Originally Posted by 90's Clay
Yea but Fed's wins over Nadal on grass came BEFORE Nadal was the grass player he would be come later from 2008 and 2010 etc. I wouldn't say Diaper rash Nadal in 2006/2007 is superior to Stich or Peak Goran, in the mid 90s at wimbledon.
In fact, I wouldn't even say baby Nadal is better then mid 90s, 1999 Agassi on grass either.
Even in 2007, Nadal had the match but he choked it away. In 2006, he was only in his 4th or 5th grass court tournament ever at wimbledon.. So the Nadal that Fed beat at wimbledon, was not the "great" Nadal of wimbledon he would later become.
Fed didn't beat Nadal after 2007. So did Fed actually have to deal with a supposedly "Greater" Nadal then Goran, Stich, Agassi etc..? Pete had to deal with Goran, Becker, Agassi a few times.
I would still say Older Becker is certainly more formidable on grass then a baby Nadal is
Fed's grass peak coincided with a diaper rash Nadal still learning how to play off of clay, Roddick, Hewitt, Phillipousisis, then later on with Murray and Nole ( who isn't that good on grass). I dont think thats better then Goran, Stich, older Becker, Agassi, Rafter etc.
Gotta love how Nadal with a Wimby final under his belt is diaper rash nadal in 2007 but after a year of not playing any grass matches he suddenly became the great Nadal of Wimbledon in 2008. Amazing how he made that change in one year without playing on grass in the meantime. I mean then it's obvious, it was geriatric Federer in 2008 compared to prime Fed in 07.
And let's not forget the other thing Saptards go on about when the subject of Wimbledon is raised. The grass. It wasn't real grass in Fed's era was it? So someone like Nadal became a lot trickier. So he IS better than the people Sampras was playing, because who did he play? The best slam champion after him was Agassi who won a lot of his slams at the end of Sampras's career in a weak gap before Federer started playing his best and still won less than Nadal. And then you put Agassi who is less great than Nadal, on a surface that suits Sampras down to the ground and doesn't suit Agassi at all.
So in one case you have a player who is good, playing on a surface that gives him little chance against the top dog (Agassi vs Sampras at Wimbledon) and in the other case you have a better player than Agassi on a surface that has been slowed down which gives him a better chance than Agassi (Nadal vs Federer). Federer has it tougher.
There were players who could play on fast grass, but they weren't big time slam winning players. So they were never going to be consistant threats. I mean Murray is technically a better HC player than Nadal but has he bettered Nadal at the HC slams?. Hell, there are many players who are better hc players than Nadal, but they don't have a champion's heart and mind.