I'm Sorry, the comments here about Nadal are ridiculus

REKX

Rookie
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, but the Nadal hate is ridiculus.

Lets do a fair analysis of what is going on.

Both Federer and Nadal are not even close to how they were at their prime. Federer isn't regarded greatest of all time because he won 2 slams in 2017 with no challengers from the current generation or new. Same with Nadal, he isn't generally regarded as the second greatest and greatest on clay because of 2017 against a weak clay court and over all court field.

They made their achievements because of what they done in their prime, they took tennis to a new level. And importantly, Nadal at his prime was beating Federer, especially that Federer has never beaten Nadal (and probably never will) at the French Open, whereas Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon in 2008 when Federer was playing unbelievably well, didn't drop a set till the final.

Nadal is not even close to the player he was, Federer also. But Nadal's game is so much more dependent on his physical ability.

Normally at this stage, whilst the top players are nearing retirement, the new generation emerge, a few 22-23 year Federer/Nadal type players start dominating and become the main challengers. This obviously hasn't happened which is why we are seeing two players close to retirement battling for major competitions because there is no competition.

As a Federer and Nadal fan, this is amazing for me because I feel lucky to still watch them, they may be half a step slower but they are my favorite players.
 

REKX

Rookie
What's wrong with the OP saying that about Roger at W 2008? It's the truth. He was playing well and didn't drop a set before the final. :confused:
This is the sort of problem people have here.

Nadal deserved to win Wimbledon 2008, for so many reasons. It upset me at the time, but he worked tirelessly and matched Federer in that match. The year before it was 5 sets at Wimbledon between the two as well.

The 2008 Wimbledon final is probably the finest piece of tennis specimen we have. If you look at the game now on Youtube, it is shocking the speed, the shots, the execution of the play. Federer played amazing that match, that is why many experts regard it as the greatest match of all time - it's just Nadal done better and won it.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
This is the sort of problem people have here.

Nadal deserved to win Wimbledon 2008, for so many reasons. It upset me at the time, but he worked tirelessly and matched Federer in that match. The year before it was 5 sets at Wimbledon between the two as well.

The 2008 Wimbledon final is probably the finest piece of tennis specimen we have. If you look at the game now on Youtube, it is shocking the speed, the shots, the execution of the play. Federer played amazing that match, that is why many experts regard it as the greatest match of all time - it's just Nadal done better and won it.
I agree with you. They both played fantastic tennis and Nadal won it fair and square as much as it nauseated me at the time! :D I have long come to accept it and learned to like Nadal.
 

Gazelle

Legend
This is the sort of problem people have here.

Nadal deserved to win Wimbledon 2008, for so many reasons. It upset me at the time, but he worked tirelessly and matched Federer in that match. The year before it was 5 sets at Wimbledon between the two as well.

The 2008 Wimbledon final is probably the finest piece of tennis specimen we have. If you look at the game now on Youtube, it is shocking the speed, the shots, the execution of the play. Federer played amazing that match, that is why many experts regard it as the greatest match of all time - it's just Nadal done better and won it.
If you think Federer played amazing in that match I doubt you are a fan. Rather a not well hidden Rafa fan trying to make your true hero look better. Federer was dumping easy backhands into the net with frustrating regularity during that match. It was so bad Federer got visibly frustrated and even disgusted with himself. It's mainly his fighting spirit and great record in tiebreaks that made that match competitive.
 

Devin

Semi-Pro
I agree with you. They both played fantastic tennis and and Nadal won it fair and square as much as it nauseated me at the time! :D I have long come to accept it and learned to like Nadal.
2008 Federer surely would destroy if he played in 2017, but he wasn't at the same level compared to other years. I'd favor 2003, 2005, and 2006 Federer to beat 2008 Nadal in a very tight four sets. 2004 Federer probably beats 2008 Nadal in 5, and 2007 Federer would probably be the slight favorite against Nadal. I'd expect 2007 Federer to win in 5 close sets.

I think some people forget that there was a mental factor for Federer/Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final. Federer choked Hamburg, his favorite clay master, against Nadal and got utterly destroyed at the FO final. Assuming 2007 Federer wins Hamburg and isn't humiliated at the French Open, I'd say that Federer wins in a tight five sets. Nadal's highest level at Wimbledon was 2008, but it's a very small gap between 2008 and 2007. Nadal 2006 is underrated. Remember that 2006 Nadal hit 20 winners and less than 5 unforced errors in the third set, and that set still went to a tiebreak.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
2008 Federer surely would destroy if he played in 2017, but he wasn't at the same level compared to other years. I'd favor 2003, 2005, and 2006 Federer to beat 2008 Nadal in a very tight four sets. 2004 Federer probably beats 2008 Nadal in 5, and 2007 Federer would probably be the slight favorite against Nadal. I'd expect 2007 Federer to win in 5 close sets.

I think some people forget that there was a mental factor for Federer/Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final. Federer choked Hamburg, his favorite clay master, against Nadal and got utterly destroyed at the FO final. Assuming 2007 Federer wins Hamburg and isn't humiliated at the French Open, I'd say that Federer wins in a tight five sets. Nadal's highest level at Wimbledon was 2008, but it's a very small gap between 2008 and 2007. Nadal 2006 is underrated. Remember that 2006 Nadal hit 20 winners and less than 5 unforced errors in the third set, and that set still went to a tiebreak.

What's the use of all of these "what-ifs" though? The reality is that Federer was playing a fantastic Wimbledon tournament in 2008 and Nadal edged out the win. Nadal was slowly improving at Wimbledon from 2006-2008. If Federer had a mental block vs Nadal from the clay thrashings and didn't figure out a way to combat Nadal's game on a grass surface of all things where Federer is the much greater player overall, that's Federer's fault. We can't take back history. Nadal beat Federer at the most important slam in tennis history, a slam which Federer owned at the time. IMO that was Federer's worst loss of all time and I'm sure one day when he's retired, he'll admit it publicly.
 

Xavier G

Professional
Federer's 36, five years older than Nadal, and beating him in straight sets repeatedly. He's having a great run v Rafa much like Rafa did against Roger in Roger's worst year of 2013.

This time Rafa's no.1 and Roger's no.2, both in good form especially Rafa who was on a 16 match winning streak. No excuses, don't want to hear nonsense about injuries. Sure, Djokovic and Murray dipped this year. I'm sure they'll be back. Right now, these two, Nadal and Federer are the number 1 and 2 in the world.
Anyway, rivalries change, nothing stays the same, form dips, players get older, players change strategies, change their games and even their rackets, lol!

Fanboys/fangirls and their excuses...
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
Save your breath OP...Fed fanboys have got a golden opportunity to trash on Nadal and proclaim Fed as the moral No. 1. Let them enjoy it.
 
What's wrong with the OP saying that about Roger at W 2008? It's the truth. He was playing well and didn't drop a set before the final. :confused:
Well, not "unbelievably well". Any attempt to elevate Federer's level above that has the workings of the *************, as the ultimate implication is that Federer must be inferior to Nadal on grass at his best. Is that a proposition you're actually considering?
 

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
What's the use of all of these "what-ifs" though? The reality is that Federer was playing a fantastic Wimbledon tournament in 2008 and Nadal edged out the win. Nadal was slowly improving at Wimbledon from 2006-2008. If Federer had a mental block vs Nadal from the clay thrashings and didn't figure out a way to combat Nadal's game on a grass surface of all things where Federer is the much greater player overall, that's Federer's fault. We can't take back history. Nadal beat Federer at the most important slam in tennis history, a slam which Federer owned at the time. IMO that was Federer's worst loss of all time and I'm sure one day when he's retired, he'll admit it publicly.
He's already admitted that it's his worst loss.
In fact, he's gone a step further and said that the 2008 RG beating he received was a key contributor to this Wimbledon loss:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/shanghai-final-2017-federer-reaction

I just think I'm not so scarred like maybe I have been in the past, not that I was horribly scarred in any way, but I did lose against him sometimes, a lot of the times especially on the clay courts. I do believe I still lost that Wimbledon final in '08 because of the French Open beatdown he gave me. It just affected my first two sets when I played him at Wimbledon."
 
The 2008 Wimbledon final is probably the finest piece of tennis specimen we have. If you look at the game now on Youtube, it is shocking the speed, the shots, the execution of the play. Federer played amazing that match, that is why many experts regard it as the greatest match of all time - it's just Nadal done better and won it.
I'm being blunt, but you must be narrow-minded if no other matches impress you. That was a fine match, but tennis history has known hundreds of matches that left contemporaries awestruck. In the modern era alone I can easily name several matches that may have been better: AO 05 SF Safin-Federer, Rome 05 F, Rome 06 F, Wim 07 F, AO 09 SF Nadal-Verdasco, AO 13 4R Djokovic-Wawrinka, AO 12 F may also be considered.
 
What's the use of all of these "what-ifs" though? The reality is that Federer was playing a fantastic Wimbledon tournament in 2008 and Nadal edged out the win. Nadal was slowly improving at Wimbledon from 2006-2008. If Federer had a mental block vs Nadal from the clay thrashings and didn't figure out a way to combat Nadal's game on a grass surface of all things where Federer is the much greater player overall, that's Federer's fault. We can't take back history. Nadal beat Federer at the most important slam in tennis history, a slam which Federer owned at the time. IMO that was Federer's worst loss of all time and I'm sure one day when he's retired, he'll admit it publicly.
Of course it is his fault entirely. The question is, should Nadal get credit for Federer's weakness? Generally speaking, when player A makes player B play worse, be it mental domination, awkward match-up or whatever, how much credit is player A to get for magnifying and exploiting player B's weaknesses? This question ties into the entire weak era & mug opponent thing, because of those two are to be paid attention to, then player A does not always get credit for player B's weakness, if said player B is a weak era mug opponent.
 

peakin11mugs

Semi-Pro
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, but the Nadal hate is ridiculus.

Lets do a fair analysis of what is going on.

Both Federer and Nadal are not even close to how they were at their prime. Federer isn't regarded greatest of all time because he won 2 slams in 2017 with no challengers from the current generation or new. Same with Nadal, he isn't generally regarded as the second greatest and greatest on clay because of 2017 against a weak clay court and over all court field.

They made their achievements because of what they done in their prime, they took tennis to a new level. And importantly, Nadal at his prime was beating Federer, especially that Federer has never beaten Nadal (and probably never will) at the French Open, whereas Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon in 2008 when Federer was playing unbelievably well, didn't drop a set till the final.

Nadal is not even close to the player he was, Federer also. But Nadal's game is so much more dependent on his physical ability.

Normally at this stage, whilst the top players are nearing retirement, the new generation emerge, a few 22-23 year Federer/Nadal type players start dominating and become the main challengers. This obviously hasn't happened which is why we are seeing two players close to retirement battling for major competitions because there is no competition.

As a Federer and Nadal fan, this is amazing for me because I feel lucky to still watch them, they may be half a step slower but they are my favorite players.
Absolute and utter fail argument. Nadal has never beaten Djokovic at AO. Djokovic has beaten nadal at AO, FO, WIMB, US, WTF, all masters played. He has won 3 slams in a row, won 7 consecutive matches in STRAIGHT SETS. He then wins 7 straight finals ina row again. He has won four slams in a row on 3 surfaces a feat NO MAN ever pre open or open era has ever done. By you’re logic he is head a shoulders above nadal and DEMOLISHED an absolute peak mid twenties maximum level nadal. Maximum level. Nadal cannot play better than that and Djokovic killed him. That year maximum peak level Djokovic was taken out RG by federer.

And no nadal is world number one 30 playing the best hardcourt tennis if his life. It is absolutely unacceptable to lose 5 in a row against your 36 year old rival, have 3 slam total deficit, trail him by 4 slams AO, 6 wimb, 2 US, 6 WTF and still think you are anywhere near his level.

Reach four slam finals ina year then we will talk about domination. Just four slam finals you don’t even need to win them. Go on vamos brigrade
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, "unbelievably well" is just flat out incorrect to describe Federer's play at Wimbledon 2008, particularly if you're talking exclusively about the final. I don't care who he's playing, if Federer's playing unbelievably well on grass he doesn't lose 5 straight games to lose the 2nd set, chipping BH slice returns tamely into the bottom of the net and going 1/13 overall on BPs. And truthfully he doesn't have to rely almost totally on his hold game to win the 3rd and 4th sets, especially since he should've lost in that 4th set. Nadal was up a double break at 5-2 in the TB there, and choked tbh. DF and then a shaky BH.

Even if you want to say he never lost a set you should also look at who he played. The truth is he played guys up until Nadal who he could beat with his eyes closed. It looks ok on paper, but Hewitt, Ancic, and Safin were all washed up by 2008, and no longer a serious challenge for Federer, plus he never had mental demons against any of them.
 

REKX

Rookie
Yeah, "unbelievably well" is just flat out incorrect to describe Federer's play at Wimbledon 2008, particularly if you're talking exclusively about the final. I don't care who he's playing, if Federer's playing unbelievably well on grass he doesn't lose 5 straight games to lose the 2nd set, chipping BH slice returns tamely into the bottom of the net and going 1/13 overall on BPs. And truthfully he doesn't have to rely almost totally on his hold game to win the 3rd and 4th sets, especially since he should've lost in that 4th set. Nadal was up a double break at 5-2 in the TB there, and choked tbh. DF and then a shaky BH.

Even if you want to say he never lost a set you should also look at who he played. The truth is he played guys up until Nadal who he could beat with his eyes closed. It looks ok on paper, but Hewitt, Ancic, and Safin were all washed up by 2008, and no longer a serious challenge for Federer, plus he never had mental demons against any of them.
Wow you guys.

Federer didn't lose a set til the final.

Nadal had a challenging route to the final. So you say 2007 Federer was miles better? Well Nadal was considerably weaker in 2007, yet he still pushed Federer to 5 sets.

Federer came back to win in 2009, and he was good again? Federer was amazing on grass (and other surfaces) from say 2003 to 2009. That was his prime in tennis.

And Nadal consistently beat him during those years, on grass pushed him to 5 sets on 2 occasions and beat him in one occasion.

This is why Nadal has to be respected, he beat Federer on many surfaces whilst Federer was in his greatest form, and consistently.

Everyone said 10 years ago Nadal would be the first to lose form because his technique relies on speed and power, and they go with age. Now that Nadal is slower, people are acting surprised?

Fact is both Federer and Nadal are not even close to their greatest form in 2017, they proved to the world they are the greatest two many years ago, not against a weak empty field of players not challenging.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Of course it is his fault entirely. The question is, should Nadal get credit for Federer's weakness? Generally speaking, when player A makes player B play worse, be it mental domination, awkward match-up or whatever, how much credit is player A to get for magnifying and exploiting player B's weaknesses? This question ties into the entire weak era & mug opponent thing, because of those two are to be paid attention to, then player A does not always get credit for player B's weakness, if said player B is a weak era mug opponent.
Of course he should, at least IMO. Nadal was the stronger player mentally and that's an important asset. He wrote in his book that he knew that he had the mental advantage and that it was a huge element of their rivalry.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, not "unbelievably well". Any attempt to elevate Federer's level above that has the workings of the *************, as the ultimate implication is that Federer must be inferior to Nadal on grass at his best. Is that a proposition you're actually considering?
No, I'm not saying that Federer is inferior to Nadal on grass as that would be asinine! I'm saying that some of the excuses that Fed fans make for that Wimbledon 2008 loss are laughable. Federer was in great form at that Wimbledon and didn't drop a set before the final. The match could have gone either way but Nadal found a way to win. It was a huge accomplishment for Nadal and shouldn't be minimized IMO.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
No chance was Federer playing “unbelievably well” at Wimbledon 08. He was timid those first 2 sets in the final and in general. Dumping BHs into the net too frequently, chipping 2nd serve returns into the net.

03-06 Fed would’ve took it in 4 sets imo. His grass return game was outstanding back then.
 

REKX

Rookie
No chance was Federer playing “unbelievably well” at Wimbledon 08. He was timid those first 2 sets in the final and in general. Dumping BHs into the net too frequently, chipping 2nd serve returns into the net.

03-06 Fed would’ve took it in 4 sets imo. His grass return game was outstanding back then.
You must be joking.

2007 2008 Federer was stronger.

Nadal took Federer to two 5 set matches at Wimbledon.
 

Luckydog

Professional
I don't believe that there really exists Fedal fan on the blue planet. Just like OP,he pretended to praise Fed,but his real purpose was to make Nadal look better.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I see where you are going with this:
Fact is both Federer and Nadal are not even close to their greatest form in 2017, they proved to the world they are the greatest two many years ago, not against a weak empty field of players not challenging.
Translation: we should look at their earlier careers, when they were really good. Today should not count.

And Nadal is better than Fed because he dominated Fed on clay when Fed was at his peak.

Does that pretty much sum it up? :D

(Forgot to give an "irony warning" for this post...)
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Fans of both Fed and Nadal:

I happen to be one. At first I did not want to watch the match today because of that and was only comfortable because it was not close.

I have always put them close to even, still do.

OP would have been better off to say that:

Fed has never beaten Nadal at RG.

BUT

Nadal has beaten Fed at Wimbledon.

Point for the VB.

Nadal has never seriously challenged Fed at the WTF, highlighting Fed's dominance in venues requiring pinpoint precision and ultra-fast reflexes.

Point for Fed Fan.

Off the top of my head I could give 10 reasons why either is better than the other, playing that game, but I still see them as remarkably even with very different strengths, and if both end up with around the same number of slams, the discussion is going to go on for decades.

Meanwhile, the debates, usually ugly arguments between fan bases, have not changed a bit since I joined this forum.

Bottom line: you can tell impartial people from FANatics by the way they argue. The biases always give away intent.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer is clearly better than Nadal, outside of clay, even if the difference is small.

Tennis is a tournament-based sport, not H2H, and it's easy to compare tournaments won and lost.

Federer is simply ahead of everyone else.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
You must be joking.

2007 2008 Federer was stronger.

Nadal took Federer to two 5 set matches at Wimbledon.
Dunno his FH, return all looked considerably weaker in 07-08 than 03-06, aside from 5th set of 07 where he played free flowing and clutch tennis.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
And the Nadal fans mostly retreat into their caves and only come out when he wins again.
I'll be here everyday don't worry - Fed fans can give me sh*t if they like ;)

I think Rafa did well making the final on what I believe was the fastest court of the season. He is obviously uncomfortable on the really fast surfaces.
 

dh003i

Legend
No, I'm not saying that Federer is inferior to Nadal on grass as that would be asinine! I'm saying that some of the excuses that Fed fans make for that Wimbledon 2008 loss are laughable. Federer was in great form at that Wimbledon and didn't drop a set before the final. The match could have gone either way but Nadal found a way to win. It was a huge accomplishment for Nadal and shouldn't be minimized IMO.
Federer didn't lose a set until the final and was playing well, but in the final he played very poorly in the first two sets, which turned out to be key, because Federer couldn't break Nadal's serve. I have said this before, and I'll say it again: Had Fed won that Wimbledon, he would have stolen it. He couldn't break Nadal and part of that is certainly to Nadal's credit for being rock solid on serve, although part of that is Federer just not being good enough on the return that match.

Haggling over the details of how well Fed was playing is missing the point.
 

REKX

Rookie
Exactly. A very hyped match.
I think you need to watch the whole match.

In terms of quality its the best I have seen, and many tennis journalists, current and retired players and pundits also believe this is the greatest match.

For me Federer is the greatest for reasons everyone knows, and then closely followed by Nadal.

Nadal had the most difficult competition out of any player in history. Prime Federer years and then followed by Prime Djokovic, yet he is alone second of all time in the grand slam list.

Nadal's weakest surface is grass. I think it's an amazing accomplishment that he has won the competition more than once, but he also beat the greatest grass court player of all time.
 
Top