The argument about him being broken mentally because of RG final is also stupid. Like anyone seriously expected him to beat peak Nadal in RG.
Was federer truly subpar during Wimbledon 2008?
- Thread starter Monster07
- Start date
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Lol, and Federer fans say that Nadal fans are the ones who make excuses for every loss.
The real reason they hate Nadal is 2006
If Nadal were never born, Federer would have lost ONE match!
So going from 4-6 losses a year to 15 is normal progression?
In 05-07 Fed always took a set and 05-06 should've been 5 setters. 08 was a beatdown.
Let's be honest here.Lol, and Federer fans say that Nadal fans are the ones who make excuses for every loss.
Both are disgusting and always fast at bringing up excuses.
Just accept the fact that both are incredible players, end if story.
I think all their matches were fair and square except for the ones in 13, where Fed clearly wasn't fit enough to compete at the highest level.
But everything else...
How about 9 in 07?
Other players got better and Fed's level began to drop a little bit.
Yes, normal progression.
But we would need to know the players who beat Roger in 06/07/08 to finally judge that.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Yes, NO ONE could keep that up. That's not even peak, it's Jesus. (and yes I'm admitting Federer was that good, bc he was, and I have no problems with that) but dropping to a loss rate that is still not bad at all, and being in 3 slam finals in a year, losing only to peakdal and winning the USO is hardly declining. The guy was almost #1 in the world as I'm typing this, and yet we're trying to reason with him being past his peak 9 years ago when he was going for his 6th straight Wimbledon, come on!
Federer played amazing tennis in their Cincinnati match. I agree on the other 2013 matches (even though I can tell you the same about their 2017 matches-Nadal was nowhere near his best in any of them), but the Cincinnati match was very good. Many people truly thought that Federer is back. But he didn't keep this form to USO.
Nadal's RG 2008 was one of his best ever tournaments, so it wasn't surprising.
I don't know.
The AO17 final was very very good from both.
Nadal got a little tired towards the end, because of the semi against Grigor maybe.
I agree on IW and Miami though.
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
Federer did not play amazing tennis in their Cincinnati match, nor his form was good during that tournament. Actually, it was pretty average.
The fact that he pushed Nadal in their match doesn't say much about his form, because Cincinnati is Federer's best Masters and the faster conditions suit his game, so even an average Roger could still trouble Nadal with his serve and forehand when the court or conditions allow them, which was evident in this match.
Regarding his form in Cincinnati, Federer should have lost to Haas in the round before. Tommy completely destroyed him in the first set and was a break up during the better part of the second set (I think he was broken while serving at 4-2), but, of course, choked and allowed Fed to get back into the match.
Against Nadal, he made 32 winners and 40 unforced errors and was horrible in the third set with 5 winners and 15 UEs. And even though he managed to push peak (on hard courts) Nadal, there was nothing amazing about his performance that day nor in any of the matches he played at the tournament.
Atletifan
Rookie
Fed had problem even in 2007 final and Nadal choked 3 break points in 1st game of 5th set. I don't think french open has anything to do with that , 2008 Nadal Didn't come out of nowhere , 2007 final clearly demonstrated that Nadal can beat him on grass.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
Even if he was subpar, Nadal should get credits for making Fed feel less confident. He managed to get into his head due to the losses Fed had suffered to him prior to that Wimbledon (although I have to admit I still don't understand how Roger lost the Hamburg final that year), particularly that beatdown at the FO and fully deserved the victory.
The same thing happened to Nadal at Wimbledon against Djokovic, he was subpar in that final and was shaky in the crucial moments (the end of the first set in particular), but nobody questions Novak's victory. And nobody should.
The same thing happened to Nadal at Wimbledon against Djokovic, he was subpar in that final and was shaky in the crucial moments (the end of the first set in particular), but nobody questions Novak's victory. And nobody should.
Sure he could, but Fed didn't play his absolute best in 07 either.
He was very good, but mentally..I don't know.
Do you remember how he didn't stop compaining about the Hawk eye? He even asked to turn it off.
It's a pity they didn't meet more often in Wimbledon.
I'm wondering if Nadal would've won more matches against him or if it would've ended pretty much one sided.
How can anybody seriously think so?Mononucleosis.
Just what I was going to say.
Mono wasn't there in 07 and he had to go to five sets.
In 08 Nadal was a better player than he was in 07 and only barely won.
Pretty simple.
I'm a Fed fan, but don't find weak excuses.
Atletifan
Rookie
One sided? delusion is too unreal with you bro. 20year old Nadal playing in his 2nd Wimbledon still pushed Fed to 4th set and you think Fed would've made it one sided when Nadal matured on grass? first 08 wasn't Fed best, now 07 wasn't best. Do you even understand that your form is relative to player you face. In 2007 Fed had to win his sets in tie break , thats how tough it was for him. You can make all excuse you want but truth is Nadal defeated him and should've also won against him in 07 had he converted any of bp when fed was down at 0-40 in 5th set.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
If by "subpar" the OP meant "not at his peak level" that would be correct as Federer was not at his peak level either in this particular match compared to his peak on grass or overall for the year.
Anyone denying that is either blind, stupid or both.
Anyone denying that is either blind, stupid or both.
You should learn to read "bro".
I didn't write it is one sided, I said I wonder if it would have ended that way if they could have met more often.
And I'm sure Fed didn't have to win those sets, because they played on grass.
You realize Rafa had to go to 9-7 in the fifth to win?
That's how tough it was for him.
You are one of those idiots I mentioned earlier.
I agree he should have lost to Haas. He played very bad there. But against Nadal he played on a completely different level, especially in the first two sets (and even in the third there was that last game where he saved 4 match points). Nobody but 2013 level Nadal would beat him on that day. I'm sure this Federer would beat both Djokovic and Murray. But again, it was one match.
Atletifan
Rookie
Yes Rafa had to go 9-7 in the 5th, do you also realise it could've been straight set victory after Rafa was leading 2-0? also, in 2007 it ended in 5th set even though Nadal was not complete as a grass court player. It was also tough for Fed in 2007, so what's your point? matches between them are always close on non clay surface especially in slams.
Could have, same for their final in 06.
What's the point in bringing up something like that?
That's just how Grand Slams work.
Atletifan
Rookie
Tell this to Fedfans who always bring bs excuses for Fed defeat.
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
I agree that the first two sets were competitive, although it's more due to Nadal's slow start and uncharacteristic errors in the first set (13 unforced errors to only 7 winners). But the third was a disaster for Roger(he saved match points, but that was basically the only bright thing in the whole set for him), which makes his overall performance average, in my opinion. His level dropped significantly in that last set (maybe it was his back that couldn't hold anymore) and it's surprising that he lost his serve only once. 5 winners to 15 unforced errors is simply horrible and with such stats I would't put my money on him against Djokovic or Murray, even though he owns them in Cinci.
Roddick, Fish, Blake, Stepanek, Simon, Karlovic all got too good for peak Fed in 08?
If 08 was peak Fed then he wins 3 grand slams and YEC.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Federer only lost 5 matches to Nadal and Djokovic. Can't bring up the competition argument in this case, since he lost pretty much as many matches to these 2 in 2006 too.
Nadal had 15 loses in 2011, yet somehow Federer fans think (I know they are just trolling, but still) that it is his best season ever. So for Nadal to lose to Davydenko, Ferrer, Fish, Dodig, Tsonga, Mayer at his "best" is ok? Only Federer can't lose to bad players?
Mind Doctor
Rookie
The real question is, was he subpar during AO 2009? I have come to realize that Fed truly didn't heal from his mono until AO 2017 in the fifth set. His Nadal antibodies didn't kick in until then. Mono is a devastating disease.
Well, I wasn't clear enough.
I think he was affected by Mono for some time, but not anymore in that Wimbledon final.
I don't recall when he lost against which player, but I think at some point he was back to normal.
2011 isn't peak Nadal either.
He was never as good as 04-06, and some 03,07 tournaments too. I think the only glimpse of peak Fed we saw was 08 USO SF/F.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
You should do a better job when quoting.
Also, it is somewhat normal that their matches outside of clay in Majors are almost always close.
Mostly because
1) with the exception of Wimbledon 2006 and Wimbledon 2007 all were outside of Federer's peak
2) Nadal made it to the final match mostly when in exceptional form ( anything less than that and the match between them didn't happen at all)
Mind Doctor
Rookie
How dare Nadal be in exceptional form during non-peak Fed years? That is so sad and unfair.You should do a better job when quoting.
Also, it is somewhat normal that their matches outside of clay in Majors are almost always close.
Mostly because
1) with the exception of Wimbledon 2006 and Wimbledon 2007 all were outside of Federer's peak
2) Nadal made it to the final match mostly when in exceptional form ( anything less than that and the match between them didn't happen at all)
Tennis_Hands
Banned
As stated many times, the effects of the mono were not visible only during the times when he was physically unwell.
His entire physical and mental preparation was suffering (most probably also the reason for the RG2008 result).
It has been talked many times before what kind of importance these things have for the players especially in extraordinary circumstances.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
That is actually pretty normal.
Pity that some people cannot come into terms with it when talking about the great wins Nadal had over Federer outside of RG.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
No, Federer lost only because of mono. if not, he would have beat Nadal in straight sets in both Wimbledon and AO finals as well as Djokovic in AO semi-final in 2008.
Okkali, I can't tell you how much I hate mono. It cost Federer at least 3 slam titles. We really have to find a vaccine for it sooner than later.
Okkali, I can't tell you how much I hate mono. It cost Federer at least 3 slam titles. We really have to find a vaccine for it sooner than later.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
Ha! What a great article. I'd say I'm surprised it has received barely any acknowledgement, but of course that is not the case.
Obviously not as good. Less confidence, maybe age was a factor already? I don't think so, but he wasn't as good as before.
But didn't he actually cruise pretty easily into the RG08 final?As stated many times, the effects of the mono were not visible only during the times when he was physically unwell.
His entire physical and mental preparation was suffering (most probably also the reason for the RG2008 result).
It has been talked many times before what kind of importance these things have for the players especially in extraordinary circumstances.
Same for Wimby.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Not quite. Fed didn't play great against Gonzo and Monfils at the FO. You could see that his form was below par and against Nadal in his best RG form, that proved costly.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Losing sets to Montanes, Gonzalez on clay and Monfils tell a slightly different story.
Of course, his level was too much for any of those guys, so one can make such an argument based on the fact that his matches never went the distance, but it is not indicative of anything concerning a situation where he had to dig deep.
Wimby is a different matter, although on paper his opponents were great, but for one reason or another they could not apply enough pressure to see where his peak form was.
Atletifan
Rookie
Yes competetion doesn't matter.
I think Fed had mono since 2007 Wimbledon final otherwise he would've won the final in straight sets.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
2008 Fed is peak Fed now? LMAO.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
If you're not as good as you used to be, that's decline, irrelevant of how good you still are. That's the definition of decline. Saying Federer was at his peak or playing his best 08 Wimby is just as bad as saying he still had mono or something.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Laugh all you want
you're the one exaggerating, at Wimbledon 08 itself, YES Federer was close to his best. Did he play overall in 08 as good as he did in 05? Of course not, but that's minimal in the grand scheme.Not sure, but he went from straight setting Djokovic/Nadal at USO/YEC to losing tamely in 3 sets to Djokovic at the AO, going 5 vs Tipseravic, straight setted/bagelled at RG, going 2 sets down vs Nadal at Wimbledon, losing to Murray at YEC etc. From 88-95% win rate down to 80? From 7-12 titles down to 4. Many losses to former pigeons... overall a clear decline and the eye test confirms it.
Laugh all you want
It clearly wasn't minimal as he went 2 sets down and had to battle just to make it competitive. Cost him 6 Wimbledons in a row.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
Fed certainly didn't play great that day. I think Rafa made him make UE aplenty , its not that he randomly hit the net for no reason. Rafas style hurts Roger.
Its absolutely nothing to do with mentality on Rogers part. If y'all remember correctly, Roger was licking his lips before the final saying he couldn't wait to get Rafa back on 'his' surface grass, after the FO defeat.
Make no mistake Roger was gunning for Rafa in 08. He just got beat in a close match by the better player on the day.
Im also pretty sure Rafa in 09 would've done the same again had he made it. Bad time for Roger when Roddick takes him all the way.
Its absolutely nothing to do with mentality on Rogers part. If y'all remember correctly, Roger was licking his lips before the final saying he couldn't wait to get Rafa back on 'his' surface grass, after the FO defeat.
Make no mistake Roger was gunning for Rafa in 08. He just got beat in a close match by the better player on the day.
Im also pretty sure Rafa in 09 would've done the same again had he made it. Bad time for Roger when Roddick takes him all the way.
Gazelle
G.O.A.T.
Seems you are ignorant of the mental part of tennis.
Federev
Legend
abmk
Bionic Poster
I mean are you seriously that stupid or just pretending to be ?
The RG 2008 final was such a beatdown that it was expected to have an impact. It wasn't about federer losing it, but the manner of the loss.
He lost in 2006 and 2007 as well, but those were competitive matches.
