[MWW]

I think many of us, including myself downplay the significance of Nadal's early exit to Djokovic (and just his second defeat at RG in 11 editions). But it truly is quite an occasion and now for the first time since Nadal's debut RG (and win) in 2005, there is a final not involving Nadal or Federer.

Although Djokovic is there as he has been from 2012, playing Wawrinka is totally different experience for viewers and the crowd compared to playing Nadal. We've had our fair share of the Nadal-Federer and Nadal-Djokovic matches at RG finals, so this change going to be interesting, and by the way of Djokovic's recent GS meetings with Wawrinka (all 5 setters since AO2013) and judging my Stan's form, this could be electric.

Nole fans will be ecstatic with their man's performance, even with the tough Murray battle, and Wawrinka fans will cheer the same. For me, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the mayhem (in good spirits of course) and I'll be happy either way the result goes. It's a great moment in tennis history for fans, regardless of who wins.

Share your thoughts about this RG and what it would mean to you personally.

BTW this thread is NOT to post predictions about who will win etc. Simply, what do you think of this RG final (or tournament overall) not featuring Nadal/Fed (which is a very rare deal considering the last 10 years)?

 

[Noleoleoleole]

Re: First non-Nadal/non-Federer RG final in 10 years. Take it in.

Other possible titles:
First non Nadal/Non soderling RG final in 10 years.
Second non Nadal/non Ferrer RG final in 10 years

 

[Firstservingman]

Re: First non-Nadal/non-Federer RG final in 10 years. Take it in.

Other possible titles:
First non Nadal/Non soderling RG final in 10 years.
Second non Nadal/non Ferrer RG final in 10 years

Yeah, but unlike Federer, nobody cares about Soderling/Ferrer.

If Soderling hadn't beaten Rafa in that one match in 2009, nobody would even remember him.
Ferrer is the same, except without that career-defining moment.

 

[Djoker]

Re: First non-Nadal/non-Federer RG final in 10 years. Take it in.

I truly think this is the best possible non Fedal involving matchup, both Djokovic/Wawrinka are an improved version of their former claycourter selfs now. We haven't seen this matchup on clay for a long time, so it's gonna be interesting for sure. I'm expecting epic rallies and a real tactical battle again. (Expext both player's to appear in their best possible version today.)

As for Fedal in RG finals, we've seen that enough times and Federer is declined on clay that much that it would have been a beatdown anyway (even in Nadal's current worsened form). Rafole is another NID matchup these days. Fedovic would have been a good final like 2010-11, later not really, so no, thanks.

So I am extremely happy about it and I just found extremely unexciting that nobody except Djokovic could challenge Nadal in recent years where he was there for the taking... such a refreshing change was what this event just needed.
Also for many neutral fans (non Fedalovic) who just implicitly agreed to Nadal's domination, they were terribly wrong.

That is finally justice for some "lost" years in this event.

 

[MWW]

Re: First non-Nadal/non-Federer RG final in 10 years. Take it in.

Other possible titles:
First non Nadal/Non soderling RG final in 10 years.
Second non Nadal/non Ferrer RG final in 10 years

Sorry what I meant is the first final not to involve EITHER of Nadal nor Federer not a Fedal matchup

 

[Noleoleoleole]

I know what you meant, I just meant Nadal is the real mainstay in finals. Federer was as much of a factor as Ferrer and less of one than soderling in terms of the actual outcome.

 

[SheepleBuster]

I think many of us, including myself downplay the significance of Nadal's early exit to Djokovic (and just his second defeat at RG in 11 editions). But it truly is quite an occasion and now for the first time since Nadal's debut RG (and win) in 2005, there is a final not involving Nadal or Federer.

Although Djokovic is there as he has been from 2012, playing Wawrinka is totally different experience for viewers and the crowd compared to playing Nadal. We've had our fair share of the Nadal-Federer and Nadal-Djokovic matches at RG finals, so this change going to be interesting, and by the way of Djokovic's recent GS meetings with Wawrinka (all 5 setters since AO2013) and judging my Stan's form, this could be electric.

Nole fans will be ecstatic with their man's performance, even with the tough Murray battle, and Wawrinka fans will cheer the same. For me, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the mayhem (in good spirits of course) and I'll be happy either way the result goes. It's a great moment in tennis history for fans, regardless of who wins.

Share your thoughts about this RG and what it would mean to you personally.

BTW this thread is NOT to post predictions about who will win etc. Simply, what do you think of this RG final (or tournament overall) not featuring Nadal/Fed (which is a very rare deal considering the last 10 years)?

Yeah ... Fed has not been making too many finals here lately. But Nole is still there ... and he probably wins so things stay pretty much the same

 

[DjokoKing]

Love it!

 

[Litotes]

I know what you meant, I just meant Nadal is the real mainstay in finals. Federer was as much of a factor as Ferrer and less of one than soderling in terms of the actual outcome.

So when Federer won in 2009 he didn't affect the outcome? He'd have won even if he lost against Haas, Del Potro or Söderling?


As for topic, had to happen eventually. Has happened in all the other slams, this was the "last stand".

 

[vayuu]

i prefer nadal get double digits

 

[phase3]

It's quite INCREDIBLE when you think about it. He is fading now, but for a whole decade barring 09. NADAL was in nine finals and won them ALL. It's a level of success over a decade in one slam that will never ever be surpassed.

 

[Noleoleoleole]

So when Federer won in 2009 he didn't affect the outcome? He'd have won even if he lost against Haas, Del Potro or Söderling?


As for topic, had to happen eventually. Has happened in all the other slams, this was the "last stand".

He affected it by winning, but not more than Soderling, who took out the 4 time defending champion and Federeek's Lord & Master.

 

[Litotes]

He affected it by winning, but not more than Soderling, who took out the 4 time defending champion and Federeek's Lord & Master.

If Söderling had not played RG 2009 we might have had a different winner. Probably not, though, as Nadal fans has taken great pains to tell us all Nadal lost because he was injured. That should mean he'd probably have lost anyway, no?

If Federer had not played it's 100% certain we'd have a different winner.

Tough to beat 100%.

 

[Burrow]

It's quite INCREDIBLE when you think about it. He is fading now, but for a whole decade barring 09. NADAL was in nine finals and won them ALL. It's a level of success over a decade in one slam that will never ever be surpassed.

If tennis lasts hundreds or thousands of years more, I'm pretty sure that it'll be surpassed. Why do people say things like that?

 

[M.Bison]

It'll be nice to have a new winner. Hopefully Novak starts going out early at slams occasionally. The only thing more boring than Fedal winning everything will be Djokovic winning everything.

 

[norwood_10]

If Söderling had not played RG 2009 we might have had a different winner. Probably not, though, as Nadal fans has taken great pains to tell us all Nadal lost because he was injured. That should mean he'd probably have lost anyway, no?

If Federer had not played it's 100% certain we'd have a different winner.

Tough to beat 100%.

Nadal would have won, without a doubt. QF/SF v Davy and Gonzo in the sunshine and he owned both on clay. Then Federer in the F, the usual result. Soderling stopped Nadal from a 10-peat.

 

[Litotes]

Nadal would have won, without a doubt. QF/SF v Davy and Gonzo in the sunshine and he owned both on clay. Then Federer in the F, the usual result. Soderling stopped Nadal from a 10-peat.

I see you don't really believe in the injury.

 

[BlackeyeVuk]

Finally , nice thread to talk about.

Firstly my feelings are very mixed about Nadal losing. Actually in all honesty, I was very butthurt when Nadal lost to Djokovic. Since I do not prefer one tennis player over another , but I have preferences on every tournament.

I like to imagine majors as home arenas, were established winners should always be fought in the very final. So Nadal losing earlier is not my cup of tea. I find this finale fake, out of place. I would prefer Nadal-Djokovic final or Nadal-Wawrinka, adds to drama, suspense. Challenger needs to invest great more deal to beat current hold, etc. Its my subjective view of believing when one is really worth winning the major.

 

[norwood_10]

I see you don't really believe in the injury.

He certainly moved far better in that one than he did on Wednesday!

 

[Noleoleoleole]

If Söderling had not played RG 2009 we might have had a different winner. Probably not, though, as Nadal fans has taken great pains to tell us all Nadal lost because he was injured. That should mean he'd probably have lost anyway, no?

If Federer had not played it's 100% certain we'd have a different winner.

Tough to beat 100%.

Who's to say Federer was not extra motivated once he saw his owner had been dispatched and his path was clear? He could've otherwise lost before the finals.