Nadal deserves recognition for Wimbledon showing

[federerfanatic]

Although I am not a Nadal fan I have to applaud his performance at Wimbledon, and admit he has proven the beliefs and theories alot of had on him as a player to be wrong.

I like many others never imagined he could make the finals of Wimbledon with the draw he had. I looked at that Soderling 3rd round-Youzhny 4th round-Berdych quarterfinals as the sequence he would never get out of alive, possibly losing in any of those rounds. It turned out he played all of those guys, and he beat all of them. The notion Soderling and Youzhny could give him serious trouble was proven correct, but his sheer will to win and determination overcome the potential threat.

He made the finals of Wimbledon 2 years in a row, and this time with no "easy draw" or luck, which some argued last year. He gave Federer an even tougher and more closely contested final then last year, which I also did not think he could manage if he somehow made it back to that point. He definitely proved alot of his doubers, myself included, wrong this year at Wimbledon. He is definitely for real and one of the 2 legitimate heavyweights of mens tennis today, regardless the surface.

 

[babolat15]

definetley agree, but i think even fed fans are giving him some respect now

 

[federerfanatic]

definetley agree, but i think even fed fans are giving him some respect now

Some are anyway. The ones who arent probably never would, if they still arent at this point.

 

[babolat15]

dude, do u spend all of ur time on here so many posts so little time. kudos

 

[hewittboy]

I agree he proved himself, but I still wait for him to play Hewitt or Roddick on grass which he has never done. Well he played Hewitt once but had to default halfway through.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

He sure as heck does. He had a super tough draw, had to play so much tennis in such short time, and still made the final and almost won. People who said he couldnt play on grass, or his run last year was a fluke should kiss his feet now.

 

[dh003i]

Making finals doesn't make a great grass-court player. Winning them does.

Didn't a bunch of good grass-court players make a whole bunch of finals during Sampras' era, only to lose? Wouldn't consider them "greats". Even the one-time winners like Rafter I don't think we ought to consider "great".

 

[krz]

He did have a lot of trouble getting there and I can't help to think if youhzny didn't hurt his back what would've happened. Or if Djoko didn't run out of steam and get injured. He was losing in both those matches.

But, I think he put the doubters to rest with his performance against the king of grass. But I'm not sure he can be considered 2nd best on grass yet. I think hes still in a fight with Roddick for that title(yea he lost but Gasquet played insane for 3 sets)

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

Making finals doesn't make a great grass-court player. Winning them does.

Didn't a bunch of good grass-court players make a whole bunch of finals during Sampras' era, only to lose? Wouldn't consider them "greats". Even the one-time winners like Rafter I don't think we ought to consider "great".

He made 2 finals at only 21 for crying out loud. He came close to winning them both vs a 5-time Wimbledon Champion. He is a GREAT grass court player. Deal with it.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

He did have a lot of trouble getting there and I can't help to think if youhzny didn't hurt his back what would've happened. Or if Djoko didn't run out of steam and get injured. He was losing in both those matches.

But, I think he put the doubters to rest with his performance against the king of grass.

Youzhny was not injured. He got treatment on his back a bit since it was a bit sore, that is not being injured. He came back and would have won the match except Nadal took his game up 2 levels, despite the fact he was already playing well and losing, and came back to win because of it.

Djokovic retired since he was losing and had an excuse with blisters.

Nadal won all his matches fair and square. He wasnt lucky in the least.

 

[dh003i]

He made 2 finals at only 21 for crying out loud. He came close to winning them both vs a 5-time Wimbledon Champion. He is a GREAT grass court player. Deal with it.

Stop using the "only 21" crap. Borg's entire career was over by 25, and he got many GS' at "only this or that age". That isn't a "plus" for him when comparing him to Sampras, for example.

Moving on the the substance of your comment, no, Nadal didn't come close to winning the 1st Wimbledon against Federer. And although he played really well in this one, he didn't come much closer this time either. In the 5th set, it was pretty much all Federer.

Is he a very good grass-court player, yes. Is it possible for him to beat Federer on grass, yes. However, unless he wins Wimbledon, he won't be considered a "great grasscourt player" by history. We may think of him as that now, but no-one in the future will. Who considers the power-servers Sampras beat "great grasscourt players"? No-one. They were very good, but not great.

Likewise with Federer for clay until he wins the FO. A very good player, 2nd best clay-courter in the world now, but not "great". And even winning 1 slam there wouldn't make him a "great" claycourt player historically, anymore than Agassi was a great grasscourter. It would just provide completion to his career.

I think the be considered a great player on any surface indisputably, you have to win a slam on it at least twice (not including carpet obviously). Win a slam once, and it's debatable whether or not your great on that surface.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

Stop using the "only 21" crap. Borg's entire career was over by 25, and he got many GS' at "only this or that age". That isn't a "plus" for him when comparing him to Sampras, for example.

I use the fact he is only 21 since there is only so much you can realisticaly expect a 21 year old kid to have done. What he has done at 21 already makes him great on grass. Sampras didnt even reach a Wimbledon final at 21. Federer didnt until just before he was about to turn 22, not just after he turned 21 like Nadal. Nadal has already achieved more then them at only 21 on grass. As for Borg, well you say over 25, even if Nadal was over at 25 that still means he is early on with lots of time left.

Moving on the the substance of your comment, no, Nadal didn't come close to winning the 1st Wimbledon against Federer. And although he played really well in this one, he didn't come much closer this time either. In the 5th set, it was pretty much all Federer.

What garbage. Nadal would have won the 2006 Wimbledon final if he had served out the 2nd set, and remember I am just as big a Federer fan as a Nadal fan, they are my two favorite players ever. That is reality though.

As for this years Wimbledon final, after 4 sets Nadal had won 2 sets without going to a tiebreaker, and Federer needed tiebreaks to win his 2 sets. The 5th set was all Federer? Again garbage, Nadal has break points in Federer' first 2 serve games, and could have been up either 3-1 or 4-0.

Is he a very good grass-court player, yes. Is it possible for him to beat Federer on grass, yes. However, unless he wins Wimbledon, he won't be considered a "great grasscourt player" by history. We may think of him as that now, but no-one in the future will. Who considers the power-servers Sampras beat "great grasscourt players"? No-one. They were very good, but not great.

I dont agree. Making 2 Wimbledon finals, back to back, at only 21, and losing to Federer one of the greatest grass court players ever, makes him a great grass court player, like it or not.

Likewise with Federer for clay until he wins the FO. A very good player, 2nd best clay-courter in the world now, but not "great". And even winning 1 slam there wouldn't make him a "great" claycourt player historically, anymore than Agassi was a great grasscourter. It would just provide completion to his career.

Federer is a great clay court player. He is so unlucky to be in this time with Nadal, just like Nadal is to be in this time with Federer on other surfaces. If it were not for Nadal, Federer would be a 3-time French Open Champion and have like 10 Masters titles on clay, and be one of the greatest clay courters ever already himself.

 

[sondraj]

Stop using the "only 21" crap. Borg's entire career was over by 25, and he got many GS' at "only this or that age". That isn't a "plus" for him when comparing him to Sampras, for example.

Moving on the the substance of your comment, no, Nadal didn't come close to winning the 1st Wimbledon against Federer. And although he played really well in this one, he didn't come much closer this time either. In the 5th set, it was pretty much all Federer.

Is he a very good grass-court player, yes. Is it possible for him to beat Federer on grass, yes. However, unless he wins Wimbledon, he won't be considered a "great grasscourt player" by history. We may think of him as that now, but no-one in the future will. Who considers the power-servers Sampras beat "great grasscourt players"? No-one. They were very good, but not great.

Likewise with Federer for clay until he wins the FO. A very good player, 2nd best clay-courter in the world now, but not "great". And even winning 1 slam there wouldn't make him a "great" claycourt player historically, anymore than Agassi was a great grasscourter. It would just provide completion to his career.

I think the be considered a great player on any surface indisputably, you have to win a slam on it at least twice (not including carpet obviously). Win a slam once, and it's debatable whether or not your great on that surface.

So how do you feel about Fed as the number 2 player on Clay

 

[samster]

Nadal clearly made Federer uncomfortable throughout the match. Nadal had Federer by the ropes, with multiple breakpoints in the fifth set, and failed to knock him out. The championship could have gone either way. Great match.

 

[krz]

Dude he has ZERO grass court titles. How the hell can he be considered a great grass court player already because he gave Federer some trouble. Is Volandri a great clay courter or Canas a great hardcourter for beating Fed?

I'm not saying hes not good on grass but common ZERO grass titles and hes great?

I also think Federers clay court ability is a little overated because he has no great clay courters other than Nadal to play against. Ferrero is aged and way past his prime so he doesn't count.

and Nadal always gives Fed trouble no matter what surface its just how there games match up.

 

[NamRanger]

Youzhny was not injured. He got treatment on his back a bit since it was a bit sore, that is not being injured. He came back and would have won the match except Nadal took his game up 2 levels, despite the fact he was already playing well and losing, and came back to win because of it.

Djokovic retired since he was losing and had an excuse with blisters.

Nadal won all his matches fair and square. He wasnt lucky in the least.

So an out of place disc in Youzhny's back doesn't count as an injury.


Djokovic didn't play let's see here.... what 9 hours of tennis against two tough opponents before his match against Nadal, and still managed to take a set?



Please, get your facts straight please.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

So an out of place disc in Youzhny's back doesn't count as an injury.


Djokovic didn't play let's see here.... what 9 hours of tennis against two tough opponents before his match against Nadal, and still managed to take a set?



Please, get your facts straight please.

Youzhny was not seriously injured. You could just tell watching him play. Sometimes when you have aches or small injuries you get treatment to make it feel a bit more comfortable. That is not being seriously injured. Nadal just outplayed him in the last 3 sets and was plain "too good".

Djokovic played alot of tennis, but so did Nadal. 3-1 for Nadal is their head to head. Come to me when Djokovic actually starts beating Nadal and we can talk.

 

[NamRanger]

Youzhny was not seriously injured. You could just tell watching him play. Sometimes when you have aches or small injuries you get treatment to make it feel a bit more comfortable. That is not being seriously injured. Nadal just outplayed him in the last 3 sets and was plain "too good".

Djokovic played alot of tennis, but so did Nadal. 3-1 for Nadal is their head to head. Come to me when Djokovic actually starts beating Nadal and we can talk.

Youzhny could barely move after the first two sets, are you kidding me? I don't think ATP trainers would lie about injuries either, especially if it's something that serious.



Nadal at least had a walk over match on Berdych, and hardly had to try in the last 3 sets against Youhzny. You're telling me his matches were tougher then Djokovic's, where he faced off against "I'm a wall" Hewitt and Baghdatis, who suprisingly played well this tournament?

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

Youzhny could barely move after the first two sets, are you kidding me? I don't think ATP trainers would lie about injuries either, especially if it's something that serious.



Nadal at least had a walk over match on Berdych, and hardly had to try in the last 3 sets against Youhzny. You're telling me his matches were tougher then Djokovic's, where he faced off against "I'm a wall" Hewitt and Baghdatis, who suprisingly played well this tournament?

We will just have to agree to disagree on Youzhny. I did not see problem with his movement, but you obviously did. I dont think the trainers are lieing, but I never heard them say it was an ultra serious injury.

How did Nadal have a walkover with Berdych? Alot of people were saying Berdych was going to make the big breakthrough here, he was going to be in the final the way he was playing, with his game and how he matches up with Nadal he would crush him, etc....So people obviously had high thoughts on what Berdych could do at this Wimbledon, and how he would do vs Nadal as well, and Nadal beat him easily, someone who is obviously considered a big threat at this years Wimbledon and a big threat to Nadal.

Hewitt and Baghdatis so tough? Baghdatis was beaten in easy straight sets by Nadal last year in the semis you might want to remember. Djokovic is not up to Nadal's level, so of course he does not beat him nearly as easily. Hewitt would lose easily to Nadal on any surface now, and dont even think of bringing up the Hamburg match since everyone knows Nadal was out of energy for that tournament as his easy surrender in the 2nd half of the final to Roger shows. You call Hewitt a wall, but Nadals defensive game is another level up from Hewitt, plus he actually has some serious offensive game, unlike defensive-only Hewitt.

 

[bagung]

nadal deserve all the respect.... the way he played in wimbledon, is outstanding.....

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Nadal deserves all the credit in the world, he played great.My only problem is the conditions where very slow and it was to his favor.I thought Federer had no shot with the way the conditions where.Nadal will win wimbledon if the conditions stay the same.It will be interesting to see if Nadal makes the final again next year.I am also curious to see how much it will be slowed down or will they speed it up.

 

[krz]

We will just have to agree to disagree on Youzhny. I did not see problem with his movement, but you obviously did. I dont think the trainers are lieing, but I never heard them say it was an ultra serious injury.

and dont even think of bringing up the Hamburg match since everyone knows Nadal was out of energy

oh the inorony Nadal can be out of energy but no way is Djoko after playing 9 hours in 2 days.

So the ATP trainers weren't lying but they didn't say it was an ultra serious injury? Did they really need to tell people that an out of place disc is a serious injury?

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Its not fair to say that Fed is not good on clay.Clay is his weakest surface and alot of things are negated.He has beaten whats in front of him.

 

[Zaragoza]

Dude he has ZERO grass court titles. How the hell can he be considered a great grass court player already because he gave Federer some trouble. Is Volandri a great clay courter or Canas a great hardcourter for beating Fed?

I would consider any player making the Wimbledon finals twice greater than any player who wins a small tournament on grass and loses in the 4th round or QF of Wimbledon. Wimbledon is the only important tournament on grass, you cannot compare it to clay where you have 3 Masters Series besides the French. As for Nadal, he plays Queens inmediately after winning the French Open every year (no rest and no time to practice on grass) so it´s just a warm up event for him to play some matches on grass before Wimbledon. It´s a joke to take this tournament as a reference of his abilities on grass. He would be probably injured for Wimbledon if he reached the finals in Queens. Once he takes some rest and practices on grass one more week you can see his results in Wimbledon.
You are missing something in your last sentence: Volandri didn´t reach the French Open finals twice, neither did Cañas on hardcourts Slams.
He is not great on grass in terms of tennis history but he is the 2nd best on grass right now and I consider the 2nd best a great player.

 

[krz]

He is not great on grass in terms of tennis history but he is the 2nd best on grass right now and I consider the 2nd best a great player.

Thats kinda what I was getting at.

He will not be remembered as a great grass court player. I already said hes in contention for 2nd best with Roddick who I doubt will be remembered as a great grass court player despite more accomplishments than Nadal. And Hewitts on the edge of great.

 

[ATPattic]

nice thread

 

[Rodditha]

Until Nadal ever wins a tournament on grass, for me he can't and isn't number 2 on grass, Roddick made finals, semis, won 3 times Queens whereas you can't even say all that about Nadal on grass. Making 2 straight Wimbledon finals in a row dosen't make him number 2 on grass, for me Roddick is still number 2 on grass and not Nadal.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

Excellent thread.

Good Job Nadal ???

 

[caulcano]

Until Nadal ever wins a tournament on grass, for me he can't and isn't number 2 on grass, Roddick made finals, semis, won 3 times Queens whereas you can't even say all that about Nadal on grass. Making 2 straight Wimbledon finals in a row dosen't make him number 2 on grass, for me Roddick is still number 2 on grass and not Nadal.

I agree with that statement ...

However, I do expect Nadal to win Wimbledon one day...

 

[seestern]

Roddick used to be 2nd on grass. See match Rod-Gasquet. Rod even had no clue with Gasquet's approach and had to rely on nothing but his serve. So for me, n2 on grass is not clear for Nadal but Rod is nothing more than Number "nth" on grass. Djokovic, Gasquet, Berdych can kill him anytime on grass now.

 

[dh003i]

Thats kinda what I was getting at.

He will not be remembered as a great grass court player. I already said hes in contention for 2nd best with Roddick who I doubt will be remembered as a great grass court player despite more accomplishments than Nadal. And Hewitts on the edge of great.

I agree, Nadal's in contention for 2nd best grass-courter with Roddick.

But difficult to consider him a "great" grass-court player all time. We don't consider Roddick or Hewitt great hard- and grass-court players, despite winning the USO and Wimbledon, respectively. And Nadal hasn't even won Wimbledon, so it's difficult to say that he'll be remembered as a greater grass-court player than Hewitt (unless he wins it at some point).

Nadal played great this year, but the courts were undoubtedly in his favor; absurdly slow and high-bouncing for grass. Wimbledon needs to change that. Grass should be grass, not clay with just the wrinkle of requiring grass-movement skills.

 

[GOD_BLESS_RAFA]

Dude he has ZERO grass court titles. How the hell can he be considered a great grass court player already because he gave Federer some trouble. Is Volandri a great clay courter or Canas a great hardcourter for beating Fed?

I'm not saying hes not good on grass but common ZERO grass titles and hes great?

I also think Federers clay court ability is a little overated because he has no great clay courters other than Nadal to play against. Ferrero is aged and way past his prime so he doesn't count.

and Nadal always gives Fed trouble no matter what surface its just how there games match up.

There are titles ....and titles...
He is the finalist in Wimbledon for 2 consecutive years that is something!!! look Hewitt won a title at the Queens why is he beaten by a certain Tsonga in Wimbledon...Roddick was beaten by Gasquet as well

 

[Morrissey]

Dude he has ZERO grass court titles. How the hell can he be considered a great grass court player already because he gave Federer some trouble. Is Volandri a great clay courter or Canas a great hardcourter for beating Fed?

I'm not saying hes not good on grass but common ZERO grass titles and hes great?

I also think Federers clay court ability is a little overated because he has no great clay courters other than Nadal to play against. Ferrero is aged and way past his prime so he doesn't count.

and Nadal always gives Fed trouble no matter what surface its just how there games match up.

So going on your standards would Berdych be considered a better grass court player than Nadal because he won Halle? Would Blake be a better grass player because he won Queens Club last year? Since they have one more grass title than Nadal. I don´t look at grass titles unless they´re Wimby titles since there´s practically no grass season. But I know one thing, no way in hell that Hewitt or Roddick make Fed sweat like that in the final. No way they go 5 sets with Fed on grass. Roddick can have 8 Queens Club titles but if Nadal wins 1 Wimbledon title I consider him the better grass court player. And he is. I know the haters are having problems still giving him props, even on clay but he´s a special player. Watch out for him this summer. You guys keep doubting him but he´s gonna be a threat the rest of the year for number 1.

 

[Morrissey]

There are titles ....and titles...
He is the finalist in Wimbledon for 2 consecutive years that is something!!! look Hewitt won a title at the Queens why is he beaten by a certain Tsonga in Wimbledon...Roddick was beaten by Gasquet as well

That´s the thing, the tuneup events on grass don´t mean much, if at all. Berdych won Halle but got spanked in the Wimby QF against Nadal. Roddick won Queens Club for like the 5th time and got beat by Gasquet. Hewitt who won Queens Club like 5 times as well and won Wimby before Fed and after Sampras got beat by Baghdatis in 06 and Tsonga in 07. Blake who won Queens Club in 2006 lost again in a big match this time to Ferrero. Nadal who hasn´t done much in the tuneup events (especially since they come a day after the French Open final) keeps doing his best when it matters most. Nadal rises to the occasion. It took Fed and little bit of luck on his side to beat him in the final this year. In the end, the 6 consecutive days of play hurt his momentum in the end of the match with the knee problem. Either way, it was a great match and possibly the match of the year. I know it drives Nadal haters nuts to know that he can push Fed to the absolute limits on his preferred grass court. Much more so than Fed to Nadal on clay. Hamburg shamburg. I´m only interested in the French Open and Nadal wins them always.

 

[Morrissey]

Until Nadal ever wins a tournament on grass, for me he can't and isn't number 2 on grass, Roddick made finals, semis, won 3 times Queens whereas you can't even say all that about Nadal on grass. Making 2 straight Wimbledon finals in a row dosen't make him number 2 on grass, for me Roddick is still number 2 on grass and not Nadal.

Based on his results at Queens Club you might have a point, but even then Hewitt won Queens Club the same as him. But they can´t push Fed like Nadal did in that final. Hell, I would have trouble betting on them even taking a set off Fed now on grass. Hewitt´s days are over, too many guys with weapons out there and his fight and speed are diminished. As for Roddick, you saw what happened once Gasquet got a handle on his serve. Nadal as of now is the the number two on grass. Roddick can win 20 Queens Club titles, he´d trade them all for one Wimby. He would trade half of them for pushing Fed the way Nadal did in the final.

 

[Zaragoza]

If Roddick reached the French Open final every year he would have zero Queens titles, I can assure that. Queens is not a valid comparison between Roddick and Nadal for the reasons I said before.
Wimbledon is the only big tournament on grass and the only one that Nadal can play in good conditions after the French. Two Wimbledon finals in a row, forcing Federer to play a 5th set this year and winning the same number of games than him in the final is enough to consider him the 2nd best on grass. Since Federer reached his peak nobody challenged him on grass like Nadal did.
Please, Roddick couldn´t pass the 3rd round and QF in the last 2 Wimbledons. Hewitt couldn´t pass the QF and 4th round. It´s not even a question who is the 2nd best on grass right now.

 

[Benhur]

That´s the thing, the tuneup events on grass don´t mean much, if at all. Berdych won Halle but got spanked in the Wimby QF against Nadal. Roddick won Queens Club for like the 5th time and got beat by Gasquet. Hewitt who won Queens Club like 5 times as well and won Wimby before Fed and after Sampras got beat by Baghdatis in 06 and Tsonga in 07. Blake who won Queens Club in 2006 lost again in a big match this time to Ferrero. Nadal who hasn´t done much in the tuneup events (especially since they come a day after the French Open final) keeps doing his best when it matters most. Nadal rises to the occasion. It took Fed and little bit of luck on his side to beat him in the final this year. In the end, the 6 consecutive days of play hurt his momentum in the end of the match with the knee problem. Either way, it was a great match and possibly the match of the year. I know it drives Nadal haters nuts to know that he can push Fed to the absolute limits on his preferred grass court. Much more so than Fed to Nadal on clay. Hamburg shamburg. I´m only interested in the French Open and Nadal wins them always.

Judging by some recent experiences, especially Sampras, losing at Queens may be a good thing to happen to a player going into Wimbledon.

1986 Mayotte beats Becker at Queens QF, Becker wins Wimbledon
1987 Connors beats Cash at Queens SF, Cash wins Wimbledon
1988 Becker beats Edberg at Queens, Edberg wins Wimbledon
1990 Becker beats Edberg at Queens, Edberg wins Wimbledon
1993 Stafford beats Sampras at Queens 1st round, Sampras wins Wimbledon
1994 Martin beats Sampras at Queens F, Sampras wins Wimbledon
1997 Bjorkman beats Sampras at Queens QF, Sampras wins Wimbledon
1998 Worforde beats Sampras at Queens R16, Sampras wins Wimbledon
2000 Hewitt beats Sampras at Queens SF, Sampras wins Wimbledon
2001 Caratti beats Ivanisevic at Queens 1st round, Ivanisevic wins Wimbledon

 

[caulcano]

If Roddick reached the French Open final every year he would have zero Queens titles, I can assure that. Queens is not a valid comparison between Roddick and Nadal for the reasons I said before.
Wimbledon is the only big tournament on grass and the only one that Nadal can play in good conditions after the French. Two Wimbledon finals in a row, forcing Federer to play a 5th set this year and winning the same number of games than him in the final is enough to consider him the 2nd best on grass. Since Federer reached his peak nobody challenged him on grass like Nadal did.
Please, Roddick couldn´t pass the 3rd round and QF in the last 2 Wimbledons. Hewitt couldn´t pass the QF and 4th round. It´s not even a question who is the 2nd best on grass right now.

You can't dismiss Queen's as a nothing/irrelevant tournament. It's played on grass. I'm sure if Nadal had won Queen's you would have included it in your argument (Nadal didn't even make it to the SF).

You could argue that Nadal had an off-day for his loss at Queen's in the QF, but Roddick was leading 2-0 in sets against Gasquet, then lost 2 subsequent tie-breakers (Gasquet was on fire at this point).

 

[rafan]

I think a lot of the problem with the Youzhny match was the fact that Nadal had a lousy time with the Soderling match the previous day. He seemed in a bit of an off mood, I thought when he came on court as though his confidence was an all time low. The guy I sat next to on court no 2 who had seen the Soderling match said you could feel the tension between Nadal and Soderling and they clearly had no affection for each other! But Nadal truly picked up on those final sets with Youzhny the way he has done so often in the past - which will make me always wonder just what happened at the final with Fed.

 

[Rhino]

Youzhny was not injured. He got treatment on his back a bit since it was a bit sore, that is not being injured. He came back and would have won the match except Nadal took his game up 2 levels, despite the fact he was already playing well and losing, and came back to win because of it.

Did you actually watch that match? I'm a Nadal fan but even I have to admit, Youzhny was destroying Nadal, completely outplaying him, and then his vertabrae clicked out. His level of play dropped dramatically, you could see how physically uncomfortable he suddenly was. I think it's quite likely that Nadal would have lost that match if Youzhny's level had not dropped after the back problem.
Sorry just an observation, and I watched that match with two other tennis fans who also thought Nadal had been extremely lucky there.

 

[rafan]

Well you can download the match from the Wimbledon webstite to make a judgement. I thought Nadal played very poorly in the begining - I have to admit that - but then he comes back all so often, and after all, that is why he is number two. Youzhny was beaten by a rank outsider over the weekend, which is really odd as he is an excellent player but maybe he cannot follow through

 

[fastdunn]

I'm not surprised by Nadal's performance at Wimbledon.
The grass court has been slow and bouncy since 2003
and the two have basically same type of game.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

I'm not surprised by Nadal's performance at Wimbledon.
The grass court has been slow and bouncy since 2003
and the two have basically same type of game.

I can't believe you still believe this. Federer's strengths are blocking back big serves, handling the low ball, and serving. All these suit the fast courts the most. Federer is a well rounded player and can adapt his game to any surface but he is the most comfortable on grass because of this. Clay is the toughest for Federer to win but he also puts in a lot of work to get better at. Showing up at all the Masters Series there.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

I'm not surprised by Nadal's performance at Wimbledon.
The grass court has been slow and bouncy since 2003
and the two have basically same type of game.

You are right the grass is slower now. However you have to admit it is still very different from clay, and extremely impressive of Nadal to do so well on both, and Federer for that matter.

Roddick would never have been so close to the semis, and in the finals only 2 years ago, if it were not still a very grass-oriented surface. Likewise Nadal would never have lost to Gilles Muller 2 years ago, if it were too much a clay-oriented surface.

 

[ATXtennisaddict]

I'm a Nadal fan now.

But if it's Roger/Rafa final, then I'm rooting for Roger.

 

[fastdunn]

Well, I've been saying same thing couple of years by now.

Both Federer and Nadal are same type, power baseliners.

There are some reasons why the world is dominated by 2 axis of
very talented power baseliners.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

wimbledon is the only big grass tournament, and the most important by a mile. Therefore Nadal is clearly the 2nd best grass courter in 2006 and 2007. End of debate. The others can contend for spots 3, 4, 5, 6...

 

[Rodditha]

Tipical argument of a Nadal groupie. No serious arguments. Nadal's stats and results on grass are way lower than Roddick's, he isn't number 2 on grass.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Well, I've been saying same thing couple of years by now.

Both Federer and Nadal are same type, power baseliners.

There are some reasons why the world is dominated by 2 axis of
very talented power baseliners.

Do power baseliners serve 25 aces? Yeah Federer doesn't go to the net but grass totally suits his game. He likes the ball low and he gets more free points off his serve along with his slice being more effective there. I'm not convinced that the US Open is faster yet. Lets see his ace totals when we get there.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Tipical argument of a Nadal groupie. No serious arguments. Nadal's stats and results on grass are way lower than Roddick's, he isn't number 2 on grass.

Living in the past are you? Anyways you still owe me $20 on that bet we made.