Wimbledon 2008 Final Nadal vs Federer Documentary

Thank you for posting this, Champ. I watched it before a while ago but this is awesome. Amazing match. Even though I am a Federer fan, I was happy to see Nadal win because it is always special to watch a player win something they have worked so hard for. Nadal for Wimbledon, Federer at RG, and hopefully Roddick at wimbledon in the future.
 

The-Champ

Legend
Thank you for posting this, Champ. I watched it before a while ago but this is awesome. Amazing match. Even though I am a Federer fan, I was happy to see Nadal win because it is always special to watch a player win something they have worked so hard for. Nadal for Wimbledon, Federer at RG, and hopefully Roddick at wimbledon in the future.
It was a great match. Rafa deserved it, being so close the year before. If there was a slam I wish for Roddick to have, it would be Wimbledon, he's been denied by Fed too many times.
 

zasr4325

Professional
can we just stop with the arguing FOR ONCE and appreciate the match? at the end of the day, even though i consider myself a fed fan, i wasn't annoyed that rafa won. he was the better player on the day, and there wasn't anything rog could do. im just glad he managed to push it to five and didn't give up two sets to love down. but its a truly great match, and thanks for posting the clips. ive actually got the dvd, and have watched the whole thing a couple of times
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
You've obviously never seen him play live. His strokes still have incredible pace, just with a higher margin of error. It sure works against Federer...
Except on grass and hard court :):)...... that is what 2-1(fed) and 3-3 mean. Also, what is the use when it works just on one person instead of the entire field :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
Except on grass and hard court :):)...... that is what 2-1(fed) and 3-3 mean. Also, what is the use when it works just on one person instead of the entire field :wink:
It doesn't work against the field? I'm pretty sure he has 8 grand slams...
 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
Didn't the majority of those wins come against Federer? So he won 2 slams against the field. Not so good.
Oh I didn't realize that majors were decided with one match. I'm pretty sure it takes seven matches to win a grand slam...

Nice try though, champ.
 

ballboy48

Banned
Oh I didn't realize that majors were decided with one match. I'm pretty sure it takes seven matches to win a grand slam...

Nice try though, champ.
Interesting, I wonder why Nadal never won anything off clay before 2008 then (same year as Fed's mono by the way). He's been winning FO's for the longest time. Peculiar indeed.
 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
Interesting, I wonder why Nadal never won anything off clay before 2008 then (same year as Fed's mono by the way). He's been winning FO's for the longest time. Peculiar indeed.
Probably the same reason Federer didn't win much before 2004. He was young.

He didn't even play Federer in the last Wimbledon and still demolished everyone with his "moonballs".
 

ballboy48

Banned
Probably the same reason Federer didn't win much before 2004. He was young.

He didn't even play Federer in the last Wimbledon and still demolished everyone with his "moonballs".
Difference is that Nadal was winning slams from 2005 on. As soon as you win your second slam you are in your prime. Yeah let's see how those moonballs work for him at the USO :).
 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
Difference is that Nadal was winning slams from 2005 on. As soon as you win your second slam you are in your prime. Yeah let's see how those moonballs work for him at the USO :).
Well he's made it to two consecutive SFs...so they obviously work pretty well. Also, Nadal was in his prime on clay when he was 12 years old. That's how much better he is than everyone else on clay. His real prime was when he won W in 2008.
 

ballboy48

Banned
Well he's made it to two consecutive SFs...so they obviously work pretty well. Also, Nadal was in his prime on clay when he was 12 years old. That's how much better he is than everyone else on clay. His real prime was when he won W in 2008.
2 consecutive SF's, wow. Try 23 on for size little guy. If his real prime was at W08 then why didn't he win the USO that year?
 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
2 consecutive SF's, wow. Try 23 on for size little guy. If his real prime was at W08 then why didn't he win the USO that year?
Same reason Federer never won the FO in his prime. Someone else was better on that surface.

Understand now, chief?
 

ballboy48

Banned
Same reason Federer never won the FO in his prime. Someone else was better on that surface.

Understand now, chief?
Yeah he won FO out of his prime. An even better achievement. Don't you say Nadal was injured in 09 or else Fed had mono in 08. Titt for Tat, so don't even go there. Also in his prime, Fed got to the final 3 times at the FO and faced the clay GOAT. How about Nadal in his prime at the USO?
 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
Yeah he won FO out of his prime. An even better achievement. Don't you say Nadal was injured in 09 or else Fed had mono in 08. Titt for Tat, so don't even go there.
Strange how the only FO Federer ever won was the only one that Nadal was not in the final of...

Nadal had to take the W crown from the supposed "King of Grass".
 
Strange how the only FO Federer ever won was the only one that Nadal was not in the final of...

Nadal had to take the W crown from the supposed "King of Grass".
That is an interesting point, Nadal took the AO and Wim crown from Roger's own hands.

Nadal lost to a superior player that day end of story.

As for Roger's FO, honestly we all knew that was the only way it was going to happen. I predicted that myself, Roger was never going to win with Nadal in the final.
 

namelessone

Legend
Oh, I remember this match, it was great but I almost had a heart attack(j/k) and I was exhausted by the end of it. Then I said to myself "dude, you don't even know these guys, why are you getting so riled up about this?". Then I went back to being a fan after the match continued and I felt terrific after Rafa won, it was like an adrenaline rush to be honest.

To this day I remember how nervous I was in this match and how I thought that Rafa would come close but fail once again. He proved me wrong AGAIN. I don't know any other player who could have handled a resurgent Federer, especially after blowing the 4th set tiebreaker. The term mental strength get thrown around a lot but this was mental strength indeed. He just wouldn't let go.

BTW, funny bit from WB 10', didn't see this clip before:) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGUEoxs8xBs
 
Honestly, I believe this is one of the most overrated matches of all time. I don't post often on here, but I felt like after hearing so much constant praise regarding this match I can't ignore it anymore.

Federer's level of play was not consistently high, and he broke down mentally at so many points in this match. In the first and second sets, he simply gave away an important service game, costing him the set. Nadal just constantly pummeled Federer's backhand with his topspin forehand, and Federer broke down yet again. At seemingly every break point opportunity Federer had, he would just make some kind of unforced error, usually on his backhand side. On top of that, Nadal's second serves constantly aimed towards Federer's backhand, and Federer rarely took advantage of the slow serve and would just chip back a ball at average speed.
Nadal didn't play spectacularly, he just did his same old gameplay. High percentage tennis, get every ball in, and wait for Federer to break down. Cross-court topspin forehand to Federer's backhand, rinse, repeat, wait for error. There was very little spectacular about his style of play, except the occasional ridiculous running winner. Federer was not allowed to play at his "Supreme" high level due to Nadal's tactics.

Federer was 1/13 in break point opportunities because he was not able to be aggressive enough on Nadal's serve. Nadal didn't come up with anything amazing, just the constant forehand to backhand rallies that would inevitably end in his favor. Federer played nervously on almost every big point, and Nadal executed his normal gameplan of constantly hitting to Federer backhand. There really wasn't anything spectacular about this match except that it went the distance. Federer was content to stay back and let his weakness be exploited constantly, and could do nothing about it. The overall quality of play in the match was not extremely high. The closeness and hype made it what it was. Most people had an emotional connection to the match in some way, and blew it way out of proportion.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
I agree about the match being overrated, and I also think that quality wise the 2007final was better, as was the Rome 2006 final. Heck even their Masters Cup semi-final in 2006 had a much higher standard of tennis, despite being nowhere near as dramatic or significant a match.

It wasn't even the best match of the Wimbledon 2008 fortnight. I thought that Murray-Gasquet in the 4th round was better. Gasquet's performance in the first 2 and a half sets in that match was even better than his display in the last 2 and a half sets against Roddick in 2007, when Roddick kept on hitting short, loopy shots to his backhand side. He couldn't maintain that form for 5 sets, but still there was plenty of brilliant tennis from both Murray and him that day.
 

FeVer

Semi-Pro
Strange how the only time Nadal won W was when Fed was injured with mono or leg problems.
So basically you're saying that winning a slam where the best player is ABSENT is as hard as winning a slam when the best player is feeling A BIT UNDER THE WEATHER. I think you'll find it's pretty easy to win the FO when Rafa isn't there compared to winning W when Federer is feeling a bit ill.

Dont give me that bull**** about Federer having a 'leg injury' during W '08. You can't play a 5 hour match against Nadal with a leg injury and still be walking at the end. I've had flu that's more debilitating than that.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Federer was absent for the first two sets and half imo. He only really woke up when he realised he was just games away from losing in straights. Kudos to Nadal for winning though. However Federer losing five straight games in the second set shows how well he was playing at the start.

The only match that I think both played well from start to finish was Rome 2006, which is a far superior match to this one imo.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
can we just stop with the arguing FOR ONCE and appreciate the match? at the end of the day, even though i consider myself a fed fan, i wasn't annoyed that rafa won. he was the better player on the day, and there wasn't anything rog could do. im just glad he managed to push it to five and didn't give up two sets to love down. but its a truly great match, and thanks for posting the clips. ive actually got the dvd, and have watched the whole thing a couple of times
I agree. It's one thing to have an opinion you feel is valid, but it's another thing to enter a thread for the sole purpose of starting a flamewar. It's pretty easy to spot those who do this, and posters should just start putting them on ignore rather than even bothering to take their troll bait.

It would be nice to be able to discuss tennis, although we may not always agree, without people making the forum a war zone on a daily basis.
 

fps

Legend
can someone pack the little ones off to bed? Too many E numbers, no doubt....

I think Nadal's level of tennis at 2008 and 2010 FO were higher, and he has one of the best shots he'll ever have at winning in New York this year. I'll check out these documentary pieces in a bit, if it's between the opinions of Johnny Mac and Tim Henman and some pipsqueaks on an internet forum, I know whose I will listen to.
 

The-Champ

Legend
Interesting, I wonder why Nadal never won anything off clay before 2008 then (same year as Fed's mono by the way). He's been winning FO's for the longest time. Peculiar indeed.

yeah..his "mono" came back in the final after crushing everyone on his way. I wonder what it is with Nadal's game that aggravates the "mono" everytime he faces him.

FO 2008 - the mono came back in the final (against Nadal)

W 2008 - the mono came back (against Nadal)

USO 2008 - Won! (Slaughtered Murray in the final)

AO 2009 - the mono came back...this time with a vengeance + back problems (against Nadal)
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
yeah..his "mono" came back in the final after crushing everyone on his way. I wonder what it is with Nadal's game that aggravates the "mono" everytime he faces him.

FO 2008 - the mono came back in the final (against Nadal)

W 2008 - the mono came back (against Nadal)

USO 2008 - Won! (Slaughtered Murray in the final)

AO 2009 - the mono came back...this time with a vengeance + back problems (against Nadal)
OMG! Who said mono came back in 2009?! He certainly did NOT have mono at that event. Back issues, yes, they were well documented since Paris indoors, but mono?! :confused: I'm surprised someone would say that.
 

intrepidish

Semi-Pro
+1

I have watched the full match 2 or 3 times. It could be their most significant battle in history, but quality-wise they had better encounters (Rome'06, AO'09, W'07 come to mind).
Yeah...what do McEnroe and Borg know about great matches at Wimbledon anyway?

You guys are funny.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
Yeah...what do McEnroe and Borg know about great matches at Wimbledon anyway?

You guys are funny.
McEnroe and Borg are entitled to their opinions, just like the rest of us. However just because they are former players doesn't mean their opinions on what constitutes a great match is more valid than those of anyone on this site.

BTW McEnroe is one of the most fairweather tennis pundits around. He frequently changes his opinion from day to day depending on who he is talking to.

The people who are funny are the ones who treat every word uttered by former pros as gospel.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Wow eerily similar to Nadal!

FO2009 - knee injury out of nowhere

W2009 - knee injury still but able to practice on courts!

USO2009 - knee/ab injury :)

AO10 - knee injury came back! :)
Touche! hehe :)
 
Top