Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffRas22
The double standard that your entire outlook on this tennis tournament stems from? The one that would make you post stuff like this
Can you state the exact actual double standard? It seems that you are making this all about Fed bias when it is not. I think you are the one who came into this discussion claiming or implying it, it wasn't discussed before.
I and others were discussing the literal WOAT bottom half back when Fed was still in the tournament and when he might have beaten Nadal and faced a weak Finals opponent. You're making this all about some vendetta against Fed bias or something like that when it's just not.
Quote:
As if Nadal didn't change his gameplan or up his level after set 1 at all?
Delpo has historically done well against Nadal on hard courts. Delpo played much tougher matches in the previous 2 rounds than Nadal did, played longer, and expended more energy. These should not be controversial points. Yes, those are factors, because he clearly looked gassed at some point after the first. Are you arguing against that?
Are you suggesting that a Delpo with much more energy/stamina that played at his first set level throughout the entire match would not have had a better chance to beat Nadal than what actually happened? This shouldn't be hard, man. It has nothing to do with Fed bias.
Quote:
I don't know how I can be more clear. Federer peaked during the weakest era in men's tennis history. That point is shrugged off routinely. Look at the 2004 US Open, or 2005 Wimbledon, these are absolute joke draws. Now Nadal gets a weak draw in a single tournament and the world has ended. That is a double standard. Nadal dominating h2h their entire career was also always shrugged off routinely. Now, after a single 5 set victory for Federer, h2h matters? Another double standard. Melkerson said it better than I can
See, this is what I mean. You're bringing up irrelevant stuff from over a decade ago, because it's all about Fed bias to you, that we weren't talking about previously. We're not litigating Fed vs Nadal in here. We made some claims about easiest path and bottom half, and you jump in with all this Fed stuff.
You're posting factually incorrect stuff. Melkerson did too, and when I pointed it out, he had the grace and sense to say that he overstated it. Which I would do for you as well, if you point out where I am factually wrong and you are right.
Quote:
It's completely obvious why you're posting what you're posting. Maybe you even think you're being perfectly objective...but you aren't.
This is false also. Feel free to point out what I have been objectively wrong about. I have pointed out things that you are objectively wrong about.
Quote:
This makes no sense to me. So because Fed lost he was hurt, but if he won one of those set points in the 3rd and made it through he would have been massively better than Delpo...who beat him? It was a really close match, he was good enough to win that match, Delpo just stepped up (ran good?) on the biggest points. I don't see that much difference between the two wrt the difficulty of Nadal's draw.
Might want to check out the work that IF is doing in the sentence. Yes, if Fed played better than Delpo and beat him, he would have been a better Fed than he actually was. The outcome didn't depend completey on that 3rd set. There was a 4th set too. I didn't say 'massively' either, its a qualifier you felt you needed to put in to make your point. Yes, a better Fed than actually existed this tourney would have been a harder matchup.
Bringing it around to your earlier references, yes, H2H results from multiple matches this year on the same surface are a better indicator of who is more likely to win a match on that surface now, vs results from a decade ago or even lifetime results. And none of that is to litigate Fed vs Nadal overall, it's pointing towards the outcome of a hypothetically relevant matchup right now, which was brought up by someone else.