Aside from the blow-smoke-up-Rafa’s-ass line of reasoning that I’m all done with and hope to burn to the ground, the Roger-is-a-mental-midget crap is getting thrown-out the backdoor, too. Keep in mind, the latter is very much fueled by the former. Indeed, Rafa’s bloated legacy offers life-support to the amateur punditry that, in some cases, demoralizes Roger’s legacy. This is ridiculous, this is bananaland.
The people that peddle this Roger-as-damaged-goods prayer are hopeless.
THE ONLY EVIDENCE THESE IMBECILES HAVE IS HIS INCREDIBLE, CONSISTENT EXPOSURE DEEP INTO THE DRAW.
To clarify: his consistency is used against him.
Couple of fun facts regarding this consistency (that has exposed him to loss, i.e., he didn’t duck tournaments or seasons or entire years):
A man has won 40 or more consecutive matches at a grand slam tournament three times. Roger has done it twice and he did so at two different grand slams (Wimby and USO).
I know you all know this: he has the record for most consecutive grand slam finals played with 10. He also has the second most consecutive major finals played with 8. Two different streaks. That’s consistency and I say all of this only to clarify the exposure, the vulnerability of the man. He lost some big matches? Really? He was in several year after year after year, Einstein
Another stat that everyone’s heard: Roger leads for most consecutive SF at a grand slam (23) and consecutive QF at a grand slam (36).
There are, as you know, other perhaps more impressive numbers, but the point here and now is to clarify the man’s consistency that is OVERLOOKED for some reason. We’re not even talking about 2015, when at 34 he’s the only guy around to give Novak a legitimate challenge. Yet, somehow this works against the guy. Bananas.
That’s the source of the the anti-Fed argument. That and his H2H with Nadal, which we’ve already determined is rhinoceros turd.
What critics of Roger point to are these seemingly huge matches later in his career, where he crumbled under the pressure and left the court with his tail between his legs. French Opens, Aussie Open 2009, US Open 2009, and throw-in a few SF, where he had match points vs. Djokovic, or the Wimby 2011 QF loss to Tsonga where he was up 2-0, cruising toward a 7th title. As if Roger is the only one who has lost big matches. But again, these Federer trolls insist his armor has cracked too many times. He’s under indictment. His legacy is tarnished blah blah blah.
But again, it is so commonly overlooked that he was in those positions to lose. He made those finals. He battled through those draws with such class and consistency he was bound to come-up short on occasion. That’s the story. You win some, you lose some. Anything beyond that is a twisted inferior logic writing a broken agenda of some combination of resentment, love loss and special needs.
I myself have acknowledged that Roger’s 2009 AO final v Nadal was putrid. He should not have lost that match. Nadal was beaten down from a 5+ hour SF v Verdasco. Roger was cruising. He was in command of the tour, still. That was Rafa’s single AO title. Maybe he was eating his spinach and Wheaties like a good boy, along with whatever master Toni sprinkled on top.
The argument goes this was the most devastating loss and Roger could never recover. Something along those lines. Well, let’s gather a little perspective.
In January of 2009, Roger entered the Aussie Open coming off his fifth straight U.S. Open title. Historically, we know his reign of dominance was coming to an end, but for the sake of the morons claiming that the 2009 AO was the end of Roger, let’s, again, turn to the results.
He lost that devastating 2009 AO to his nemesis. What happened after that? Was he finished? Did he crawl into his hole? Nope. He won the French Open just a few months later. Indeed. After that, he won Wimbledon for a sixth time. After his devastating loss to Nadal at the AO, he won the next two majors. What about the 2009 U.S. Open? We recall a devastating loss in the final that year to Mr. Del Potro. Terrible loss, sure. But think about that year, 2009. He made all four grand slam finals. He had two tough losses and won two. The losses to Nadal and Del Potro seem to resonate a bit more than his FO/Wimby back-to-back. I would say this shows a bit of mental strength, don’t you? He choked against Nadal? Choked against D Po? He made all four finals and won two! Get a hold of yourself.
Oh, and what did he do after that devastating loss to D Po at the 2009 USO? He won the next major, his fourth AO (2010) four months later. Seems like the guy bounced back pretty well from these horrific losses. He made all four finals! Five in a row if you count the 2010 AO. He was 3-2 in those five finals (actually, if you keep going back, he was in practically every final back through ’08 – ’04). You don’t really want to open the can of worms on this kind of stuff because these petty little arguments like Roger couldn’t recover once Nadal arrived, Nadal owned him, etc., get flushed down the toilet when you really look at the numbers.
After Nadal beat Roger in that ’09 AO, he lost to Soderling at the FO (HUGE upset). At 2009 Wimby Nadal, #1 seed, withdrew. Lol. At the 2009 USO Nadal got straighted 222 by D Po in the SF. Roger lost to D Po in an incredible five-setter. Nadal had a shitty ’09. But that’s not what the marquee says. It says Nadal embarrassed Roger at the AO. This is total insanity. At the 2010 AO, where Roger triumphed, Nadal retired v Murray in the QF. Is it just me, or is this just a huge misunderstanding? Nadal is like a magician and the TSQ (tennis status quo) is bunch of suckers. Wake up!
An acquaintance of mine, and I’ve fathomed this before, has talked pretty extensively of players/their camps/tournament directors fixing tournament draws, avoiding certain match-ups, etc. I already wrote about this kind of thing recently at Montreal, this past summer. Nadal’s draw was a joke. You knew the powers-that-be wanted to get him into the later rounds. Here’s food for thought: what’s more plausible, his form is so crap that he did actually get routined by Nishikori in the QF, or he took a dive to avoid damaging that that ever important H2H with the big 4? Comedy central, folks.
A couple of draws that look hilarious:
2013 U.S. Open. Nadal #2 has #4 in his half (Ferrer). His QF, SF is Robredo, Ferrer and Gasquet. Straight-sets through to the final. Djokovic #1 has #3 Murray in his half and has to deal with Murray, Wawrinka and Youzhny. Stan takes him 5 in the SF.
My source reminded me that almost ALWAYS Roger and Novak were put on the same half of the draw, so Nadal had a much easier route to the final. Look for yourself. It’s uncanny.
Lastly, how about this great end of the draw at the French in 2012. In the top half at the QF you have Djokovic/Tsonga Federer/Del Potro. Roger goes down 0-2 To D Po and then hits him with a 203 steam-roll. But that was a tough five-setter. He loses to Djokovic in the SF. Djokovic, it should be noted, went five with Tsonga. Tough top half.
The bottom half at the QF is Ferrer/Murray Almagro/Nadal. Needlesstosay, Nadal waltzed to the Final. Game over.
Folks, this all just an exercise in love and reality. Keep it real out there.