I did say games

They may not be scrubs historically or relative to average ATP players, but they are certainly scrubs relative to peak Big 4.

In this case in particular, though, Anderson is definitely a scrub who has almost never made it out of the 4th round of a GS, and no, it is not likely that he is all of a sudden super-awesome now.

But yes, I agree with your overall implication that we will all need to downward adjust our expectations, coming out of the Golden Era with the best players of all time.

Yes, if Fed had beaten Delpo, he would have been a better Fed than the Fed that lost to Delpo. Yes, a better Fed than Delpo would have been a better match against Nadal. Yes, that would have been a harder path. Yes, you could no longer say that Nadal had the easiest USO path ever.

The double standard that your entire outlook on this tennis tournament stems from? The one that would make you post stuff like this

As if Nadal didn't change his gameplan or up his level after set 1 at all?

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is apart of playing a ****ing tennis tournament. Is Nadal's AO '09 final victory over Fed more impressive bc he played a 5 hour 5 setter the night before and Fed didn't? Is Fed's AO '17 final victory over Nadal more impressive for the same reason?

Regardless, I am certainly suggesting is that Nadal's improvement in strategy/quality was more of a reason for the results of sets 2-4 than DelPo being tired or dropping his level. Nadal & DelPo both said the same thing themselves. And, yes, I think you saying that a) Nadal's victory is primarily due to DelPo's fitness and b) confidently stating that Fed would have been favored over Nadal had he gotten by DelPo are both due to a preconceived bias.

Anyway, the derail and bringing up of irrelevant past stuff is my fault and I apologize to the regs itt.

Missed Melkerson's followup previously, here's a reply.

I fully agree. And I think we saw some of that this tourney.

"Meanwhile, there is zero evidence that Nadal was gonna win no matter what." The zero evidence part is referring to Nadal winning "no matter what." You've backed off of that since then, but that is what I was referencing at the time. I was not saying that there is zero evidence that Nadal could beat Fed or knocking Nadal or anything like that, I think Nadal is great and the 2GOAT. I was simply pointing out that he wasn't winning "no matter what."

That said, I made the points about Fed being likely to win because it's true, and because it refutes the Nadal winning no matter what point. Fed was more favored to win the tournament than Nadal was, and Fed would likely have been favored in a matchup against Nadal in they met in the SF's, barring further injury. I am not making these points to elevate Fed and dismiss Nadal or litigate their entire careers, I am simply pointing it out as is relevant to this particular tournament and who would have been more likely to win, and if Nadal would have won no matter what or not, or even if that was more likely than not.

In reference to your points, yes, Nadal has dominated Fed H2H lifetime overall. That is a point in Nadal's favor. However, much of that is not relevant to this US Open. Clay results from years ago are not nearly as relevant as hard court results from this current year. Their AO match was close. But that's not the only relevant result. Fed won 2 other hard court matches this year, in straight sets, 4-0 altogether, for 7-2 on hard this year. Those results are relevant to this US Open in a hypothetical Nadal-Fed matchup. I am not bringing this up to litigate their entire careers, but simply as evidence pointing towards the outcome of a USO matchup this year.

And so that Geoff doesn't misunderstand this, I used Fed because the evidence from this year is clear. It was used against the "Nadal no matter what" claim, not a career thing. I could have used a healthy Djokovic or others referenced, but Fed was the easiest and clearest example to use, esp since he's the one that was expected to actually face Nadal.

This misrepresents my statements. I was pointing out your false statement and backed it up with evidence. There indeed was zero evidence that Nadal would have "won no matter what," and you've backed off of that. But it was a relevant point at the time.

And the likely outcome of a matchup at the USO this year is not complete speculation in terms of which is more likely. The set of facts points one way and not the other. Either could obviously still have happened though. I made zero extreme claims, I was refuting an extreme claim. Hope that helps.

Name a softer one in recent history please.

Of course but Kevin Anderson is not one of them. He is far far below the likes of a Nishikori or Tsonga. He is a poor man's Phillipousis with no exaggeration.

The real disappointments this tournament which turned it into such a ****fest are the Zverev, Goffin, Thiem, Dmitrovs of this world.

Nadal gonna daddy dick the dandy from down undah

It's hard to believe this is a serious question. The exact 2 scenarios above don't even matter, the general answer for almost all cases should be obvious. Yes, if one person is exhausted and has faced tougher competition in longer more exhausting matches, then their next round matchup is more impressive if they win vs someone who is fresh, than if the situations were reversed and if they hadn't faced the prior competition but their opponent had.

If player X beats peak Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, etc, in consecutive matches on consecutive days, in grueling 5-setters each that all go to 25-23 in the 5th, and then he beats a fresh Federer that had faced zero competition or struggle...then yes, that is more impressive than if player X was fresh with no prior struggle and then beats a Federer who was exhausted from facing all 4+ of those guys in epic 5-setters in consecutive days.

That should be apparent to almost anyone, regardless of who the players are. And yes, it's part of a tennis tournament, but it's an unbalanced part. Not all tournaments are equal, not all matches are equal, not all conditions or circumstances are equal, this should be obvious.

a) I never said primarily, you keep moving the goalposts and missing the point. This part of the conversation was me replying to Melkerson about Nadal playing "as good as ever." I think that peak Nadal beats current Delpo even more easily than he did.

The point was not to disparage Nadal, I think he's great, it was to say that he's playing great right now but is still not peak Nadal. As an example, I said that if Delpo had played at his first set level throughout the entire match, he would have had a better chance of beating Nadal, than what actually happened. None of this is a vendetta or bias against Nadal, I think he's incredible, and I was the one earlier itt arguing that he has a shot to catch Fed in GS titles overall.

b) Yes, I am stating that it is likely that Fed would have been favored over Nadal, but it is not due to negative bias, it is due to fact. Fed was factually favored over Nadal to win the entire tournament, even with the expectation that they would meet in the SF's. Pinny/Vegas/offshore lines are what say so, not just my own opinion. Their current history and matchup results also say so. None of this is bias. Again, you are the one inserting bias as opposed to fact.

Fed was favored to win the tournament at the start of the tournament. Nadal has been favored to win the tourney since round 2, a fact you are conveniently leaving out. Given form this tournament, and taking into account their entire hard court 5 set history, I would bet Nadal would have been a betting favorite had they played yesterday, and if he wasn't I would bet it's bc books wanna juice casuals who would bet Fed no matter what and sharps woulda been all over Nadal.

Speaking of lines, what did the Keys/Stephens match close at?

SLOANE

Keys a loser in the biggest moment of her career.. shocking

Yeah I really wanna see a movie promo in the middle of a slam final.

God espn is such aids.

How did this loser make the finals geez

Keys sucks

This entire broadcast sucks. They need a McEnroe in the booth or something.

Match over.

Disgrace to the game

Stephens playing so much more intelligently than Keys, who is looking really one-dimensional.

Keys gonna end up crying