Wow People Really Dislike Nadal Here? Why?

Wimbledon 2008 - Greatest Match of all Time?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 34.9%
  • No

    Votes: 41 65.1%

  • Total voters
    63

REKX

Rookie
As a Federer and Nadal fan I feel humbled I got to witness these two. I started of only liking Federer, and disliking Nadal. But over time I grew to appreciate both, Nadal has the be the only player who has managed to make Federer look average at times - no one else in history could do that.

I find it funny that here people downplay Nadal's achievements so much. Look I'm not a fan of Federer and Nadal because they won slams in 2017, no it is because what they were doing ten years ago when they took things to a level never seen before. But for example Federer's Wimbledon 2017 draw was very easy, so was Nadal's 2017 US Open. But for some reason only Nadal gets the hate here.

Consider 2007, which was probably the greatest version of Federer in history, Nadal managed to take the game to 5 sets at Wimbledon 2007, against the greatest grass court player of all time. I think that is a wonderful achievement.

Then in 2008, Federer and Nadal played the Wimbledon final which many say was the greatest game of all time. In terms of drama maybe not for me, but in terms of overall quality yes it is amazing to watch. From both ends balls were looking out, yet they both managed to get it back cleanly and strongly.

Some here tell themselves Federer was playing bad in 2008 Wimbledon. How, he looked even better than 2007, he didn't lose a set in 2008 until the final. I personally thought Federer would win it in 4, but Nadal played amazingly well that match and deservedly beat Federer in that game.

Nadal came up with some shots which seem impossible, looked like clean winners from Roger, then somehow Nadal would get to it and hit a winner. Only Nadal at that form could have beaten Federer that day, and he did. Sampras wouldn't even get close (we saw the matchup favours Federer in their 2001 game).

There's a reason why almost every tennis fan, expert, pundit, current and past players, reviewers and commentators regard Wimbledon 2008 as the greatest match of all time - because both were playing at their highest level.

 
Last edited:

REKX

Rookie
Rain delays and finishing in the dark is a good match?
Yeah, did you see the match?

It felt like every rally was a 9/10 point - amazing stuff. Theres a reason why its so widely regarded as the greatest match of all time.

How many matches do you see with both players playing at that level?
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
There's a reason why almost every tennis fan, expert, pundit, current and past players, reviewers and commentators regard Wimbledon 2008 as the greatest match of all time - because both were playing at their highest level.
Hardly.

The greatest match stuff came from: a) Fed's streak of titles; b) it was played at Wimbledon - the hallowed grounds of our sport; c) the style matchup - Fed the graceful; Rafa the bull; d) the ups and downs of the match; e) the late finish and score.

As far as quality, AO 2017 F was much better. And even more dramatic - they split sets; Fed losing the 4th and getting broken 1st in the 5th and looking done; but comes back to break not once but twice and win it. And match point on a Hawkeye challenge.
 

REKX

Rookie
Some people here dislike Federer to outright hating him.It is tennis forum after all.
Nah, you can't hate the maestro.

Nadal had to earn that Wimbledon 2008, he worked for every point, and deserved it. it wasn't a gift because Federer was also playing amazing, but that was expected from to then 5 times current champion.

I think that win says so much for Nadal, on his weakest surface, against the greatest grass court player of all time, during his prime. Which other player in history could have beaten Federer 2008 Wimbledon, didn't lose a set till the final.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
Yeah, did you see the match?

It felt like every rally was a 9/10 point - amazing stuff. Theres a reason why its so widely regarded as the greatest match of all time.

How many matches do you see with both players playing at that level?
Didnt have 10hours. Watched parts of it, have seen better matches.

If fed was playing good he would of beat rafa in 3, not sure why people claim he had a good day. I guess its the scoreline.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
Nah, you can't hate the maestro.

Nadal had to earn that Wimbledon 2008, he worked for every point, and deserved it. it wasn't a gift because Federer was also playing amazing, but that was expected from to then 5 times current champion.

I think that win says so much for Nadal, on his weakest surface, against the greatest grass court player of all time, during his prime. Which other player in history could have beaten Federer 2008 Wimbledon, didn't lose a set till the final.
Apparently you haven't met the matriarch.
 

REKX

Rookie
Hardly.

The greatest match stuff came from: a) Fed's streak of titles; b) it was played at Wimbledon - the hallowed grounds of our sport; c) the style matchup - Fed the graceful; Rafa the bull; d) the ups and downs of the match; e) the late finish and score.

As far as quality, AO 2017 F was much better. And even more dramatic - they split sets; Fed losing the 4th and getting broken 1st in the 5th and looking done; but comes back to break not once but twice and win it. And match point on a Hawkeye challenge.
Australian 2017 better quality? Please please please, what are you saying? It wasn't even better than the 2009 final Aus, against most people say 2009 was the best Aus final because both players were again at their prime, Federer maybe just starting to lose his greatest form.

2017 both players were no where near their best, not even close to their best. Unfortunately there is no competition from the younger players which means they in the finals. Who could say 2017 was a higher quality match than 2009, that is insane. In terms of drama, thats different and subjective, in terms of raw quality, 2009 was something special. I haven't heard anyone saying 2017 was the greatest Aus final of all time - because it wasnt.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Nah, you can't hate the maestro.

Nadal had to earn that Wimbledon 2008, he worked for every point, and deserved it. it wasn't a gift because Federer was also playing amazing, but that was expected from to then 5 times current champion.

I think that win says so much for Nadal, on his weakest surface, against the greatest grass court player of all time, during his prime. Which other player in history could have beaten Federer 2008 Wimbledon, didn't lose a set till the final.
Federer also didn't lose a set anywhere in Wimbledon 2017...nine years after 2008. Was Federer truly invincible in 2017 also?

Nadal deserved W 2008, but to say Federer couldn't have beaten is too far fetched. He did even better while being 9 years older.
 

REKX

Rookie
Didnt have 10hours. Watched parts of it, have seen better matches.

If fed was playing good he would of beat rafa in 3, not sure why people claim he had a good day. I guess its the scoreline.
Why people claim Federer had a good day? Because they saw the match.

Many past and present tennis players who live the game day in day out also commented on both players quality.

Did you see the match?
 

REKX

Rookie
Federer also didn't lose a set anywhere in Wimbledon 2017...nine years after 2008. Was Federer truly invincible in 2017 also?

Nadal deserved W 2008, but to say Federer couldn't have beaten is too far fetched. He did even better while being 9 years older.
2017-2018 vs 2008 in tennis is a silly comparison. Federer right now is not even close to his 2008 form, you can see how slow his movement is. Nadal 2008 would eat Federer 2017, in the same way Federer 2008 would eat Nadal 2017. They are a lot slower now, way slower. They wouldn't even be competing for Grand Slams now if a group of young tennis players emerged to dominate which usually always happens but hasn't this time.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
Why people claim Federer had a good day? Because they saw the match.

Many past and present tennis players who live the game day in day out also commented on both players quality.

Did you see the match?
Parts of it. Wasnt real impressed and the rain delays killed it.

If you thought it was a good match, thats fine. 45secs between points and 10hours isnt worth it for me
 

REKX

Rookie
Federer also didn't lose a set anywhere in Wimbledon 2017...nine years after 2008. Was Federer truly invincible in 2017 also?

Nadal deserved W 2008, but to say Federer couldn't have beaten is too far fetched. He did even better while being 9 years older.
I wouldn't say Federer couldn't have beaten Nadal. I think they both had a shot in 2008, it was close, very close. One break decided it in the end.

Federer could have won it certainly.

But my overriding point was Nadal played unbelievablely well to match Federer's quality and beat him. Federer didn't roll over, he played, and played amazing which is why the match is so highly regarded by almost everyone except this forum.

No one here wants to say Nadal played well, but if you watch the match he did.

 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
2017-2018 vs 2008 in tennis is a silly comparison. Federer right now is not even close to his 2008 form, you can see how slow his movement is. Nadal 2008 would eat Federer 2017, in the same way Federer 2008 would eat Nadal 2017. They are a lot slower now, way slower. They wouldn't even be competing for Grand Slams now if a group of young tennis players emerged to dominate which usually always happens but hasn't this time.
That's not the point. The point is simple, Federer won without dropping a set...so argument can be made he was invincible last year, just like how Nadal won RG last year without losing a set, he can be said to be invincible last year also. To say 2008, no one else in the history of the game could have beat him is far fetched IMO, I can confidently say that Sampras' 99 final level was vastly superior to both Federer and Nadal of 08. That's my opinion, just like you are stating yours.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I wouldn't say Federer couldn't have beaten Nadal. I think they both had a shot in 2008, it was close, very close. One break decided it in the end.

Federer could have won it certainly.

But my overriding point was Nadal played unbelievablely well to match Federer's quality and beat him. Federer didn't roll over, he played, and played amazing which is why the match is so highly regarded by almost everyone except this forum.

No one here wants to say Nadal played well, but if you watch the match he did.

Of course Nadal played well, and Federer fought very hard in the final couple of sets, when Nadal decided to choke and give Federer belief that he could steal it away. Doesn't mean, no one in the history of the game apart from Nadal was beating Federer that day.
 

REKX

Rookie
Parts of it. Wasnt real impressed and the rain delays killed it.

If you thought it was a good match, thats fine. 45secs between points and 10hours isnt worth it for me
I didn't enjoy it at the time, because I only supported Federer and I was very young at the time - Federer always used to win at Wimbledon and I couldn't understand why. It's now that I'm older and more mature I can look back and appreciate it what that game was and the quality. 2017-2018 tennis simply does not compare to the levels of that match.

Federer was so aggressive (as he always was in those days) he was hitting the lines and playing outrageous shots. And we forget how quick the guy was, compare him to 2018, Federer was like a super man back then.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
In retrospect, that final, while an all-time classic, did not represent quite the watershed moment or shift in power as some believed at the time it would.

Since then, Nadal has won 11 majors, same as Djokovic (who dominated the tour to a greater degree), while Federer has done his part to stay relevant, winning 8. It certainly wasn't much of a changing of the guard at Wimbledon especially. Nadal has only won the tournament once since then, Federer has won in three times, Djokovic has also won in three times, heck even Murray has won it twice.

If Nadal had won Wimbledon an additional 3-4 times after his initial triumph, then that match would have been seen as even more historically important than it actually was. In reality it was a great, awe-inspiring match, but a little overrated in terms of historical importance, since it did little to slow Federer's assault on the record books.
 
Last edited:

Clay lover

Hall of Fame
Some dislike him for his gamesmanship and intimidation tactics, which is valid. Some dislike him for playing a different game with more emphasis on defence which is perceived to require less talent. But oh are some sensitive! One remark perceived to be pro Nadal and they pound.
 

REKX

Rookie
That's not the point. The point is simple, Federer won without dropping a set...so argument can be made he was invincible last year, just like how Nadal won RG last year without losing a set, he can be said to be invincible last year also. To say 2008, no one else in the history of the game could have beat him is far fetched IMO, I can confidently say that Sampras' 99 final level was vastly superior to both Federer and Nadal of 08. That's my opinion, just like you are stating yours.
I have yet to see a player get to Federer's level around 2017 time in history. 2018 he was also playing incredibly, number 1 he didn;t lose a set, number 2 the final even though he lost played amazing. Just look at the video. Number 3, the greatest grass court player of all time, on grass, during his prime. It doens't get much better than that.

Sampras played Federer at Wimbledon. Sampras was champion, Federer was 19, was under developed probably 2% of the player he would go on to be. Weakest version of Federer beat Sampras, I don't even want to think how a 2017 Federer would be.

Who else, Borg? Nope, Federer's game is objectively better than Borg's I would argue in all departments. Djokovic prime would probably get closest to beating Federer in 2008. But during 2012-2016 we see Djokovic is certainly a very very good player, and can hang and beat a non prime Federer, but Prime grass Federer? I can't see how he would have beaten Federer in 2008 at the level and the winners that Federer was hitting.

Who else? there is no one.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
Federer was so aggressive (as he always was in those days) he was hitting the lines
Also hitting the frame on his bh.

His back got stiff after mutliple delays and had to finish in the dark, the scoreline was cool but not a great match.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
"as a fan of both Federer and Nadal who actually hates Federer, I ask why anyone wouldn't like Nadal?"

I don't like Nadal because I don't like him. That's an honest answer. I respect his achievements and don't try to downplay them, unlike the VB who constantly downplay Federer.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I have yet to see a player get to Federer's level around 2017 time in history. 2018 he was also playing incredibly, number 1 he didn;t lose a set, number 2 the final even though he lost played amazing. Just look at the video. Number 3, the greatest grass court player of all time, on grass, during his prime. It doens't get much better than that.

Sampras played Federer at Wimbledon. Sampras was champion, Federer was 19, was under developed probably 2% of the player he would go on to be. Weakest version of Federer beat Sampras, I don't even want to think how a 2017 Federer would be.

Who else, Borg? Nope, Federer's game is objectively better than Borg's I would argue in all departments. Djokovic prime would probably get closest to beating Federer in 2008. But during 2012-2016 we see Djokovic is certainly a very very good player, and can hang and beat a non prime Federer, but Prime grass Federer? I can't see how he would have beaten Federer in 2008 at the level and the winners that Federer was hitting.

Who else? there is no one.

Sampras' greatest ever performance is Wimbledon 99, he was said to be walking on water that day. Federer or Nadal for that matter in 2008 IMO were not anywhere close to what Pete displayed in that final.

Funny how you say weakest version of Federer beat Sampras...and what only Federer is allowed to have different versions, but Sampras is a constant? Really? lol

I guess if it is about beating champions as you state, then Djokovic's win over Nadal at RG was even greater, he beat the defending five time champ.

I get it, you want to big up Nadal. The win was great, and one to be remembered always, but to say Nadal did something no one else could have done that day is mighty disrespectful to Sampras, a vastly superior grass player to Nadal in his peak.
 

REKX

Rookie
In retrospect, that final, while an all-time classic, did not represent quite the watershed moment or shift of power as some believed at the time it would.

Since then, Nadal has won 11 majors, same as Djokovic (who dominated the tour to a greater degree), while Federer has done his part to stay relevant, winning 8. It certainly wasn't much of a changing of the guard at Wimbledon especially. Nadal has only won the tournament once since then, Federer has won in three times, Djokovic has also won in three times, heck even Murray has won it twice.

If Nadal had won Wimbledon an additional 3-4 times after his initial triumph, then that match would have been seen as even more historically important than it actually was. In reality it was a great, awe-inspiring match, but a little overrated in terms of historical importance.
I don't think it was meant to be a seen as a changing of the guards in grass court tennis. In tennis overall probably yes, because Nadal took Federer to 5 sets on grass the year before as well so he had to raise his grass court game to do that. No one else beat Prime Federer on grass.

Nadal's peak came earler on grass and dropped earlier as well. I think it was his speed which gave him upper hand on grass in his quicker younger days, because his forehand can't do the damage it does on grass as other surfaces. Doesn't bounce as high, so you can see out of hard courts, clay and grass, Federer was most comfortable on the backhand against Nadal on grass.

For me I respect Nadal for winning 2008 Wimbledon because he played well to win it, Federer didn't roll over and just collapse.
 

Sport

Legend
In retrospect, that final, while an all-time classic, did not represent quite the watershed moment or shift of power as some believed at the time it would.
The historical significance of Wimbledon 2008 is bigger than any other match. Nadal defeated 26 years old Federer at his favorite GS, Wimbledon. Federer never defeated Nadal at his favortie GS, Roland Garros.
 
Last edited:

REKX

Rookie
Sampras' greatest ever performance is Wimbledon 99, he was said to be walking on water that day. Federer or Nadal for that matter in 2008 IMO were not anywhere close to what Pete displayed in that final.

Funny how you say weakest version of Federer beat Sampras...and what only Federer is allowed to have different versions, but Sampras is a constant? Really? lol

I get it, you want to big up Nadal. The win was great, and one to be remembered always, but to say Nadal did something no one else could have done that day is mighty disrespectful to Sampras, a vastly superior grass player to Nadal in his peak.
Never said Sampras was constant. But when Federer played Sampras, Sampras was champion, and still went onto win Grand Slams.

Federer was beaten by Tim Henman, the next match and lost first round the year after. Federer was very premature during that game.

I have no doubt Federer 2003-2008 would be able to beat any version of Sampras.

You have to understand Federer isn't regarded greatest of all time because he won a few slams in 2017-2018 against a weak field. It is because during 2003-2009 he took the game to a level that has never been seen before.
 

REKX

Rookie
The historical significance of that match is bigger than any other. Nadal defeated Federer at his favorite GS, Wimbledon. Federer never defeated Nadal at his favortie GS, Roland Garros.
That maybe true, but for me, that match is against two competitors who are hungry and delivered a high level of play.

Significant matches always come, when Djokovic beat Nadal in the French the year Nadal was playing crap and had operation, historically important - but as a tennis spectacle - nothing.
 

TennisDawg

Professional
REKX your posts are very lengthy like an article almost, so I just perused it. The greatest match ever was Borg-McEnroe Wimbledon final. It had
drama with two contrasting players in personality and Tennis style. It appealed to a wide audience as will the upcoming movie.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Never said Sampras was constant. But when Federer played Sampras, Sampras was champion, and still went onto win Grand Slams.

Federer was beaten by Tim Henman, the next match and lost first round the year after. Federer was very premature during that game.

I have no doubt Federer 2003-2008 would be able to beat any version of Sampras.

You have to understand Federer isn't regarded greatest of all time because he won a few slams in 2017-2018 against a weak field. It is because during 2003-2009 he took the game to a level that has never been seen before.
You speak of Federer 2008. I speak of Sampras' God form of 99.

I have no doubt that Federer and Nadal would have been stomped by that Sampras. He was playing his greatest grass match that day.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
The historical significance of that match is bigger than any other. Nadal defeated Federer at his favorite GS, Wimbledon. Federer never defeated Nadal at his favortie GS, Roland Garros.
I meant in terms of how it shaped the landscape after the match had occurred.

Was it actually a "changing of the guard", as NBC commentators so giddily proclaimed immediately after the match had concluded? No, it wasn't. Nadal lost the number one ranking nine months later, and will likely go down as the second best player of the 2010's.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
I don't think it was meant to be a seen as a changing of the guards in grass court tennis. In tennis overall probably yes, because Nadal took Federer to 5 sets on grass the year before as well so he had to raise his grass court game to do that. No one else beat Prime Federer on grass.
I don't really think it was that either, though. IMO Nadal played as well, perhaps even better, the previous years final where he dominated Fed from the baseline. Federer couldn't have kept dominating forever, and he kept rolling for years after the loss, defying pretty much everybodies expectations. In the summer of '08, there were pundits that were uncertain about him even passing Sampras.
 

Plamen1234

Hall of Fame
I meant in terms of how it shaped the landscape after the match had occurred.

Was it actually a "changing of the guard", as NBC commentators so giddily proclaimed immediately after the match had concluded? No, it wasn't. Nadal lost the number one ranking nine months later, and will likely go down as the second best player of the 2010's.
I remember some tennis "experts" also saying that Nadal will reach Federer record soon after AO 2009 final .A lot of wrong prediction because of few matches
 

AlexanderTheGreat08

Hall of Fame
I used to hate Djokovic cause he was beating Fedal, So i guess some of them hate him cause he was beating their favs in many big matches, Some might hate him cause of his playing style , Cool rituals on the court or his off court comments , Tbh i love him, He made tennis competitive with his legendary never give up attitude which brought many awesome matches like Rome 05 & 06 F , W 07 & 08 F, AO 09 & 12 F , RG 13 SF. The way he came and started giving trouble to Federer , Then becoming his Main rival, Then beating him in three majors finals in a row in all surfaces ending his number one streak.Also my fanatism for Nadal brought my family closer and they started to like tennis & Nadal , We don’t have much things in common so that was a big thing cause we got together to watch his matches
 
Top