As a Federer and Nadal Fan

[Devin]

As a Federer and Nadal fan, I have watched numerous matches between each other and analyzed various matches from both Federer and Nadal (because I'm a fan of both players and I can do that, cool right?)

Well, I can say this, Wimbledon 2008 is an OVERRATED match. In terms of greatness and storyline, it could be the best, I'll give it that, but in quality, nothing will change its OVERRATEDNESS.

You have Nadal serving better, but Federer is CHIPPING even Rafa's PATTYCAKED SECOND SERVES into the net. Nadal's DIRT BALLER GROUND GAME was CLEARLY BETTER the year before. So was Federer's.

Contrary to what some other Federer and Nadal fans think, 2007 was NOT the peakiest form of Federer.

2006 was the best overall year for Federer, then 2005, then 2004, then 2007.

He had FOUR BETTER runs at Wimbledon than 2007: 2003 was the best, then 2006, then 2005, then 2004. ALL OF THOSE were better than 2007.

Nadal went in that 2007 Wimbledon final with a BETTER GROUND GAME than 2008. His forehand was COOKING in that 2007 final. Serving was worse yeah yeah whatever Nadal was never known for a good serve besides ONE TOURNAMENT, but that's CANCELED OUT by the ground game.

Fed was a STEP BELOW his 2003-2006 Wimbledon LEVEL. He went into that 2007 final, Nadal was BASICALLY AS GOOD as he was in 2008. It wasn't even the BEST Federer, and he STILL WON in FIVE sets against Nadal playing at a SIMILAR LEVEL as he was in Wimbledon 2008. ROFLMAO!

As a Federer and Nadal fan who has watched these matches, Wimbledon 2007 was WITHOUT QUESTION the BETTER QUALITY match. OVERALL HIGHER LEVEL OF PLAY.

And DON'T get me talking about ROME 2006, which was even HIGHER QUALITY in level of play. Wimbledon 2008 had the story, but the QUALITY of tennis is OVERRATED, PERIOD.

NUFF SAID, NO EXCUSES! ROFLMAO

 

[Raining hopes]

As a Federer and Nadal fan, I have watched numerous matches between each other and analyzed various matches from both Federer and Nadal (because I'm a fan of both players and I can do that, cool right?)

Well, I can say this, Wimbledon 2008 is an OVERRATED match. In terms of greatness and storyline, it could be the best, I'll give it that, but in quality, nothing will change its OVERRATEDNESS.

You have Nadal serving better, but Federer is CHIPPING even Rafa's PATTYCAKED SECOND SERVES into the net. Nadal's DIRT BALLER GROUND GAME was CLEARLY BETTER the year before. So was Federer's.

Contrary to what some other Federer and Nadal fans think, 2007 was NOT the peakiest form of Federer.

2006 was the best overall year for Federer, then 2005, then 2004, then 2007.

He had FOUR BETTER runs at Wimbledon than 2007: 2003 was the best, then 2006, then 2005, then 2004. ALL OF THOSE were better than 2007.

Nadal went in that 2007 Wimbledon final with a BETTER GROUND GAME than 2008. His forehand was COOKING in that 2007 final. Serving was worse yeah yeah whatever Nadal was never known for a good serve besides ONE TOURNAMENT, but that's CANCELED OUT by the ground game.

Fed was a STEP BELOW his 2003-2006 Wimbledon LEVEL. He went into that 2007 final, Nadal was BASICALLY AS GOOD as he was in 2008. It wasn't even the BEST Federer, and he STILL WON in FIVE sets against Nadal playing at a SIMILAR LEVEL as he was in Wimbledon 2008. ROFLMAO!

As a Federer and Nadal fan who has watched these matches, Wimbledon 2007 was WITHOUT QUESTION the BETTER QUALITY match. OVERALL HIGHER LEVEL OF PLAY.

And DON'T get me talking about ROME 2006, which was even HIGHER QUALITY in level of play. Wimbledon 2008 had the story, but the QUALITY of tennis is OVERRATED, PERIOD.

NUFF SAID, NO EXCUSES! ROFLMAO

Your points are actually good, but one must not take any credit away from Rafa 2008 or 2007 the guy played at one of the highest levels the sport has ever seen on centre court.

 

[Fabresque]

As a Federer and Nadal fan, I have watched numerous matches between each other and analyzed various matches from both Federer and Nadal (because I'm a fan of both players and I can do that, cool right?)

Well, I can say this, Wimbledon 2008 is an OVERRATED match. In terms of greatness and storyline, it could be the best, I'll give it that, but in quality, nothing will change its OVERRATEDNESS.

You have Nadal serving better, but Federer is CHIPPING even Rafa's PATTYCAKED SECOND SERVES into the net. Nadal's DIRT BALLER GROUND GAME was CLEARLY BETTER the year before. So was Federer's.

Contrary to what some other Federer and Nadal fans think, 2007 was NOT the peakiest form of Federer.

2006 was the best overall year for Federer, then 2005, then 2004, then 2007.

He had FOUR BETTER runs at Wimbledon than 2007: 2003 was the best, then 2006, then 2005, then 2004. ALL OF THOSE were better than 2007.

Nadal went in that 2007 Wimbledon final with a BETTER GROUND GAME than 2008. His forehand was COOKING in that 2007 final. Serving was worse yeah yeah whatever Nadal was never known for a good serve besides ONE TOURNAMENT, but that's CANCELED OUT by the ground game.

Fed was a STEP BELOW his 2003-2006 Wimbledon LEVEL. He went into that 2007 final, Nadal was BASICALLY AS GOOD as he was in 2008. It wasn't even the BEST Federer, and he STILL WON in FIVE sets against Nadal playing at a SIMILAR LEVEL as he was in Wimbledon 2008. ROFLMAO!

As a Federer and Nadal fan who has watched these matches, Wimbledon 2007 was WITHOUT QUESTION the BETTER QUALITY match. OVERALL HIGHER LEVEL OF PLAY.

And DON'T get me talking about ROME 2006, which was even HIGHER QUALITY in level of play. Wimbledon 2008 had the story, but the QUALITY of tennis is OVERRATED, PERIOD.

NUFF SAID, NO EXCUSES! ROFLMAO

Yea you’re right, it is a bit overrated. But it doesn’t take away that the quality of tennis was booming that final. The shotmaking, the rallies, and the clutchness both players displayed was incredible. I think the 2007 final was a higher quality, but take nothing away from 2008. It may have been a slightly lower level, but it also had the storyline to go with it. That seals it.

 

[Devin]

Your points are actually good, but one must not take any credit away from Rafa 2008 or 2007 the guy played at one of the highest levels the sport has ever seen.

Nadal did have to earn that match, yes that's definitely true. Federer fought like a lion in those last 3 sets, but 2008 was still worse than 2007. I would favor 2007 Federer over 2008 Nadal at Wimbledon.

I'm just tired of all these REKX nonsense threads about Wimbledon 2008. A version of Federer that wasn't even the best version (2003-2006 > 2007) beat Nadal playing at a similar level to the 2008 final. But he can't seem to grasp that.

 

[smoledman]

I'm convinced 2017 AO is the best match they ever played.

 

[Devin]

I'm convinced 2017 AO is the best match they ever played.

Better than this? I don't think so (although those two FH misses on MP...)

I'd put AO 2017 below Rome 2006, Wimbledon 2007/2008, and AO 2009.

 

[ADuck]

As a Nadal fan you have to deal with the fact that if Nadal ever won a set over Federer on hard/grass courts it was actually because Federer was either old/sick/injured/not peak/playing **** etc etc. If not that it's only because Nadal is a lefty and has the matchup advantage. Now with that out of the way why don't we just end all the threads.

 

[aman92]

It's rated more for the drama of Federer coming back from 2 sets, the constant rain delays and Nadal finally winning after squandering 2 match points. Quality of tennis was not the highest but that's not the only factor in making it great

 

[Milehigh5280]

I'm convinced 2017 AO is the best match they ever played.

2017 AO had the narrative and the drama in the 5th set but 2006 Rome is their best match when considering just quality, imo.

 

[hoodjem]

because Federer was either old/sick/injured/not peak/playing **** etc etc.

Perhaps, but that’s about 70% of Fed’s career.



Ah, but that glorious 30%.

 

[Sudacafan]

I don’t know why, but whenever I read “as a Federer and Nadal fan”, my alarms go off.

 

[Gary Duane]

OP had a shift key problem.

 

[Sudacafan]

OP had a shift key problem.

CAPS LOCK DISEASE IS A SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
KEYBOARDS SHOULD BE DISINFECTED.

 

[kevaninho]

Nadal did have to earn that match, yes that's definitely true. Federer fought like a lion in those last 3 sets, but 2008 was still worse than 2007. I would favor 2007 Federer over 2008 Nadal at Wimbledon.

I'm just tired of all these REKX nonsense threads about Wimbledon 2008. A version of Federer that wasn't even the best version (2003-2006 > 2007) beat Nadal playing at a similar level to the 2008 final. But he can't seem to grasp that.

Federer shouldn't need to be at his best ever level to beat Nadal on grass. That's what people don't grasp here. Making the excuse that Federer wasn't at his best in 08.
Big deal, he barely sneaked out 07 in 5 sets also. If this great Federer , the grass GOAT, was really as unbelievable as everyone loves to proclaim, then he should still have been rolling over Nadal on grass every year.
You wouldn't have seen Nadal lose a RG final to his nearest rival who had barely won a clay tournament before it.

 

[Sport]

As a Federer and Nadal fan I still think Fed fans just hate Wimbledon 2008 because Federer lost and that hurts them. Nadal was pre-peak in 2007 (he wasn't good on all the three surfaces yet), so Wimbledon 2007 is not that good. Only in 2008 Nadal peaked and became good on clay (RG title), grass (WB title) and hard courts (Olympic Gold in singles).

Wimbledon 2008 is still the greatest match of all time, since both Federer and Nadal were at their peak and Nadal defeated peak Federer at his favorite GS. Federer never defeated Nadal at RG.

According to this New York Times' article doctors said Federer was recovered from the adverse effects of mononucleosis as soon as late February. He received medical clearance to play normally the 27th of February 2008. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/sports/07iht-arena.3.10811374.html?pagewanted=all

Federer arrived to the Wimbledon final in July (more than 4 months after the medical clearance). Federer was moving perfectly in Wimbledon 2008, and he arrived to the final without losing any set. He was 26 and didn't look less fast than in 2007 or 2006. So he was at his peak. Even the 2007 final was kinda close, Nadal had 4 break points in the 5th set. 26 years old Roger was 100% healthy and at his peak in the 2008 Wimbledon final.

 

[Sport]

Whatever. In terms of significance and level of play, nothing can defeat Wimbledon 2008. Nadal defeated Federer at his favorite GS, Wimbledon. Still waiting to see Federer defeat Nadal at Roland Garros.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

People thinking Nadal played better in 07 than 08. Only difference was Federer's level dropping, right guys? Okay ​

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

People thinking Nadal played better in 07 than 08. Only difference was Federer's level dropping, right guys? Okay ​

Not better, but just as well. Federer was extremely unclutch in the first 2.5 sets of Wim 08 final, his play on BPs says it all. He really was the better player overall, yet very nearly lost in straights (and this isn't even Nadal-specific, see Haas RG 09 for another near-loss in straights when he should've been cruising and Robredo USO 13 for an actual straight-set loss like that). If he wasn't such a mental mug, they'd split the sets at least, as it were in 07. Then, in the las 2.5 sets Nadal was the better player, but Federer stopped mugging around and look at that, he snatches the next two if by a hair (Nadal's own nerves helped as well, obviously). In the fifth, Federer was the one repeatedly saving BPs and logically lost - had he somehow taken that lone BP chance and got the match, that would've been a massive steal, not something he is known for.

Basically, 1st set should've gone to a TB, Federer should've won the 2nd, Nadal should've won the 4th. Mental midgetry absent, it's still a five-setter unless Federer wins both TBs.

 

[metsman]

Not better, but just as well. Federer was extremely unclutch in the first 2.5 sets of Wim 08 final, his play on BPs says it all. He really was the better player overall, yet very nearly lost in straights (and this isn't even Nadal-specific, see Haas RG 09 for another near-loss in straights when he should've been cruising and Robredo USO 13 for an actual straight-set loss like that). If he wasn't such a mental mug, they'd split the sets at least, as it were in 07. Then, in the las 2.5 sets Nadal was the better player, but Federer stopped mugging around and look at that, he snatches the next two if by a hair (Nadal's own nerves helped as well, obviously). In the fifth, Federer was the one repeatedly saving BPs and logically lost - had he somehow taken that lone BP chance and got the match, that would've been a massive steal, not something he is known for.

Fed had a bunch of looks on Nadal's serve in the 5th starting from that 4-3 game, only got the 1 BP because his FH was a spray machine every time he got to 15 or 30 in a Nadal service game after that. Another big difference with 07 where his FH was super clutch in the 5th. He had some ridiculous FH misses in the 5th set of 08. His return was total garbage the whole match, that was another big difference. Nadal's serve was better in 08, the rest of his game was about the same but 08 he was more conservative for obvious reasons, in 07 he took the initiative more and that was more impressive.

 

[caulcano]

As a Federer and Nadal fan, I have watched numerous matches between each other and analyzed various matches from both Federer and Nadal (because I'm a fan of both players and I can do that, cool right?)

Well, I can say this, Wimbledon 2008 is an OVERRATED match. In terms of greatness and storyline, it could be the best, I'll give it that, but in quality, nothing will change its OVERRATEDNESS.

You have Nadal serving better, but Federer is CHIPPING even Rafa's PATTYCAKED SECOND SERVES into the net. Nadal's DIRT BALLER GROUND GAME was CLEARLY BETTER the year before. So was Federer's.

Contrary to what some other Federer and Nadal fans think, 2007 was NOT the peakiest form of Federer.

2006 was the best overall year for Federer, then 2005, then 2004, then 2007.

He had FOUR BETTER runs at Wimbledon than 2007: 2003 was the best, then 2006, then 2005, then 2004. ALL OF THOSE were better than 2007.

Nadal went in that 2007 Wimbledon final with a BETTER GROUND GAME than 2008. His forehand was COOKING in that 2007 final. Serving was worse yeah yeah whatever Nadal was never known for a good serve besides ONE TOURNAMENT, but that's CANCELED OUT by the ground game.

Fed was a STEP BELOW his 2003-2006 Wimbledon LEVEL. He went into that 2007 final, Nadal was BASICALLY AS GOOD as he was in 2008. It wasn't even the BEST Federer, and he STILL WON in FIVE sets against Nadal playing at a SIMILAR LEVEL as he was in Wimbledon 2008. ROFLMAO!

As a Federer and Nadal fan who has watched these matches, Wimbledon 2007 was WITHOUT QUESTION the BETTER QUALITY match. OVERALL HIGHER LEVEL OF PLAY.

And DON'T get me talking about ROME 2006, which was even HIGHER QUALITY in level of play. Wimbledon 2008 had the story, but the QUALITY of tennis is OVERRATED, PERIOD.

NUFF SAID, NO EXCUSES! ROFLMAO

Wimbledon 2008 was overrated in quality and Nadal should have won in 3 or 4 sets.

It's only up there because of the storyline - an unlikely comeback and the ending of Federer's reign.

 

[Devin]

Fed had a bunch of looks on Nadal's serve in the 5th starting from that 4-3 game, only got the 1 BP because his FH was a spray machine every time he got to 15 or 30 in a Nadal service game after that. Another big difference with 07 where his FH was super clutch in the 5th. He had some ridiculous FH misses in the 5th set of 08. His return was total garbage the whole match, that was another big difference. Nadal's serve was better in 08, the rest of his game was about the same but 08 he was more conservative for obvious reasons, in 07 he took the initiative more and that was more impressive.

Ground game was better IMO in 2007, not 'about the same'. Nadal returned Federer's serve very well in that match. In terms of how good Rafa's FH was that day, it was right with the likes of USO 2010, USO 2013 (the ones that most people talk about).

In terms of the complete package throughout the tournament, I'd take Nadal 2008, but Nadal 2007 is like Federer at Rome 2006 in a way. Nobody expected Federer to play well in the final after that error-filled SF vs. Nalbandian... nobody also expected Nadal to play so well in that final either.

 

[Chadillac]

8.5 hour match with rain delays that finished in the dark. Did anyone actually sit through the whole thing?

 

[BeatlesFan]

he barely sneaked out 07 in 5 sets also.

Fed won the fifth set 6-2. That's hardly "barely sneaking through" a match.

 

[Ferss111]

Fed won the fifth set 6-2. That's hardly "barely sneaking through" a match.

Federer won the other sets on tie breaks though.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

For for pure tennis Wimbledon 2007 trumps Wimbledon 2008.

For on the edge of your seat drama and storytelling, very few matches will come close to Wimbledon 2008.


I think when you call Wimbledon 2008 the greatest match of all time, it is because it had everything, good tennis, story line, drama. The perfect balance. But it is by no means the greatest tennis match if you just look at the quality of tennis being played, Wimbledon 2007 and Rome 2006 destroy it in overall tennis quality.

 

[metsman]

Ground game was better IMO in 2007, not 'about the same'. Nadal returned Federer's serve very well in that match. In terms of how good Rafa's FH was that day, it was right with the likes of USO 2010, USO 2013 (the ones that most people talk about).

In terms of the complete package throughout the tournament, I'd take Nadal 2008, but Nadal 2007 is like Federer at Rome 2006 in a way. Nobody expected Federer to play well in the final after that error-filled SF vs. Nalbandian... nobody also expected Nadal to play so well in that final either.

07 Wimbledon was an odd tournament because Nadal was cruising until the rain really messed him up and he got into those 2 long matches, showed great form until then and in the QF against Berdych so even though no one expected him to play that well in the final (which also showed a loss of form on Fed's end compared with 03-06 with how he was unable to hold the first set lead and lost his mind in the 4th), the form was there, looking back.

 

[Devin]

For for pure tennis Wimbledon 2007 trumps Wimbledon 2008.

For on the edge of your seat drama and storytelling, very few matches will come close to Wimbledon 2008.


I think when you call Wimbledon 2008 the greatest match of all time, it is because it had everything, good tennis, story line, drama. The perfect balance. But it is by no means the greatest tennis match if you just look at the quality of tennis being played, Wimbledon 2007 and Rome 2006 destroy it in overall tennis quality.

When you look back at it, Federer and Nadal have had a ton of great thrillers...

Rome 2006
Wimbledon 2007
Wimbledon 2008/AO 2009
AO 2017
Miami 2005

That's in order of quality out of the five setters. Any objections there? Arguably, AO 2009 could be higher, but Federer was subpar in serving, which prolonged some of the points. Not to the degree of the 2011 USO F, but still sort of significant.

Miami 2005 had a poor first set in terms of quality. Federer was close to taking the second set, but he choked and lost his momentum again temporarily. In terms of drama, it's up there, but Federer shouldn't have let that one go past 4 sets.
May be bold when I say this, but Federer probably wins in straights if it was a night match. He played well against Agassi (who also played well in that SF, which was a night match), and Agassi also had the game to attack Fed's BH. In quality, probably the worst among the five setters, but in drama, it's high.

A very underrated one IMO is Monte Carlo 2006. That one had some pretty good tennis in it, even though it was only 4 sets.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Ultronian w a mask on

 

[EloQuent]

What especially gets me mad is how certain journalists make this one match into the defining moment of the rivalry. Federer had won 5 times in a row and was clearly not at the same level in 08 as 04-07. And he would still go on to win Wim 3 more times. It's as if someone defines Nadal's career by 2009.

 

[King No1e]

I'm convinced 2017 AO is the best match they ever played.

Can I have some? Must be pretty strong stuff you're on.

 

[REKX]

What especially gets me mad is how certain journalists make this one match into the defining moment of the rivalry. Federer had won 5 times in a row and was clearly not at the same level in 08 as 04-07. And he would still go on to win Wim 3 more times. It's as if someone defines Nadal's career by 2009.

It was defining because Federer til the final was playing better than 2007, the stats show this, he didn't lose a set til the final of 2008, he did in 2007.

Nadal was clearly stronger in 2008 than 2007.

I mean did you not see the 2008 match, it was incredible hitting from two players, this is what it amazing, it was top level tennis all the way, better than 2007. Funny how a few Federer only fans here don't like 2008, but the rest of the tennis world say hands down 2008 was the greatest final, including many past and present tennis players.

It speaks volumes about Nadal if he could take Federer to 5 sets two years in a row at Wimbledon, this is not the freak result some people claim, it is exactly how it is, Nadal raised his game to match the greatest grass court player of all time, two years in a row, and beating him in one.

 

[EloQuent]

It was defining because Federer til the final was playing better than 2007, the stats show this, he didn't lose a set til the final of 2008, he did in 2007.

Nadal was clearly stronger in 2008 than 2007.

I mean did you not see the 2008 match, it was incredible hitting from two players, this is what it amazing, it was top level tennis all the way, better than 2007. Funny how a few Federer only fans here don't like 2008, but the rest of the tennis world say hands down 2008 was the greatest final, including many past and present tennis players.

It speaks volumes about Nadal if he could take Federer to 5 sets two years in a row at Wimbledon, this is not the freak result some people claim, it is exactly how it is, Nadal raised his game to match the greatest grass court player of all time, two years in a row, and beating him in one.

lol

 

[Devin]

It was defining because Federer til the final was playing better than 2007, the stats show this, he didn't lose a set til the final of 2008, he did in 2007.

Nadal was clearly stronger in 2008 than 2007.

I mean did you not see the 2008 match, it was incredible hitting from two players, this is what it amazing, it was top level tennis all the way, better than 2007. Funny how a few Federer only fans here don't like 2008, but the rest of the tennis world say hands down 2008 was the greatest final, including many past and present tennis players.

It speaks volumes about Nadal if he could take Federer to 5 sets two years in a row at Wimbledon, this is not the freak result some people claim, it is exactly how it is, Nadal raised his game to match the greatest grass court player of all time, two years in a row, and beating him in one.

I'm afraid to tell you that some Federer and Nadal fans like me have a better understanding of the game.

Nadal was better from the ground in 2007. His serve was better in 2008. Those pretty much cross each other out.

"top level tennis all the way, better than 2007" - Thanks for confirming that you've never watched the 2007 final. An unbiased Federer and Nadal fan like you wouldn't say something ridiculous like that!

Federer beat Nadal in 2007, and Nadal was playing his best grass court tennis. Federer was a tier below 2003-2006 level (which are in a league of their own). No excuses.

Also, hilarious that it took you so long to respond to this. Were you having some problems with a CAPTCHA?

 

[Eren]

Nadal was pre-peak in 2007 (he wasn't good on all the three surfaces yet)

That's the new definition of Nadal being peak? Federer wasn't good on all three surfaces yet in 2004 (and 2005 to a lesser extent) going by your standards and he still was peak Federer IMO. That is not a good definition.

Federer was moving perfectly in Wimbledon 2008, and he arrived to the final without losing any set.

Federer didn't lose a set en route to the AO 2018 final, I guess he was peak too in 2018 AO lol.

 

[Pheasant]

The greatest match between these two quality-wise was the 2006 Rome final. That match had me on the edge of my seat.

As far as 2008 goes, Fed sucked by his standards that year, even after Wimbledon. Guys named Simon and Blake beat Fed twice each that year, all after that Wimbledon match. As a matter of fact, after that Wimbledon match, Fed was only 4-4 against the top 10 for the last half of 2008, despite not playing Nadal. Even Karlovic beat Fed that year in Cincinnati. Karlovic against Fed all other years besides 2008: 0-12.

I hold 2008 against Fed, FWIW. He shouldn’t have dropped that much in quality that year. His endless hours playing squash and going skiing during the off-season was a terrible mistake. And it caught up to him on 2008. He got mono due to burning the candle at both ends and that is his fault. And 2008 night eventually cost Federer the GOAT title. But even if it does, I would be crazy to complain about a guy that ended his career with 20 slam titles and 310 weeks at number 1.

 

[REKX]

I'm afraid to tell you that some Federer and Nadal fans like me have a better understanding of the game.

Nadal was better from the ground in 2007. His serve was better in 2008. Those pretty much cross each other out.

"top level tennis all the way, better than 2007" - Thanks for confirming that you've never watched the 2007 final. An unbiased Federer and Nadal fan like you wouldn't say something ridiculous like that!

Federer beat Nadal in 2007, and Nadal was playing his best grass court tennis. Federer was a tier below 2003-2006 level (which are in a league of their own). No excuses.

Also, hilarious that it took you so long to respond to this. Were you having some problems with a CAPTCHA?

Please Nadal was making shots in 2008 he wasn't in 2007.

The level of play, shot making, pass shots was unbelievable from both players. Nadal was obviously younger in 2007 and he looked tired in the 5th set in 2007, this is clear to see, even physically it is obvious to see his muscles are smaller, if you can't see that you in plain denial.

Federer in 2008 at WImbledon was amazing, hitting winners from anywhere, footwork timing, it was amazing to see, his level was higher than 2007, because he didn't lose a set in 2008 til the final.

If Nadal hadn't appeared that day in 2008 final, Federer would have won the whole tournament without losing a set and we would be sitting here today saying it was one of his greatest ever performances. I think in 2008 he played Hewitt one match and the winners he was hitting was beyond anything.

Federer 2007 was a tier below 03-06? Ok now you are plain trolling, lol please tell you are not serious. The field in 2003 was philipousis and roddick, a retiring Agassi. Federer was at his absolute peak age in 2007, and without doubt his foot work, backhand forehand everything was perfect, it is no surprise he won 3 grand slams in that year. His backhand in say 2003 was so flat, Nadal would have eaten that up with high top spin, which is no surprise as he had to make the change around 2005 to handle better backhands as the field was getting stronger.

Just lol, I can't take you seriously.

 

[Federev]

Federer shouldn't need to be at his best ever level to beat Nadal on grass. That's what people don't grasp here. Making the excuse that Federer wasn't at his best in 08.
Big deal, he barely sneaked out 07 in 5 sets also. If this great Federer , the grass GOAT, was really as unbelievable as everyone loves to proclaim, then he should still have been rolling over Nadal on grass every year.
You wouldn't have seen Nadal lose a RG final to his nearest rival who had barely won a clay tournament before it.

Fed won the fifth set 6-2. That's hardly "barely sneaking through" a match.

If Fed sneaked 2007, then 2008 was a draw.

 

[True Fanerer]

Please Nadal was making shots in 2008 he wasn't in 2007.

The level of play, shot making, pass shots was unbelievable from both players. Nadal was obviously younger in 2007 and he looked tired in the 5th set in 2007, this is clear to see, even physically it is obvious to see his muscles are smaller, if you can't see that you in plain denial.

Federer in 2008 at WImbledon was amazing, hitting winners from anywhere, footwork timing, it was amazing to see, his level was higher than 2007, because he didn't lose a set in 2008 til the final.

If Nadal hadn't appeared that day in 2008 final, Federer would have won the whole tournament without losing a set and we would be sitting here today saying it was one of his greatest ever performances. I think in 2008 he played Hewitt one match and the winners he was hitting was beyond anything.

Federer 2007 was a tier below 03-06? Ok now you are plain trolling, lol please tell you are not serious. The field in 2003 was philipousis and roddick, a retiring Agassi. Federer was at his absolute peak age in 2007, and without doubt his foot work, backhand forehand everything was perfect, it is no surprise he won 3 grand slams in that year. His backhand in say 2003 was so flat, Nadal would have eaten that up with high top spin, which is no surprise as he had to make the change around 2005 to handle better backhands as the field was getting stronger.

Just lol, I can't take you seriously.

Federer was a scrub in 2008 final until the 3rd set.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Please Nadal was making shots in 2008 he wasn't in 2007.

The level of play, shot making, pass shots was unbelievable from both players. Nadal was obviously younger in 2007 and he looked tired in the 5th set in 2007, this is clear to see, even physically it is obvious to see his muscles are smaller, if you can't see that you in plain denial.

Federer in 2008 at WImbledon was amazing, hitting winners from anywhere, footwork timing, it was amazing to see, his level was higher than 2007, because he didn't lose a set in 2008 til the final.

If Nadal hadn't appeared that day in 2008 final, Federer would have won the whole tournament without losing a set and we would be sitting here today saying it was one of his greatest ever performances. I think in 2008 he played Hewitt one match and the winners he was hitting was beyond anything.

Federer 2007 was a tier below 03-06? Ok now you are plain trolling, lol please tell you are not serious. The field in 2003 was philipousis and roddick, a retiring Agassi. Federer was at his absolute peak age in 2007, and without doubt his foot work, backhand forehand everything was perfect, it is no surprise he won 3 grand slams in that year. His backhand in say 2003 was so flat, Nadal would have eaten that up with high top spin, which is no surprise as he had to make the change around 2005 to handle better backhands as the field was getting stronger.

Just lol, I can't take you seriously.

The irony in this statement is mind boggling.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Federer won the other sets on tie breaks though.

Wow! So Stefan Edberg or Andre should still be b-tching that they lost a Wimbledon semi (to Stich) and a USO QF (to Pete) because all sets went to a TB?

Novel concept, to be sure.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Please Nadal was making shots in 2008 he wasn't in 2007.

The level of play, shot making, pass shots was unbelievable from both players. Nadal was obviously younger in 2007 and he looked tired in the 5th set in 2007, this is clear to see, even physically it is obvious to see his muscles are smaller, if you can't see that you in plain denial.

Federer in 2008 at WImbledon was amazing, hitting winners from anywhere, footwork timing, it was amazing to see, his level was higher than 2007, because he didn't lose a set in 2008 til the final.

If Nadal hadn't appeared that day in 2008 final, Federer would have won the whole tournament without losing a set and we would be sitting here today saying it was one of his greatest ever performances. I think in 2008 he played Hewitt one match and the winners he was hitting was beyond anything.

Federer 2007 was a tier below 03-06? Ok now you are plain trolling, lol please tell you are not serious. The field in 2003 was philipousis and roddick, a retiring Agassi. Federer was at his absolute peak age in 2007, and without doubt his foot work, backhand forehand everything was perfect, it is no surprise he won 3 grand slams in that year. His backhand in say 2003 was so flat, Nadal would have eaten that up with high top spin, which is no surprise as he had to make the change around 2005 to handle better backhands as the field was getting stronger.

Just lol, I can't take you seriously.

Didn't read

 

[BeatlesFan]

Federer in 2008 at WImbledon was amazing, hitting winners from anywhere, footwork timing, it was amazing to see, his level was higher than 2007, because he didn't lose a set in 2008 til the final.

Just lol, I can't take you seriously.

GOAT idiocy and failed Troll attempt right here.

It's an eternal conundrum why 99% of the new users here are 13 year old boys. TTW needs to market itself better or somethin' to attract something way better than this.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

GOAT idiocy and failed Troll attempt right here.

It's an eternal conundrum why 99% of the new users here are 13 year old boys. TTW needs to market itself better or somethin' to attract something way better than this.

Fed detractors are always kids. Dunno why

 

[Deleted member 77403]

GOAT idiocy and failed Troll attempt right here.

It's an eternal conundrum why 99% of the new users here are 13 year old boys. TTW needs to market itself better or somethin' to attract something way better than this.

Federer won W 2017 without losing a set, according the objective Federer and Nadal fan that you quoted, that must mean Federer played his absolute highest level ever on a grass court at an incredible 35 years of age....all because he didn't drop a set...

 

[Deleted member 743561]

.

 

[StrongerThanAll]

2009 W final. Aside from the fact Nadal wasn’t there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 688153]

It’s “haters.” Can we at least repay their effort with proper nomenclature? All energy sources valued here.

Just trying to stave off the "I'm not a hater" defence these types are likely to employ. They probably see what they're doing as reasonable, after all.

 

[Devin]

Please Nadal was making shots in 2008 he wasn't in 2007.

The level of play, shot making, pass shots was unbelievable from both players. Nadal was obviously younger in 2007 and he looked tired in the 5th set in 2007, this is clear to see, even physically it is obvious to see his muscles are smaller, if you can't see that you in plain denial.

Federer in 2008 at WImbledon was amazing, hitting winners from anywhere, footwork timing, it was amazing to see, his level was higher than 2007, because he didn't lose a set in 2008 til the final.

If Nadal hadn't appeared that day in 2008 final, Federer would have won the whole tournament without losing a set and we would be sitting here today saying it was one of his greatest ever performances. I think in 2008 he played Hewitt one match and the winners he was hitting was beyond anything.

Federer 2007 was a tier below 03-06? Ok now you are plain trolling, lol please tell you are not serious. The field in 2003 was philipousis and roddick, a retiring Agassi. Federer was at his absolute peak age in 2007, and without doubt his foot work, backhand forehand everything was perfect, it is no surprise he won 3 grand slams in that year. His backhand in say 2003 was so flat, Nadal would have eaten that up with high top spin, which is no surprise as he had to make the change around 2005 to handle better backhands as the field was getting stronger.

Just lol, I can't take you seriously.

You can stop trying to insinuate that peak Nadal > peak Federer on grass. It's ridiculous BS coming from your keyboard.

Who cares if Federer dropped a set in 2007? He dropped a set in 2003 to Fish who played a very good return game to break. He lost a set to Nadal in 2006 (Nadal hitting like 20 winners and 3-4 UFE and it still went to a tiebreak). He lost a set in 2005 to Kiefer but played two top tier back-to-back grass matches against Hewitt and Roddick (the Roddick final being a dark horse contender for Federer's best grass match). Apparently in your blind mind, sets lost matter more than the level of play. This would mean 2017!!! (ding ding ding) is the best of Federer's Wimbledon runs! Absolutely absurd stuff.

Fact is, Federer was better in 2007 than 2008. Nadal was about the same as he was in 2008 (better ground game cancels out the better serving for the most part). If you watched both finals, you would know that, but as we would expect, you haven't watched tennis before 2008 (hell you can't even spell Philippoussis correctly.) You would also know that Federer was less consistent off of the ground and returning poorly in 2008.

Federer was too good in the fifth set of the 2007 final, that's what. Maybe if you watched Nadal 2007 play before coming up with more ridiculous excuses, you'd know that sets 3 and 4 of the RG 2007 final were on par with RG 2008 level. But again, you haven't watched tennis before 2008.

2007 had the Gasquet SF, 2008 had the Safin SF, about even in quality. You probably haven't watched those.

"His backhand in say 2003 was so flat, Nadal would have eaten that up with high top spin, which is no surprise as he had to make the change around 2005 to handle better backhands as the field was getting stronger."

Absolutely embarrassing stuff coming from you here. Federer's grass game in 2003 was very complete. The volleying was at its best, everything was working for Federer in the SF/F (which is one of the best SF/F combos at a grand slam of all time). Scud could hit with some solid topspin and could flatten it out when he needed to (belongs in the category of big hitters, again you would know this if you watched tennis before 2008). Federer handled that just fine, something you would know if you watched the Wimbledon 2003 final.

I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself with these Wimbledon 2008 threads.

my reaction literally to all this stuff coming from you

 

[Mike Sams]

Federer was a scarred shell of a man in that Wimbledon 2008 final after having lost 3 previous clay meetings leading up. Even still it took Nadal 9-7 in the 5th set to win it against a mentally broken Federer. That second set was telling of how little confidence Federer had. To be up 4-1 and then lose his serve twice. He was playing like crud for most of it. Slices and chips on weak Nadal second serves. LOL

 

[kevaninho]

Wow! So Stefan Edberg or Andre should still be b-tching that they lost a Wimbledon semi (to Stich) and a USO QF (to Pete) because all sets went to a TB?

Novel concept, to be sure.

No but tie breaks mean the match was a lot closer than bagels, funnily enough.
Stop making out that Fed cruised the final in 07. Both 07 and 08 anybody could've taken.