Why did the 08 Wimbledon loss bother Fed so much?

[MichaelNadal]

I've always wondered this. We all know he considers this one of his toughest losses. Considering He always had so much respect for Rafa and he had been on top for so long, not to mention won the title the previous 5 years, should it really have bothered him that much? I think the press was ready to bury him at that point and were salivating over who would be the "next" guy, which is why he reacted the way he did after the AO final the next year. I think he was determined to show he wasn't done yet but maybe even started to question himself after that loss. Thoughts?

[powerangle]

Rafa had defeated Roger on Roger's turf. Wimbledon was supposed to be "Fed's home".

And of course Roger was used to dominating Wimbledon and the US Open.

[The Meat]

1. Hadn't lost Wimbledon in 5 years
2. Beat him two years before
3. Played pretty decently throughout the tournament
4. Dat FO defeat the same year
5. Australian OP awful performance
6. Had his chances.

[Cup8489]

Had a chance for history (6 in a row)

fought all the way back after coming out somewhat flat, and ultimately lost anyway.

[Towser83]

Well he just lost a final in Hamburg that he should have won, before that lost a final in MC where he was in control of both sets (one he was 4-0 up in and didn't even get to a tiebreak) and then got destroyed at RG. All to Nadal. Then he plays him again with all the pressure to readdress the balance, goes 2-0 down and being unable to take a break points, he then battles back only to lose. I'm surprised he didn't have the AO reaction there.

Yes he had won 5 times in a row, but Nadal won 4 RG titles in a row never losing a match and was pretty annoyed when he finally lost.

[Hood_Man]

He could have won. It's frustrating to fail at something in life, when you know you could have achieve it, but if you fail to achieve something HUGE, that you've fought hard for and was within your grasp, it's devastating.

[zam88]

That win would've meant 6 wimbledons in a row, it would've avenged the *** kicking he took in the FO just a few weeks before, it would've been his first major that season since he lost the AO semis and FO finals..

it meant he might have been losing his grip on tennis and possibly getting to 15 may have been in doubt.

I'd say the '08 wimbledon and '09 AO losses to rafa were the toughest on him... even though the Djokavic '10 and '11 USO semi losses were suckier based on having the match points and stuff.

2009 happened and he got the career slam and the majors record, i don't think he's taken any losses nearly as hard... even though he's definitely had some horrible ones.

[Sartorius]

Originally Posted by MichaelNadal

I've always wondered this. We all know he considers this one of his toughest losses. Considering He always had so much respect for Rafa and he had been on top for so long, not to mention won the title the previous 5 years, should it really have bothered him that much? I think the press was ready to bury him at that point and were salivating over who would be the "next" guy, which is why he reacted the way he did after the AO final the next year. I think he was determined to show he wasn't done yet but maybe even started to question himself after that loss. Thoughts?

What's your point exactly? What do you mean by the loss bothering Fed "so much"? It's not like Federer dragged on for a long time after. He won the USO that year. And of course it's "one of his toughest losses". It was a Wimbledon final. Rain is wet. Posters in this thread so far also have their captain obvious hats on.

It's like asking why was Murray bothered "so much" losing Wimbledon last year, or why did the Soderling loss at RG bothered Nadal, or Rosol last year. Asking the latter would in fact make a little more sense since Nadal actually did drag on after these losses. But the question still would be meaningless.

[President]

Originally Posted by MichaelNadal

I've always wondered this. We all know he considers this one of his toughest losses. Considering He always had so much respect for Rafa and he had been on top for so long, not to mention won the title the previous 5 years, should it really have bothered him that much? I think the press was ready to bury him at that point and were salivating over who would be the "next" guy, which is why he reacted the way he did after the AO final the next year. I think he was determined to show he wasn't done yet but maybe even started to question himself after that loss. Thoughts?

He was pretty upset but I think AO 2009 hurt way more tbh, at that point it looked like Nadal might even start winning all the HC slams regularly and I think Roger thought that his time might be up.

[billnepill]

Because Nadal beat him at his tournament whereas he couldn't return the favour at RG. In fact, he suffered the worst loss at a major vs Nadal at RG 08. His dominance at the top was slipping to his top rival as well. That said a loss against any player at Wimbledon after his consecutive 5 would have bothered him

[tacou]

Originally Posted by The Meat

1. Hadn't lost Wimbledon in 5 years
2. Beat him two years before
3. Played pretty decently throughout the tournament
4. Dat FO defeat the same year
5. Australian OP awful performance
6. Had his chances.

This and more. It's pretty obvious why it bothered him.."changing of the guard," first non-clay slam final he lost to Rafa, first Wimbledon final loss for him..not sure how it is even a question why he'd be gutted

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Well he just lost a final in Hamburg that he should have won, before that lost a final in MC where he was in control of both sets (one he was 4-0 up in and didn't even get to a tiebreak) and then got destroyed at RG. All to Nadal. Then he plays him again with all the pressure to readdress the balance, goes 2-0 down and being unable to take a break points, he then battles back only to lose. I'm surprised he didn't have the AO reaction there.

Yes he had won 5 times in a row, but Nadal won 4 RG titles in a row never losing a match and was pretty annoyed when he finally lost.

I think it is why Fed got destroyed at FO08. He was up in both those previous clay matches, doing what he usually does, and somehow he still lost. At FO, he was just so frustrated he went kamikaze, and thus got destroyed as those pilots do.

[DropShotArtist]

Nadal really should not have won W08. Federer was just low on confidence that year from so many matches he let slip away before. Federer is and always will be the superior grass court player.

[axel89]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Nadal really should not have won W08. Federer was just low on confidence that year from so many matches he let slip away before. Federer is and always will be the superior grass court player.

lol ****s....

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Nadal really should not have won W08. Federer was just low on confidence that year from so many matches he let slip away before. Federer is and always will be the superior grass court player.

How was his performance before the finals? I only saw the match where he destroyed Safin..

[tennis_pro]

Why did Nadal's 2009 FO loss bother him so much that he decided to skip the next slam?

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by MichaelNadal

I've always wondered this. We all know he considers this one of his toughest losses. Considering He always had so much respect for Rafa and he had been on top for so long, not to mention won the title the previous 5 years, should it really have bothered him that much? I think the press was ready to bury him at that point and were salivating over who would be the "next" guy, which is why he reacted the way he did after the AO final the next year. I think he was determined to show he wasn't done yet but maybe even started to question himself after that loss. Thoughts?

huh? how much did it bother him, he went out and won the USO 2 months later, and made the final of each major in 2009, winning 2 of them.

by contrast Rafa lost at the FO and didnt make a slam final til FO 2010.
shock loss to Rosol, didnt play 7 months.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Why did Nadal's 2009 FO loss bother him so much that he decided to skip the next slam?

hmmm good question. Or why did his 2012 Wimbledon loss to #100 in the world ROSOL bother him so much that he had to take the next 7 months off? What a stupid thread topic.

[Talker]

All losses bother the runner ups.
But he did take the losses and worked harder.

Instead of fading he continued to work, won more slams and weeks at #1.

Now with over 300 weeks at #1 Djokovic and Nadal have a goal, I wish them the very best in their endeavers.

[RF20Lennon]

1. it was his home turf, in his mind (arrogant or not its up to you) his name should have already been put as the 2008 champion before hand.
2. Hadnt won a slam that year when the previous year he had won 3.
3. He couldnt believe he lost to nadal on grass after being destroyed in RG and not winning hamburg (which he really shouldve won)
4. Comes back from 2 sets down and gets a chance at 4-3 30-40 in the 5th and chokes it.

so yeah this one hurt because he really shouldve been agressive forced that first set to a breaker after having many bp's when rafa served for the set or shouldve won the second set 6-3 but instead falters and gives it away. And despite all that he finally comes back saving MP's and having a BP to serve for the match and falters. So yeah it sucks