Don't see Wimbledon as a choke. In fact, Nadal should have won it easily in 3 when he was 2 sets up. It was clear that throughout the match, Nadal was the better player and deserved to win.
Why Federer has lost Four GS Titles to Nadal?
- Thread starter DoubleDeuce
- Start date
Don't see Wimbledon as a choke. In fact, Nadal should have won it easily in 3 when he was 2 sets up. It was clear that throughout the match, Nadal was the better player and deserved to win.
His performance in the first 2 sets was certainly off, losing serve uncharacteristically.
Had he played as he did from 2003-2007 in the '08 Wimbledon final, Nadal would have lost. Period.
The thing is nobody can always play his best. Nadal didn´t play his best in the 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon finals. Nadal didn´t play his best in Monte-Carlo and Hamburg this year and still won. Nadal didn´t play his best against Murray at the USO. Theories like these don´t work in tennis.
Federer was rolling over all his opponents until Nadal stopped him. It wasn´t Federer´s fault to lose that match, he fought hard and played very well but still wasn´t enough. Nadal was too good.
BallzofSkill
Semi-Pro
as i said before, i consider 2008 to be one of those years that is unfortunate for federer and his opponents. nadal's win at wimby08 is marred by the fact that federer was not 100%. As silly as it sounds, i'm not convinced that nadal would have won had federer's year not been interrupted by mono. that isn't to say that nadal would not win against a federer who isn't sick, but how can anyway say that federer was at his absolute best this year? You really can't. Anyone who has seen him play last year and this year would know that they're two almost completely different players. it's unfortunate for nadal, and to a lesser extent djokovic, because his win is tarnished. if nadal does it again next year, i don't think anyone will use mono as an excuse for federer. if nadal gets the W in 09, i think for sure that nadal bested the best and that there is no excuse.
but come on, losing to blake, fish, and roddick and getting straight setted at the french and not making the aussi finals? This is federer we're talking about. he can't always be perfect but come on. seriously.
and i know nadal fans would say anything to make it look like federer was at his best and nadal just happened to be better, but come on. some day nadal will get a win over federer on a nonclay court and there will be no excuse. stop being so petty.
Last edited:
Federer has been much worse on hardcourts this year but we are talking about grass and Wimbledon. Federer won Halle and reached the Wimbledon final this year without dropping a set so he played very well on grass. Actually Federer in Wimbledon 2007 didn´t play as well as this year. He lost a set against Ferrero and almost lost another one. He didn´t look so great last year at Wimbledon. So it´s not true that Federer was worse than last year at Wimbledon. Federer played very well in the final and actually that´s what made Nadal´s win more amazing and that´s why the final was one of the best matches of all time.
Imagine how many GS titles Roddick would have if it was not for Fed or Nadal
BallzofSkill
Semi-Pro
most of the matches were won in straight sets on the men's side. federer was close in a couple of matches to losing a set, so it's not like he was playing far and above anyone else. his opponents during the tournament: hrbaty, hewitt, ancic, gicquel, soderling(not in that order). you're basing your argument on this one little tournament while i'm using federer's whole year to show that he wasn't at his best. if you want to talk about sets, how about i just include his win loss compared to last year? he's lost more matches this year to guys who are effectively his *****es. federer fought hard to make it to wimby08 finals, but again that is HIS tournament so even a weakened fed should be able to do rather well there, but it does not mean that he was at his best.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Why Federer has lost Four GS Titles to Nadal?
Because unlike Nadal, he is good enough to reach the finals of all the slams. Therefore, it has resulted in him losing to Nadal 3 times at the French, and once at Wimbledon. However, Nadal has been unable to reciprocate and make it to the finals of half the slams (Australian/US Open), because he sucks on hardcourt, and it results in Federer crushing the guy who spanked Nadal.
Because unlike Nadal, he is good enough to reach the finals of all the slams. Therefore, it has resulted in him losing to Nadal 3 times at the French, and once at Wimbledon. However, Nadal has been unable to reciprocate and make it to the finals of half the slams (Australian/US Open), because he sucks on hardcourt, and it results in Federer crushing the guy who spanked Nadal.
There are more hard court tournaments than clay, while grass is the rarest. I don't think it makes sense to give them all equal weight. The numbers would still come down on Nadal's side, but I think that it make more sense to look at the best on each surface rather than at an overall h2h provided that the h2h on each surface is backed up by the titles they've won (if the h2h record contradicted the slam count for those surfaces, you would have to question the use of h2h as the only measure).
I agree with this (Federer's hardcourt record against Nadal might improve next year, but overall Nadal is likely to strengthen his h2h advantage), but then I did qualify my earlier post with "on average in the time since Nadal has turned pro". Nadal hasn't been playing as a pro for very long, so the sample size isn't big enough if you ignore matches when Nadal wasn't in his prime. We'll have to wait a few years before coming to a judgment about who is a greater player overall.
purple-n-gold
Hall of Fame
#1 for just a little while,let's see what the Masters and AO will produce.
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
Federer was at near peak form in the 2007final yet still nearly lost and probably should have if it hadn't been for Nadal's damn knee being damaged. In 2008 he was in pretty good form too, look at his clay results and the path and perfomances of his road to the finals at Wimby. Next year fed will be near 28 at wimby whilst Nadal will have just turned 23. It's a frightening prospect if Nadal stays injury free.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
And yet at 23, everyone is always saying how exhausted Nadal is or citing some stupid "injury".
BTW, if Federer's eye hadn't popped out of his skull at least years Wimbledon, he would have bageled Nadal.
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
That's pretty sad. And exceptionally delusional.
lol Fed won 2 tight tiebreaks and Nadal won the most comfortable set in 6-2 in the 4th. Nadal broke more times then Fed did altogether.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
Agree.............
Nadal fans are such ass-hats. Always bringing up some excuse for when Nadal loses, to discredit Federer's victory. Federer is arguably the best grass-courter of all time, Nadal is no-where near that. If both play their absolute best tennis on grass, Federer will win every time.
He also thoroughly dominated Nadal in their first Wimbledon.
Federer's serve was shaky the first 2 sets of the final, and he had many unconverted break-point chances. Hardly a case of him playing his best and being beaten by Nadal, although he did play very good. Nadal played his best, and barely beat Federer playing very well, but not his best.
And the Nadal fans are always so fond of saying how he's only 23, and it's "scary" if he remains injury free. Well, sorry to break reality to you, but that isn't in line with Nadal or his playing style. He's had problems every year, knee problems, which is concerning for someone as young as him. But it's to be expected given his playing style.
I highly doubt Nadal will be as dominant as Federer has been by the time he reaches 26 and 27; even 25 would be pushing it.
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
and this is more delusional. federer won the 5th set 6-2 also.
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
Well he still had more breaks than Fed and 2 tie breaks which could have gone either way.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
and yet he stil lost to a guy who lost an eye during the match.
Mungo73
Banned
a little while? man I would search for a chair if I were you. loooong time you need to wait ROFL
DoubleDeuce
Hall of Fame
I really dont care for clay. It's not as pleasant to watch, anyone else think so? For most of us who watch the games on TV the speed of the surface doesnt matter much probably but the background color and visibility is not as nice as the HC.
ksbh
Banned
I didn't care for clay either until Rafa came along. Nadal changed the profile of clay court tennis in a big way.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Ever watched Kuerten? He was certainly no grinder as well and I loved to watch the guy,he was actually an agressive shotmaker it's just that his strokes were suited for clay(his grip,swing and staying too much behind baseline was what prevented him from doing better on faster surfaces,he needed time to setup his shots).He also had a pretty big serve as well,so not your ordinary claycourter who keeps the ball in play.
I don't care much for claycourters either except Kuerten and Nadal,cause they're both exceptional shotmakers.I feel that Nadal's shotmaking skllls are underrated in this forum,even though I'm not a fan I very much enjoyed watching him play at both Wimbledon and FO this year.
JediMindTrick
Hall of Fame
Are you sure it wasn't you who lost the eye?
Mungo73
Banned
haha too good!
Cmon start taking yourself seriously. Nadal is the better player, but Roger was the better player at the time ALL these grandslam finals took place, as the rankings show. So no answer to the OP's question there.
I care for clay, especially as it's the only surface Fed can really achieve something surpirsing. I tend to find it quite annoying how federer fans try to make clay sound like some second class surface. Tennis isnt about hardcourts only and I like the changes during the season. When I've had hardcourts in Miami I always like MC, and when I've seen Roland Garros I'm looking forward to grass, after that I miss hardcourts again and I also enjoy the indoor season.
ksbh
Banned
vtmike
Banned
Ok so when nadal is bageled he is tired and then when someone brings up the effects on fed's game during the first half of the season, *******s like you start whining and crying!
vtmike
Banned
Yes, Wilander never did have any balls.
Nadal being tired was confirmed by the commentators. It was obvious. Fed's mono is something Fed told us about. It may have happened, may not have happened, may have been exaggerated - we don't know. But Nadal was worn out and was saving himself for RG.
vtmike
Banned
Oh and the commentators are more qualified than Fed's world class doctors??
btw the same commentators have also confirmed Fed's mono....not tht it means anything!
As I have to keep repeating, we did not hear from Fed's doctors.
vtmike
Banned
What do you expect him to do? get a doctor's note like children do in school for the media?? has any professional who has ever suffered an injury ever done tht?......including ur beloved nadal?!
If the injury is obvious, it is obvious.
I am just saying that this is how much info we have, not that he had/did not have mono or whatever. I don't know, nobody here knows. There was a lot of hesitation in the tennis media about the story. I have listened to commentators and read what was written in the magazines, and it was always very cautious. No one wanted to contradict him, yet no one wanted to say for sure that they believed it.
vtmike
Banned
What do you mean by a lot of hesitation....give me an example.....as far as i know the injury was reported in the same way every other injury to any other player is reported.....only reason it was blown out of proportion is because Fed was the number one player, and the media always has the top players under a microscope..
and wat do you mean by an obvious injury?? how can you say tht Djokovic really suffered from breathing problems, and Nadal really had knee problems? no injury is obvious unless you see blood coming out of the person!
In case of any injury the player comes out and says what he suffered from (which is a diagnosis from their doctors)....just like in the case of nadal, djokovic and others.....nobody has a doctor standing beside them with a medical report to confirm their injuries!
Last edited:
Djokovic has been accused of faking his injuries, most recently by Roddick. Nadal's timeouts have sometimes been suspicious. So it is not a question of comparing one vs the other in all cases. In Federer's case, the explanation came after the AO semifinal loss. He said he was lying in bed in his hotel room unable to practise thinking it was food poisoning. But before the match he had said he was 100%. Of course you can say that he would not say anything to give a boost to an opponent like Djokovic or that he did not want to make excuses. But after the loss, the excuses started arriving, and the mono from last year was mentioned. What was the need to mention it then? Then when he had quick exits from the next tournaments, he started saying he was just happy to be getting back. He could have kept quiet the entire time. Then he goes ahead and plays 5 sets against Nadal in Wimbledon and wins the USO and the Olympic Gold in doubles. Was it a very fast and complete recovery? Maybe.
Great post tennis hero!
vtmike
Banned
So you are saying tht Djokovic and Nadal were faking injuries?
You just answered your own question......would you tell your opponent before a grand slam semi-final tht I was sick and could not practice because I had to lie on the bed all day? ..... not a very good strategy is it?
After the quick exits he was always asked abt his health and mono in every press conference he participated in.....He obviously had to say something......he claims tht he fully recovered but nobody knws the truth (maybe he was telling the truth or maybe he wanted to keep the mental edge over everyone else)...again nobody knows
Exactly again nobody other than Fed and his doctor knows what his exact condition is......unless you have access to his doctor or know him personally, everything you say here is just speculation
miniRafa386
Hall of Fame
before i start, i am openly saying that i am somewhat bias in nadals favor, but i am also quite realistic, and i am starting to like fed now, so i will stand up for fed when needed.
1) on most occassions, yes, but remember nadal is 5 years younger than federer. nadal already has 5 slams at 22 while fed had 1.
2) true
3) true again, 3x, but nadal beat him RG 06 when he did. just so everyone knows, hamburg 07 was a joke cause nadal was wiped out from the clay season.
4) who cares, i only speak (mostly) facts.
5) somewhat right, nadal beat him on fast hard courts twice, masters cup shouldnt be counted as hard, but as carpet or matted hard, idk, but it isnt hard. i would say nadal gets somewhat unlucky with draws, running into a treeing tsonga in aus, and being burnt out at the open. lets be totally serious, nadal wasnt playin well in aus and tsonga was treeing, and nadal was wiped after a nearly perfect summer (RG, wimb, toronto and beijing), while fed lost early in toronto and cinci, and lost early in beijing (i know, he won gold there, but for DOUBLES, total joke fitness wise compared to singles).
6) only if roddicks serve is treeing, if nadal played a peak roddick at this years wimbledon, nadal would have beaten him in 4. roger is the greatest of all time, but roger's kryptonite is rafael nadal.
7) very true.
8 ) i would also say thats true, but he still didnt win the french in 04-06.
9) you have got to be kidding me. 100% vs. 100%. please fast forward to 5th set. http://vimeo.com/1552633 fed had his chances, but nadal played some of his best tennis on those points.
Similar threads
