Nadal outlasts Dimitrov in a classic five set semi-final. I will have to reflect on this match as I preview the final, but let me have your attention for a few moments. This is directed at a select few out there who think they have this rivalry all figured-out.

I have a good idea: keep making a complete dip-shit out of yourself and bag on Roger Federer because he has a losing record vs. Rafael Nadal. You sound so original, accurate, level-headed, insightful, and you don’t sound like you have your head shoved up your ass. You sound like a real tennis savant!

Does that make you feel better?

Here’s your problem. Even if Nadal beats Federer in the 2017 AO Final, Federer still has a pretty nice career that he can call home.

A couple of points to consider:

#1 Federer’s skill and style (called quality) on the court surpasses Nadal. It’s not close. As a tennis fan, I have to tell you to STFUP because the 23-11, unfortunately, is merely a pregnant red herring, pregnant with a dumpster fire of bullshit and bias. Don’t let those numbers bring you down. You sound confused, sleep deprived, like something’s off, repressed, like you’ve been betrayed, abandoned, someone told you your breath stinks, or your head has a funny shape.

#2 Speaking of numbers, Federer’s numbers are far more superior than Nadal’s (other than the H2H). That’s not a concession; that’s a reminder that you sound like an idiot when you make these ridiculously lame-brain claims about the Swiss giant in relation to the Spanish monster. Where are you going with that statistical argument? Lol.

Here’s where I, and anyone watching tennis, agree with the criticism: Nadal fights harder and has beaten Federer in some big matches. No question, unless we can’t read body language and what seems like a Swiss collapse is really the Express just getting outworked. Fed does not seem to have the same fight as his counterpart. I agree with that. That’s the concession.

But you lose on those two points above: Federer is a more fundamentally sound tennis player with wheel-barrows of talent more than the Spanish bull. And his statistical greatness towers over Nadal. This is an equally definitive reality.

All you have is the H2H. That’s it. I haven’t even said the word “clay.” Do you want me to qualify the H2H? Give us a break. If Federer dumped you, cheated on you, sure: the pain is real. But don’t come waltzing into a tennis conversation with some jerky brained bullshit rationale along the lines of Nadal owning or has superiority over Federer.

Want me to play another riff?

I don’t think Federer gives a fuck.

The way the argument goes, Federer is obsessed with Nadal. Federer ducks him, thinks about him as he manages the draw. In effect, the way the argument goes, Federer tries to avoid his grand nemesis at all costs. Because he’s “owned.”

I have an historical example that eradicates this claim.

The time is 2009, mid January. Roger is fresh off of a U.S. Open win, his fifth in a row. We’re at the Australian Open. You know what happens. The Verdasco v Nadal SF goes 5+ hours. Federer beats Roddick in straights in the other SF. In the final, Nadal beats Federer in five sets. Roger cries at the podium. It’s uncomfortable to watch. Poor Roger. Nadal even puts his arm around the Swiss to comfort him. The shame. Career is over.

At least that’s what some tennis “commenters” will tell you. You know what happened after that?

The following spring, Roger beat Rafa in the Madrid Masters final (clay) before winning the French Open, beating Robin Soderling in that final; the big Swede knocked-off Nadal in the 4th round.

After that, Roger won Wimbledon.

After that, Roger battled Del Potro in the U.S. Open final before (kinda blowing it and) losing in five sets.

So, to re-cap: Roger loses to Nadal in the 2009 AO final, left scarred for life, left for dead. Then he wins the next two majors and loses a tight five-setter in the U.S. Open final to the beast Del Potro.

After that? He wins the 2010 Australian Open.

I think people make a little more out of this H2H than is necessary, a little more out of Roger’s damaged psyche than is the reality. I’ve just given you reason to believe that Federer does not put a lot of stock in this history.

Granted, it’s not the best look. Admittedly. But to jump up-and-down on your little trampoline of bitterness and envy about a rivalry that may be more your obsession than anything else. . .Ha ha.

Federer v Nadal should be good. The 35 year-old Swiss owes it to himself to show-up and make a match of this reunion. I suspect the tennis will be competitive.

But back away from your failed argument, your failed anger management. It’s small. It lacks depth and discernment. Roger made the final! So did Rafa! My God this is a wild development that certainly deserves more than a rash of ridicule from embittered tennis fans.

I will be back tomorrow for a preview of the AO final.

Cheers.