or like Wimbledon 2017 where Cilic was injured and couldn't move. It's ridiculous. Give me an AO 2017 type final any day even though I was full of anxiety watching that one because I was afraid Federer would lose.
>>>
>>
>> The difference with 2017 RG and Wimbledon finals was that probably
>> nobody would have been able to do much better against Nadal than
>> Wawrinka did, Rafa was playing that well. That's worth the admission.
>>
>> Meanwhile the Wimbledon final was mainly due to Cilic's abysmal
>> performance. Put Nadal, Djokovic or Murray in the final and it would
>> have been much more exciting, Federer could easily have lost.
>
> I didn't know you had such a great sense of humour! Fed beat the guy who
> beat the guy who beat Rafa, he beat the guy who beat Djoker and he beat
> the guy who beat the guy who beat Andy. So why could he 'easily have lost'
> to them?

What a childish argument that is...

How many times we have seen a big champion almost losing on early rounds
and then being unstoppable in later rounds. Countless times.

The draw opened up for Fed nicely, which doesn't mean that he would have
remained unbeaten if it had not opened up. Doh.

ahonkan

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 4:15:52 AM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 13:05:21 UTC+5:30, TT wrote:

>
> What a childish argument that is...
>
> How many times we have seen a big champion almost losing on early rounds
> and then being unstoppable in later rounds. Countless times.
>
> The draw opened up for Fed nicely, which doesn't mean that he would have
> remained unbeaten if it had not opened up. Doh.

Stating facts is a much better than woulda-coulda based on age-old H2H
skewed by a single-surface superiority!

Tuan

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 4:26:46 AM7/18/17
to
Fed beat no. 27, 13, 6, 11, 7 to win the tournament. Nadal beat no. 30 then lost to no. 16. No more needs to be said.

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 4:30:45 AM7/18/17
to
You're off tangents... I didn't even mention h2h.

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 4:38:06 AM7/18/17
to
Which doesn't mean that had Nadal won the match he wouldn't have won the
tournament.

But I wasn't talking about Nadal only, that's your obsession since it
seems to be a delicate spot for Fefans...

The fact remains that Cilic was bad and no doubt any of the Big Four
would have played better.

Whisper

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 5:45:19 AM7/18/17
to
I think Fed played well enough to still make it a memorable match. I
really enjoyed it. It's rare to see a player make his opponent cry
during the match by breaking his spirit. I'd definitiely watch it
again, whereas Murray v Djoker matches I'll pass on altogether.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Whisper

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 6:12:13 AM7/18/17
to
Hmm... I see no evidence of that? Everyone seems to be complimentary to
Fed. Looks like the Fedfuckers are just carrying as if there is a lot
of Fed hate when in reality there is none.

Like I said you are a weird bunch of people.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Whisper

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 6:18:23 AM7/18/17
to
USO titles

In last 9 years Federer has won 0 USO

In last 8 years Nadal has won 2 USO

No more needs to be said.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

John Liang

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 6:21:55 AM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 2:37:59 PM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:09:33 PM UTC-4, ahonkan wrote:
> > On Monday, 17 July 2017 09:58:18 UTC+5:30, Court_1 wrote:
> >
> > > I think Nadal would have defeated Cilic.
> >
> > Repeat after me: Rafa lost to Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown & Muller
> > before QF and none of them made it even to SF. Why should he be better
> > in the later rounds if he is not good enough to get through the earlier
> > rounds. You have this love affair with Rafa that causes you to pick him
> > year after year for at least making the final when simple logic and
> > past history suggests his glory days at W are long past.
> > It is illogical to suggest that Rafa woulda beaten Cilic.
>
> Because I think if he got past that Muller match he would have been more prepared to dispose of Cilic who has a terrible record vs Big Four players including Nadal.

Sure, but Nadal has a history of losses at Wimbledon to this type of player, started with Rosol, then Brown, then Kyrgios and this year Muller. He had four or five years to look at the tape and learn how to deal with this type of players, why do you think he could not deal with them when he came up against one in the last four or five Wimbledons ? Cilic had bad record vs big four, what about Rosol, Brown, Kyrgios or Muller, did any of them have great record against the big four ? No, they don't but that did not stop them beating Nadal at Wimbledon.

John Liang

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 6:24:16 AM7/18/17
to
Federer was 28 when he won his last USO, Nadal was 27 when he won his last. Federer won 3 more USO , no more need to be said.

Tuan

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 6:27:52 AM7/18/17
to
Fed beat FOUR seeds 13 or higher to win the tournament. Nadal was knocked out by seed 16. No more needs to be said, except for TT :)

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 6:39:31 AM7/18/17
to
:)

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:18:58 AM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:59:19 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> The difference with 2017 RG and Wimbledon finals was that probably
> nobody would have been able to do much better against Nadal than
> Wawrinka did, Rafa was playing that well. That's worth the admission.

It's not worth the admission to see Wawrinka(the number 3 player in the world) win a total of six games for the entire match! At least Cilic was injured.

> Meanwhile the Wimbledon final was mainly due to Cilic's abysmal
> performance. Put Nadal, Djokovic or Murray in the final and it would
> have been much more exciting, Federer could easily have lost.

Again, Cilic was injured and no, Djokovic, Murray or Nadal weren't going to beat Federer at this Wimbledon IMO.

> And what's up with all the zillion posts here, looks like Fedfans have
> completely lost the plot...

Fans are happy that Federer achieved another milestone. He's now the stand-alone Wimbledon goat. You can't comprehend that?

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:25:48 AM7/18/17
to
But that's all you really have these days as a Nadal fanatic--the past h2h. That's Fed's only blur on his otherwise fantastic resume and it's not enough of a blur to blunt the fact that Federer is greater achievement-wise than Nadal. You can't discount the four slam gap between Federer and Nadal. It's too great.

IMO if Federer and Nadal meet off clay, Federer will have the advantage. The passage of time seems to have blunted that mental advantage Nadal had from the clay beatings over Federer.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:27:39 AM7/18/17
to
I don't think Federer broke Cilic's spirit. I think Cilic was genuinely injured and he realized he wouldn't be able to compete with somebody of Fed's level so he lost it emotionally.

stephenJ

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:29:07 AM7/18/17
to
Cilic was injured. And since Murray and Joker were injured too, Joker so
badly he had to retire, it's unlikely they would have played better.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:30:16 AM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 6:12:13 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> On 18/07/2017 5:01 PM, ahonkan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 11:29:19 UTC+5:30, TT wrote:
> >> Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 8:13:
> >>> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:00:19 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> >> And what's up with all the zillion posts here, looks like Fedfans have
> >> completely lost the plot...
> >
> > No, it's the Fedhaters that have gone bonkers ...
> >
>
>
>
> Hmm... I see no evidence of that? Everyone seems to be complimentary to
> Fed. Looks like the Fedfuckers are just carrying as if there is a lot
> of Fed hate when in reality there is none.
>
> Like I said you are a weird bunch of people.

There's tons of Federer hate on display. You aren't looking very hard if you say you can't see it.

In any case, it doesn't really matter because Federer is so far ahead of all other players at the moment, it isn't funny--slams, weeks @#1, etc. etc.

stephenJ

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:30:48 AM7/18/17
to
Yes, this alleged "disappointment" about the final doesn't seem to be
shared by anyone in the real world. 90% of the public seemed thrilled
that Federer won his 8th W, there was zero grumbling about how it happened.

stephenJ

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:32:11 AM7/18/17
to
On 7/18/2017 7:30 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 6:12:13 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
>> On 18/07/2017 5:01 PM, ahonkan wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 11:29:19 UTC+5:30, TT wrote:
>>>> Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 8:13:
>>>>> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:00:19 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
>>>> And what's up with all the zillion posts here, looks like Fedfans have
>>>> completely lost the plot...
>>>
>>> No, it's the Fedhaters that have gone bonkers ...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm... I see no evidence of that? Everyone seems to be complimentary to
>> Fed. Looks like the Fedfuckers are just carrying as if there is a lot
>> of Fed hate when in reality there is none.
>>
>> Like I said you are a weird bunch of people.
>
> There's tons of Federer hate on display.

There's still some, but i'd say it's down about 75% from its usual
amount. Fed's victory has really taken a lot of the anti-Fed ammunition
away from the haters.




---

The Iceberg

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:36:55 AM7/18/17
to
they play their best matches vs him?

The Iceberg

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:40:06 AM7/18/17
to
also that Fed was too scared to meet Nadal on clay this year.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:45:31 AM7/18/17
to
I think off clay Nadal is the scared one these days. :)

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:57:45 AM7/18/17
to
Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 15:25:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 4:30:45 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>> ahonkan kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 11:15:
>>> On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 13:05:21 UTC+5:30, TT wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What a childish argument that is...
>>>>
>>>> How many times we have seen a big champion almost losing on early rounds
>>>> and then being unstoppable in later rounds. Countless times.
>>>>
>>>> The draw opened up for Fed nicely, which doesn't mean that he would have
>>>> remained unbeaten if it had not opened up. Doh.
>>>
>>> Stating facts is a much better than woulda-coulda based on age-old H2H
>>> skewed by a single-surface superiority!
>>>
>>
>> You're off tangents... I didn't even mention h2h.
>
> But that's all you really have these days as a Nadal fanatic--the past h2h.

I didn't bring up h2h but since you mentioned it, it just adds to the
argument that Fed might have lost the final against Rafa/Djokovic/Murray.

That's Fed's only blur on his otherwise fantastic resume and it's not
enough of a blur to blunt the fact that Federer is greater
achievement-wise than Nadal. You can't discount the four slam gap
between Federer and Nadal. It's too great.
>

That's arguable...

Nadal still has the greatest record in tennis + OG + H2H

> IMO if Federer and Nadal meet off clay, Federer will have the advantage. The passage of time seems to have blunted that mental advantage Nadal had from the clay beatings over Federer.
>

Nice how fedfans always immediately buy Fed's excuses on face value...

Did Nadal have mental advantage from the clay when they met first time
and Rafa beat him on hard?

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 8:59:11 AM7/18/17
to
So Nadal losing a 5 setter to big server; Cilic, Djokovic and Murray
injured... typical Fed slam win.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 9:08:44 AM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 8:57:45 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> > But that's all you really have these days as a Nadal fanatic--the past h2h.
>
> I didn't bring up h2h but since you mentioned it, it just adds to the
> argument that Fed might have lost the final against Rafa/Djokovic/Murray.

I repeat, Djokovic, Murray and Nadal wouldn't have defeated Federer at this Wimbledon IMO. Djokovic's form isn't good enough. Murray? Fed owns him in slams and Nadal? Federer is a better grass court player.


> That's Fed's only blur on his otherwise fantastic resume and it's not
> enough of a blur to blunt the fact that Federer is greater
> achievement-wise than Nadal. You can't discount the four slam gap
> between Federer and Nadal. It's too great.
> >
>
> That's arguable...
>
> Nadal still has the greatest record in tennis + OG + H2H


It's not arguable for SANE people. Federer is greater. OG and h2h? Please! That's amateur hour! Look at slam count, Fed's better slam record at three out of four slams and weeks @#1.

> > IMO if Federer and Nadal meet off clay, Federer will have the advantage. The passage of time seems to have blunted that mental advantage Nadal had from the clay beatings over Federer.
> >
>
> Nice how fedfans always immediately buy Fed's excuses on face value...
>
> Did Nadal have mental advantage from the clay when they met first time
> and Rafa beat him on hard?

Excuses? Well the 2017 results between Federer and Nadal have shown me that the passage of time has blunted that mental advantage Nadal had over Federer because of all of the clay wins Nadal accumulated. The fact that Federer skipped the FO tells you he doesn't want to have Nadal get the upper hand again on clay and have that transfer over to other surfaces.

If they meet off clay, I would go with Federer these days.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 9:14:40 AM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 8:59:11 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> So Nadal losing a 5 setter to big server; Cilic, Djokovic and Murray
> injured... typical Fed slam win.

Good joke. Didn't Fed just beat Nadal at the AO and wasn't Federer the first player since Wilander to post four top ten wins to win the AO?

You better not get too cocky. Nadal has work to do to catch up to Federer.

RaspingDrive

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 9:18:36 AM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 8:59:11 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
Why was it a five-setter in the first place? Poor grass court play by Nadal contributed in no small measure to it. Watch 2014 W Fed vs Muller. As for your second point, only Djokovic for sure and possibly Murray could have halted Federer, not Cilic. Even an under-cooked Federer beat Cilic in five sets. But your overall point that Federer benefited is valid, IMO. That is called exploiting the WoO. Credit to Federer and his good grass court game that he kept knocking and cashed when the moment came.

stephenJ

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 9:20:00 AM7/18/17
to

> So Nadal losing a 5 setter to big server; Cilic, Djokovic and Murray
> injured... typical Fed slam win.

Remember, Nadal just won FO without Fed present and with Joker and
Murray in the weeds. And before you say Nadal woulda won anyway,
remember, he hadn't won in 3 years.


---

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 9:22:04 AM7/18/17
to
You didn't answer my question...

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 9:26:20 AM7/18/17
to
Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 16:14:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 8:59:11 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>
>> So Nadal losing a 5 setter to big server; Cilic, Djokovic and Murray
>> injured... typical Fed slam win.
>
> Good joke. Didn't Fed just beat Nadal at the AO

No, that was 6 months ago.

Doesn't change the fact Fed is taking advantage of rest of the big four
being off.

I agree that Fed does have his chances against Rafa... I think he still
lost to Muller because of his nerves, really bad play on breakpoints.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 9:36:01 AM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:26:20 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 16:14:
> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 8:59:11 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> >
> >> So Nadal losing a 5 setter to big server; Cilic, Djokovic and Murray
> >> injured... typical Fed slam win.
> >
> > Good joke. Didn't Fed just beat Nadal at the AO
>
> No, that was 6 months ago.

Nadal hasn't defeated Federer this year!


> Doesn't change the fact Fed is taking advantage of rest of the big four
> being off.

So is Nadal! And again, Djokovic and Murray were NOT going to beat Federer at this Wimbledon.


> I agree that Fed does have his chances against Rafa... I think he still
> lost to Muller because of his nerves, really bad play on breakpoints.

Nerves, lol. He's lost early at Wimbledon for SIX years! That ain't nerves.

RaspingDrive

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 9:39:19 AM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:26:20 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 16:14:
> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 8:59:11 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> >
> >> So Nadal losing a 5 setter to big server; Cilic, Djokovic and Murray
> >> injured... typical Fed slam win.
> >
> > Good joke. Didn't Fed just beat Nadal at the AO
>
> No, that was 6 months ago.
>
> Doesn't change the fact Fed is taking advantage of rest of the big four
> being off.
>

Correction: Two among the rest of the big four being off.

> I agree that Fed does have his chances against Rafa... I think he still
> lost to Muller because of his nerves, really bad play on breakpoints.

Nadal's GC game leaves a lot to be desired. Plain fact.

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 9:40:15 AM7/18/17
to
Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 16:35:
> And again, Djokovic and Murray were NOT going to beat Federer at this Wimbledon.


Obviously not being both injured. Lucky for Fed.

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 10:39:21 AM7/18/17
to
Djokovic being injured or out of form is lucky for Fed but not Nadal? Federer did a lot better vs Djokovic than Nadal has for the past few years.

SliceAndDice

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 10:51:11 AM7/18/17
to
Fed has played his biggest nemesis at almost every tournament he played in 2017 and come out on top. He did not meet him at Halle or Wimbledon, but he has the career edge against Nadal on grass anyway.

Nadal, now, is a different story. His biggest nemesis, Djokovic has been completely out of sorts this year. Nadal avoided meeting peak Djokovic in Australia as well as at Roland Garros (Djokovic has owned Nadal on all surfaces lately). The way I see it, Nadal is the one who is vulturing.

Carey

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 10:58:59 AM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 6:36:01 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:26:20 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> > Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 16:14:
> > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 8:59:11 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> > >
> > >> So Nadal losing a 5 setter to big server; Cilic, Djokovic and Murray
> > >> injured... typical Fed slam win.
> > >
> > > Good joke. Didn't Fed just beat Nadal at the AO
> >
> > No, that was 6 months ago.
>
> Nadal hasn't defeated Federer this year!


Actually, Nadal hasn't defeated Federer since January 2014. :)

SliceAndDice

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 11:03:14 AM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:59:19 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 8:13:
> > On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:00:19 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> >
> >>> Nobody wants to see lopsided finals, or at least I don't.
> >>
> >> I've never understood that thinking. I only want to see a 'classic'
> >> final when I don't have a rooting interest. If my favorite player or
> >> team is in it, I want them to squash the competition like a bug. No need
> >> to experience the stress of a close game/match, LOL.
> >
> > That's how I feel about it. I don't mind seeing my favorite players issue beatdowns on lesser players in earlier rounds of slams but when it comes to the SFs or final, I want to see competitive matches. I don't want to watch finals like the FO 2017 final where Wawrinka struggled to get a few games from Nadal or like Wimbledon 2017 where Cilic was injured and couldn't move. It's ridiculous. Give me an AO 2017 type final any day even though I was full of anxiety watching that one because I was afraid Federer would lose.
> >
>
> The difference with 2017 RG and Wimbledon finals was that probably
> nobody would have been able to do much better against Nadal than
> Wawrinka did, Rafa was playing that well. That's worth the admission.
>
Watching Nadal toy with guys who have no idea how to play on clay or lack weapons if they are competent enough might be worth the admission for you, not for most of us. Wawrinka is good but too inconsistent, Thiem is good but has failed to deliver on the biggest stages. Unfortunately, peak Djokovic was not there or he probably would have taken Nadal to the cleaners. Now that would have been worth the admission. :)

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 11:14:55 AM7/18/17
to
Irrelevant since Nadal lost before semis.

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 11:18:28 AM7/18/17
to
SliceAndDice kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 17:51:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:36:01 AM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:26:20 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>>> Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 16:14:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 8:59:11 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So Nadal losing a 5 setter to big server; Cilic, Djokovic and Murray
>>>>> injured... typical Fed slam win.
>>>>
>>>> Good joke. Didn't Fed just beat Nadal at the AO
>>>
>>> No, that was 6 months ago.
>>
>> Nadal hasn't defeated Federer this year!
>>
>>
>>> Doesn't change the fact Fed is taking advantage of rest of the big four
>>> being off.
>>
>> So is Nadal! And again, Djokovic and Murray were NOT going to beat Federer at this Wimbledon.
>>
>>
>>> I agree that Fed does have his chances against Rafa... I think he still
>>> lost to Muller because of his nerves, really bad play on breakpoints.
>>
>> Nerves, lol. He's lost early at Wimbledon for SIX years! That ain't nerves.
>

Nadal won more points than Muller and wasted lots of breakpoints... nerves.

> Fed has played his biggest nemesis at almost every tournament he played in 2017 and come out on top. He did not meet him at Halle or Wimbledon, but he has the career edge against Nadal on grass anyway.
>
> Nadal, now, is a different story. His biggest nemesis, Djokovic has been completely out of sorts this year. Nadal avoided meeting peak Djokovic in Australia as well as at Roland Garros (Djokovic has owned Nadal on all surfaces lately). The way I see it, Nadal is the one who is vulturing.
>

Nadal would have beaten in form Djokovic at RG and hasn't won other
slams so he's not vulturing. Fed would have lost at AO if Rafa had not
been mentally weak and possibly at Wimbledon as well.

So Fed is vulturing, Rafa winning the minimum with his form.

TT

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 11:21:42 AM7/18/17
to
SliceAndDice kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 18:03:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:59:19 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>> Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 8:13:
>>> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:00:19 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nobody wants to see lopsided finals, or at least I don't.
>>>>
>>>> I've never understood that thinking. I only want to see a 'classic'
>>>> final when I don't have a rooting interest. If my favorite player or
>>>> team is in it, I want them to squash the competition like a bug. No need
>>>> to experience the stress of a close game/match, LOL.
>>>
>>> That's how I feel about it. I don't mind seeing my favorite players issue beatdowns on lesser players in earlier rounds of slams but when it comes to the SFs or final, I want to see competitive matches. I don't want to watch finals like the FO 2017 final where Wawrinka struggled to get a few games from Nadal or like Wimbledon 2017 where Cilic was injured and couldn't move. It's ridiculous. Give me an AO 2017 type final any day even though I was full of anxiety watching that one because I was afraid Federer would lose.
>>>
>>
>> The difference with 2017 RG and Wimbledon finals was that probably
>> nobody would have been able to do much better against Nadal than
>> Wawrinka did, Rafa was playing that well. That's worth the admission.
>>
> Watching Nadal toy with guys who have no idea how to play on clay or lack weapons
That's supposed to describe Wawrinka? Stopped reading at that point.

SliceAndDice

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 11:31:53 AM7/18/17
to
If you had just read the next sentence .. :)

SliceAndDice

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 11:32:20 AM7/18/17
to
LOL

Court_1

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 1:44:16 PM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 11:18:28 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> Nadal would have beaten in form Djokovic at RG and hasn't won other
> slams so he's not vulturing. Fed would have lost at AO if Rafa had not
> been mentally weak and possibly at Wimbledon as well.
>
> So Fed is vulturing, Rafa winning the minimum with his form.

LOL. You're penalizing Federer for winning slams and other tournaments on more than one surface and for beating his biggest nemesis but trying to elevate Nadal for only being able to win on clay this year and not playing his biggest nemesis?

Just when I think I've read the dumbest post from you, you outdo yourself. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Quit while you're not ahead. Seriously, you're posting stupidity. You better pray Djokovic doesn't come back to life because then Nadal will have two problem players on his hands.

Guypers

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 2:18:55 PM7/18/17
to
TJT is losing it, not good!

Whisper

unread,
Jul 19, 2017, 5:42:56 AM7/19/17
to
On 18/07/2017 10:25 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 4:30:45 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>> ahonkan kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 11:15:
>>> On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 13:05:21 UTC+5:30, TT wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What a childish argument that is...
>>>>
>>>> How many times we have seen a big champion almost losing on early rounds
>>>> and then being unstoppable in later rounds. Countless times.
>>>>
>>>> The draw opened up for Fed nicely, which doesn't mean that he would have
>>>> remained unbeaten if it had not opened up. Doh.
>>>
>>> Stating facts is a much better than woulda-coulda based on age-old H2H
>>> skewed by a single-surface superiority!
>>>
>>
>> You're off tangents... I didn't even mention h2h.
>
> But that's all you really have these days as a Nadal fanatic--the past h2h. That's Fed's only blur on his otherwise fantastic resume and it's not enough of a blur to blunt the fact that Federer is greater achievement-wise than Nadal. You can't discount the four slam gap between Federer and Nadal. It's too great.



Though it must be said 4 slams is not as big a gap as it used to be when
slams were harder to come by. Djoker won 4 slams over a 11 month period
for eg.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Court_1

unread,
Jul 19, 2017, 8:10:21 AM7/19/17
to
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 5:42:56 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:

> > But that's all you really have these days as a Nadal fanatic--the past h2h. That's Fed's only blur on his otherwise fantastic resume and it's not enough of a blur to blunt the fact that Federer is greater achievement-wise than Nadal. You can't discount the four slam gap between Federer and Nadal. It's too great.
>
>
>
> Though it must be said 4 slams is not as big a gap as it used to be when
> slams were harder to come by. Djoker won 4 slams over a 11 month period
> for eg.

And then Djokovic couldn't buy a slam after that. It becomes more difficult after age 29/30 to rack them up especially if you are Nadal where clay titles make up almost 70% of your slam haul.
0 new messages