REKX
Rookie
As a Federer and Nadal fan, I have to say I was first only a Federer fan at the beginning, and it used to hurt knowing the rivalry wasn't really a rivalry, Nadal dominated my favorite player, regardless of surface, to know my player was beaten consistently, and it hurt more when Nadal started beating Federer on grass and hard. But over time I learnt to appreciate both, and realised how lucky we are to have these two.
So 2007 Federer is seen the greatest version of Federer. He was the right age, 27 is generally when most players are at their most prime, he won 3 slams, and would have won the French that year if it was any other player in history apart from Nadal, I have 100% belief 2007 Federer would beat Prime Djokovic, Keurten, Borg at the French.
So in 2007 Nadal took Federer, who is the greatest grass court player of all time playing in his absolute prime, to 5 sets at Wimbledon. What an achievement for a young, under developed at the time, player, who was suited for clay.
In Wimbledon 2008 Federer was playing even better than 2007. He lost a set in 2007 before the final, but in 2008 he did not lose a set till the final. He was at his best, hitting winners from anywhere, and I miss this version of Federer, it was like a butterfly with a deadly sting.
Federer really did play amazing, the quality of the rallies were beyond anything ever seen before in the sport, the passing shots, winners both players were hitting was simply amazing.
It is no surprise then why most tennis fans, experts, current and past players, pundits, commentators, journalists and coaches say the Wimbledon 2008 final was the greatest tennis match of all time.
For Nadal to be able to demonstrate he can match Federer's level two years in a row whilst he was in his Prime and whilst he is the greatest the grass court player of all time, and beating him in one of the years.
There is no doubt that the Nadal 2007-2010 is one of the greatest grass court players of all time, otherwise how else could he match the greatest grass court player of all time, toe to toe and beat him?
So 2007 Federer is seen the greatest version of Federer. He was the right age, 27 is generally when most players are at their most prime, he won 3 slams, and would have won the French that year if it was any other player in history apart from Nadal, I have 100% belief 2007 Federer would beat Prime Djokovic, Keurten, Borg at the French.
So in 2007 Nadal took Federer, who is the greatest grass court player of all time playing in his absolute prime, to 5 sets at Wimbledon. What an achievement for a young, under developed at the time, player, who was suited for clay.
In Wimbledon 2008 Federer was playing even better than 2007. He lost a set in 2007 before the final, but in 2008 he did not lose a set till the final. He was at his best, hitting winners from anywhere, and I miss this version of Federer, it was like a butterfly with a deadly sting.
Federer really did play amazing, the quality of the rallies were beyond anything ever seen before in the sport, the passing shots, winners both players were hitting was simply amazing.
It is no surprise then why most tennis fans, experts, current and past players, pundits, commentators, journalists and coaches say the Wimbledon 2008 final was the greatest tennis match of all time.
For Nadal to be able to demonstrate he can match Federer's level two years in a row whilst he was in his Prime and whilst he is the greatest the grass court player of all time, and beating him in one of the years.
There is no doubt that the Nadal 2007-2010 is one of the greatest grass court players of all time, otherwise how else could he match the greatest grass court player of all time, toe to toe and beat him?
Last edited:
