Throwdown Of The Week #1: Federer and The U.S. Open

[SpaceDominator]

http://www.swoopzone.net/s&m/throwdown.gif

Throwdown Of The Week #1: Federer and the U.S. Open

Participants: SpaceDominator vs. Pizza

Throwdown Topic: Roger Federer will NOT win the U.S. Open

Instructions:
The two participants will each get three posts to argue their side of the topic. The public’s job is to vote on which person is ultimately winning the debate and has convinced you that their side of the argument is correct. The two participants are not allowed to edit their posts once they are posted. It is the ultimate throwdown.

This debate will run from Monday - Sunday Morning.

Please note that all discussion about the Throwdown of the week should take place in the Throwdown thread located here (http://blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=19385). This thread is just for Pizza and I to have a nice friendly debate.

For full information about the BF Sports Throwdown and to propose a topic for next week's throwdown, check out the official thread for the BF Sports Throwdown at this address. (http://blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=19385)

[SpaceDominator]

SpaceDominator Opening Argument:

As much as I have enjoyed the reign of watching Roger Federer take over the tennis world by storm, I believe for this year his reign of winning major tournaments is over. Roger Federer this year will not be winning the U.S. Open because of three primary reasons:

1. He has lost his invincibility and his flare on the court. - In the past when Roger Federer won all of the crucial points, now he's losing all of the crucial points. When he would walk onto the court his opponents ultimately knew they had to play a perfect game to beat him. Now they know he is vulnerable and can be beaten.

2. The competition gap has completely shrunk - The fact that Roger Federer is not going to be #1 going into the U.S. Open and Rafael Nadal is, is a clear indication that the gap in Men's Tennis has closed some. Admittedly on Clay and Grass, these two players are light years apart from the rest of the field. However, on a hard court there are many different players that could go into the U.S. Open and conceivably win. Nadal will be a threat, Djokovic will be a threat, Murray will be a threat, even Roddick and Blake will bring out their best for the U.S. Open. Combining the fact that Federer has lost his swagger and a field that is going to be wide open, Federer won't win the U.S. Open.

3. The "it" factor - This has been one of those seasons for Federer where things just have not gone his way. From the very beginning, the whole thing has been off. He began his year sick with Mono, he loses in the semis to Djokovic(on a hard court). However, ultimately the match that I think sent him into his demise was the French Open final where Nadal just annihilated him. Sure, I'll admit that his epic comeback at Wimbledon was incredible but Nadal just completely opened all doubts. Throw in the fact as well that Federer is now not going to have his #1 ranking..

In the next two arguments, I will continue to add to the argument. However, these are the three basic points that I will be proving throughout. He has lost his invincibility and flare on the court, the U.S. Open field has caught up to him and that simply "luck" is not on Federer's side this year.
-SpaceDominator

Pizza, you have 24 hours to make your opening argument and reply.

[Pizza]

wow, i'm so sorry i forgot about this. i didnt have much time to put into it, but these throwdowns are still a great idea and i hope people will do them

anyway, spacedominator, it looks like you won the battle but i won the war. :)
http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080908/ap_on_sp_te_ga_su/ten_us_open

[SpaceDominator]

Yeah, it's sort of funny looking back on it. Despite the fact that I didn't think that he would win the U.S. Open, I was really hoping that he would because it is much better for tennis to have two players that are at the top of their game.

Federer looked really good in that championship match today. However, I think that he needs to beat Nadal again in a championship match to really get his aura back.
-SpaceDominator

[Pizza]

Yeah, it's sort of funny looking back on it. Despite the fact that I didn't think that he would win the U.S. Open, I was really hoping that he would because it is much better for tennis to have two players that are at the top of their game.

Federer looked really good in that championship match today. However, I think that he needs to beat Nadal again in a championship match to really get his aura back.
-SpaceDominator

federer is king of tennis as no one else has ever been. his legacy is secure, he doesn't need to beat anybody else.

in related news, did you hear that lance is coming back to the tour de france next year? trying to bring some respect and integrity back to the sport, posting his blood test results publicly, etc

----------------
Now jamming to: Boston - more than a feeling (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/boston/track/more+than+a+feeling)

[SpaceDominator]

I think we're looking at two different things Pizza. In terms of Federer's greatness of all time, there is no questioning that at all. I was referring to the fact of the here and now and looking forward. I do think it's still very likely that he will surpass Pete Sampras's mark for the most Grand Slam titles. However, I think there will still be a bit of a doubt in the back of Federer's mind until he defeats Nadal again in a Grand Slam, in particular at the French Open.

Before Nadal beat him at Wimbledon there was this aura in which no one could beat Federer. I think the only way he'll get back that aura is by beating Nadal for a Grand Slam Title. He's an incredible athlete and an incredible tennis player but he's no longer unbeatable or at least gave off the impression that he wasn't beatable.

As for Armstrong, I have a ton of respect for him. I'd be impressed if he comes back and wins it again.
-SpaceDominator

[Redcloak]

Federer plays tennis on a whole different level. He is the best player ever.

However, I think there will still be a bit of a doubt in the back of Federer's mind until he defeats Nadal again in a Grand Slam, in particular at the French Open.
This is something I hear bantered about, typically from (no offense) people who aren't very familiar with tennis.

I don't expect Federer will beat Nadal at the French. He may, but I wouldn't count on it. Some players have games that are better on certain surfaces. Federer has the all-around package. That's why he wins so much on so many surfaces.
Nadal has an incredible clay-court game, so incredible that he has transformed it to work on other surfaces with real success.

I do think it's still very likely that he will surpass Pete Sampras's mark for the most Grand Slam titles.
I hear this and it baffles me too. Likely? Really?

Maybe this will help illustrate:
Singles
Career record: 605–146 (80.56%)
Career titles: 56
Highest ranking: No. 1 (February 2, 2004)
Grand Slam results
Australian Open W (2004, 2006, 2007)
French Open F (2006, 2007, 2008)
Wimbledon W (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007)
US Open W (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)

The only way you can consider Federer's year this year to be anything other than highly successful, is if you contrast it with his own previous years.

He started the year with sickness, and he's still had incredible success. Not only is he going to pass Pete, possibly my favorite player of all time, he's going to blow his mark out of the water.

[SpaceDominator]

Ahem. Just for the record I follow the tennis scene pretty damn closely over the summer. I'll admit I don't watch a ton of tennis outside of the summer slams except for the Australian but over the summer I'll admit I watch a quite a bit. So, i'm not just spewing out some random crap.

I agree completely with one thing. Roger Federer is the best player of the game of tennis that I have seen. His dominance over the past several years and really even including this year are truly unsurpassed. For the record as well, the argument that I made at the beginning went again a lot of what I was hoping would happen and what did happen. I actually wanted to leave Pizza the easier side. :p

However, in all seriousness let's get to the argument at hand. Nadal has defeated Federer the last four times they have met. Nadal just brokethrough this year to get to the Semifinals at the U.S. Open which is an accomplishment in itself considering the fact that Nadal frontloads his schedule a ton, and naturally he plays a very hearty clay court schedule. Throw in the fact that he plays a style that is not going to be extremely healthy on the hard courts and you see a problem. Federer, who also plays a pretty loaded schedule, is a lot smarter on the court when he plays and his matches sure never seem like the grinds that some of Nadal's can. So on the hard courts and at the U.S. Open, I think Federer will be fine.

However, on Clay and Grass the story gets a little different. On Clay, Nadal is just a master as the spin that he puts on the ball is just incredibly wicked and his ability to get just about everything back is incredible. The clay just helps Nadal so incredibly and it forces everyone else to play an unconfortable match against him. The courts in London at Wimbledon have slowed down and they aren't as bouncy and they slide more unlike the Hard Courts, so those two surfaces are much better built for his particular style of play as he can grind and it won't hurt him as much.

The bottom line to me though is this. Nadal is the one that put all of the doubts in the tennis public's eye about Roger Federer. By defeating Federer at the French Open so soundly and then winning an epic match at Wimbledon where Federer was considered unbeatable, the public began to question a bit. Federer looked vulnerable in the summer leading up to the U.S. Open and didn't look good in the Olympics(except for in doubles). In my mind for Federer to regain the same aura that he had during those great three year runs, he needs to defeat Nadal on Clay or on Grass to end the doubts. Will he do it? I'm sure he will. However, at this point who's #1? Indeed.

The competition beyond Nadal is getting better as well though. Djokovic is improving, Murray looked really, really good in his beating of Nadal. Roddick is due to wake up eventually(I think). So, we'll see.
-SpaceDominator

[Pizza]

roddick? come on dude, get real

[SpaceDominator]

Heh, one can hope a little can't he? :p
-SpaceDominator

[Redcloak]

Nadal has defeated Federer the last four times they have met.
That sounds great, but here's the reality. Nadal doesn't make it to the finals in the hard court tournaments that Federer wins, whereas Federer usually does see him on the clay finals. As such, it skews the record IMO.

However, on Clay and Grass the story gets a little different.
1. Yes, 2. No.

Nadal is just a master as the spin that he puts on the ball is just incredibly wicked and his ability to get just about everything back is incredible.
True. The second part is just as true of Federer. The thing that's so amazing is that Federer puts away shots that most players would simply be blocking back. It's what makes their matchup so dynamic.

The courts in London at Wimbledon have slowed down and they aren't as bouncy and they slide more unlike the Hard Courts, so those two surfaces are much better built for his particular style of play as he can grind and it won't hurt him as much.
I disagree. Grass always favors a serve-and-volley player (read: Pete Sampras). If Andy Roddick had respectable volleys, he'd win Wimbledon. What's almost unbelieveable is that in the US Open, Federer's volleys looked as good as I've seen. *More on that after this*. The "new" grass at Wimbledon has certainly lessened just how dominant the serve-and-volley is, but the style is just being lost a bit. S&V takes longer to develop, so the younger superstars don't have it yet. I saw one time that Tim Henman would've won at Wimbledon if they still had the old grass? WTF? Tim Henman. If there was ever a player who played out of their skill level it was him. He used a good serve-and-volley game to beat players who were completely out of his league at Wimbledon.

That, to me, made the Wimbledon match for Nadal all the more impressive. He is not a serve-and-volley player by any stretch.

While certainly I think Federer didn't "get worse", I think the reality is that constant victory isn't a really great advancement of your game. What do you tweak when you dominate the competition every day? Why would you change anything? What may end up being the most increidble thing about Roger is that this stretch where he didn't dominate for a brief period actually leads to even more growth in his game.

Roddick is due to wake up eventually(I think).
Let me give you a secret. He's peaked. The fact is that he'd be out of the game already if Connors hadn't brilliantly re-tooled this guys game. Don't get me wrong, he isn't going anywhere, and my game is essentially the exact same as his on a lower level, but he won't be ascending any further than he already is.

Heh, one can hope a little can't he?
You'd be better off hoping for Blake. If he'd ever get in proper shape. I swear to god you'd think he has diabetes or something.

Djokovic is improving
Really strong player, I wonder if he has the mental toughness to get up with Nadal and Federer.

Murray looked really, really good in his beating of Nadal.
Best tennis of his life, we'll see if he can keep it up.

[Pizza]

Best tennis of his life, we'll see if he can keep it up.

We already know he can't since he failed miserably against Federer.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think SD is arguing that Nadal is competing for the greatest tennis player spot with Federer; rather he's using Nadal to counter the argument that Federer is the greatest ever period, by showing that he has a definite weak spot

I disagree. Grass always favors a serve-and-volley player (read: Pete Sampras). If Andy Roddick had respectable volleys, he'd win Wimbledon. What's almost unbelieveable is that in the US Open, Federer's volleys looked as good as I've seen. *More on that after this*. The "new" grass at Wimbledon has certainly lessened just how dominant the serve-and-volley is, but the style is just being lost a bit. S&V takes longer to develop, so the younger superstars don't have it yet. I saw one time that Tim Henman would've won at Wimbledon if they still had the old grass? WTF? Tim Henman. If there was ever a player who played out of their skill level it was him. He used a good serve-and-volley game to beat players who were completely out of his league at Wimbledon.

It doesn't take "take longer" to develop a serve and volley. The reason you don't see it in the young superstars is because no one is teaching it anymore at the junior level, and since you weren't taught it as a kid, you don't feel comfortable trying to figure it out when you get older. Add to this the fact that the rackets being used today weigh 25% than the ones Sampras and his contemporaries were using, so people are hitting the ball a lot harder, and with crazy spin. That makes for an intimidating environment coming in to the net.


----------------
Now jamming to: Jerry Jeff Walker - Desperados Waiting for a Train (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/jerry+jeff+walker/track/desperados+waiting+for+a+train)