Wow People Really Dislike Nadal Here? Why?

Wimbledon 2008 - Greatest Match of all Time?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 34.6%

  • No

    Votes: 51 65.4%
  • Total voters
    78
So many different, disconnected thoughts with this post, I’ll try to address them individually.

1) 2008 Wimbledon Final: Greatest match of all time? I would say it’s ONE of the greatest matches, but not necessarily the “greatest”. Yes it is high quality throughout, and yes it features two all-time greats, and yes it is one of the longest matches that could have gone either way, and yes it was in a grand slam final. All of those things put it in the top 5 greatest matches IMO. It was essentially equal to 2012 Djokovic vs Nadal (AO) in that regard. An epic match for sure, however there are other matches that were more “entertaining” to watch, whether it be in terms of shot making, or brevity. 1981 Borg vs McEnroe (WIM), 1991 Conners vs Krickstein (USO), 2001 Sampras vs Agassi (USO), 2003 Roddick vs El Aynaoui (AO), 2005 Savin vs Federer (AO), 2005 Agassi vs Blake (USO), 2006 Federer vs Nadal (Rome), 2008 Hewitt vs Baghdatis (AO), 2009 Nadal vs Federer (AO). With the exception of two, most of these matches are slept on merely because they were not grand slam “finals”. And I feel like the quality of some matches (along with people’s nostalgic memories of it) tends to be inflated if they happen to be the final of a grand slam. That doesn’t necessarily mean the “tennis” was actually any greater or more thrilling IMO.

2) Do people hate on Nadal unjustly? Perhaps! But the same argument could be made for Federer (and often is). Yet they are both celebrated as two of the all-time greats, and you’re always going to have your fanboys come out to disparage one of them, in order to lift up their preference. I see it going both ways. Federer gets hate because of his losing head to head record with his main rivals (Nadal and Djokovic), while Nadal gets hate because of his lopsided results on clay inflating his numbers. At the end of the day, it’s a stylistic difference.

While I appreciate that Nadal is probably the greatest competitor we’ve ever seen on a tennis court, is a really good sportsman, has amazing shot making abilities, and will go down as the greatest clay court player in history, I tend to have a preference for Federer (for several reasons). 1) I think Federer has a better all-around game than Nadal (translates to other surfaces better), 2) I think Federer has a more attractive playing style (stokes look more effortless, better serve, more variety, no grunting), and 3) He’s a sentimental favorite for me (still winning grandlsams at 36 years old), and still going strong. If Nadal didn’t exist, it’s likely that Federer would have won at least 4-5 more French Open titles, making his clay court record nearly as impressive as his record on other surfaces. We’d be arguing who was the clay GOAT between he and Borg. But can we say the same thing for Nadal in reverse? If Federer didn’t exist, would Nadal be in contention for the greatest hard court or grass court player ever? I suspect the answer is no. Because his results would only be marginally better on those other surfaces.
 
Last edited:
People dont like Nadal because hes too good and his play style makes it even worse. Constantly spamming moonballs to backhands.
 
Your Hero said:
I loathed Nadal in a petty kind of way. Daring to challenge The Creamy One
was bad enough but kicking him around like a can for years was uncalled for.
It showed a distinct lack of respect for his elder(s). I took great offense and
wished horrific things upon his person for a solid 12 years but then came
2017 and my least violent prayers were all answered. I now just loathe him
in a general way like anyone who happens to have eyes and a taste for the
finer things in life.

Anyone who likes them both I find a bit hard to understand. They must have
come along late in the game.

Trust me on this......

Nadal is bologna, Federer is filet mignon.
Djoker's some weird mixture of hay and seaweed extract.
Murray is a bottle of Pepto Bismol.
Click to expand...

LMAO your posts and musings are genuinely hilarious keep it up. If all trolling was like this: funny, entertaining, original and no real venom behind them just fun instead of butt hurt fanbases squabbling all the time like now then distinct tribal fan bases would be a really fun thing. Shout out to @vive le beau jeu ! also for hilarious musings and banter in the fedal wars.

Lol unless I have got this wrong and you really do have genuine hatred for Nadal and it keeps you awake haha
 
roleaux987 said:
LMAO your posts and musings are genuinely hilarious keep it up. If all trolling was like this: funny, entertaining, original and no real venom behind them just fun instead of butt hurt fanbases squabbling all the time like now then distinct tribal fan bases would be a really fun thing. Shout out to @vive le beau jeu ! also for hilarious musings and banter in the fedal wars.

Lol unless I have got this wrong and you really do have genuine hatred for Nadal and it keeps you awake haha
Click to expand...
My Nadal hate is mostly facetious....mostly! I'm here for the laughs.
I did the Fedal fighting thing years ago on another site. It got tedious.
Laughs, sex, drugs, music, tennis and quantum physics are my thang.
 
Ray Mercer said:
1.) Brainless strategy of spamming topspin to one handed backhands, very little variety employed which leads to poor entertainment
2.) Excessive slow play
3.) Defensive minded
Click to expand...

Brainless strategy? It is the exact strategy he needed to get the better of Federer, he was just fortunate enough that his default game matched up perfectly to Federer's weakness. It would be brainless if he actually changed that.
 
FedFosterWallace said:
Good day, puppet. Did you just wake up from your four-year nap?
Click to expand...

No but you can't change history.

Nadal beat Federer when it counted, when they were both in their prime.

The recent matches are when they are both past their prime. Federer cried because he lost the 2009 Aus final, yet in 2017 he said he wouldn't have mind if he lost. The damage was done in 2009, it cannot be changed, that one meant more to both players, more was at stake.
 
REKX said:
No but you can't change history.

Nadal beat Federer when it counted, when they were both in their prime.

The recent matches are when they are both past their prime. Federer cried because he lost the 2009 Aus final, yet in 2017 he said he wouldn't have mind if he lost. The damage was done in 2009, it cannot be changed, that one meant more to both players, more was at stake.
Click to expand...
Regrettably, Nadal's damage was to the game of tennis. Let us hope that it may one day recover, and perhaps move on from this unfortunate blight.

He will at least have his trophies to gaze at, after he mercifully exits stage left.





























Or will he? ;)
 
REKX said:
No but you can't change history.

Nadal beat Federer when it counted, when they were both in their prime.

The recent matches are when they are both past their prime. Federer cried because he lost the 2009 Aus final, yet in 2017 he said he wouldn't have mind if he lost. The damage was done in 2009, it cannot be changed, that one meant more to both players, more was at stake.
Click to expand...

You forgot to say you were a Federer/Nadal fan here.

#Exposed
 
Hitman said:
Brainless strategy? It is the exact strategy he needed to get the better of Federer, he was just fortunate enough that his default game matched up perfectly to Federer's weakness. It would be brainless if he actually changed that.
Click to expand...
Brainless in that it doesn’t require any thought. The strategy he employs would not be possible without modern technology. It’s boring to watch.
 
REKX said:
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.

Click to expand...

Nadal is a god
The greatest thing in tennis history next to Fed lol

Nadal is a total warrior who always gives you 100 percent and never gives up
Plus he is a super warm guy
 
REKX said:
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.

Click to expand...


The greatest match I have ever saw was 1996 AtP finals on tv as it was perfect shot making from Sampras and Becker for hours on end
 
I am not even a Nadal fan is because of the way the court homogenization. Had Nadal played in 90's grass, and 90's hard court with 90's clay court speed were vastly different and win them all, I would be his fan. I'm sure that Nadal would won even more clay tournament and be considered a second tiered player if he could not even win Wimbledon with 90's grass or any one of two: US Open or Australian Open in 90's hard court. Even in 2000's most of the fans look down at RG champions due to the nature of clay court specialist.
 
coolboarder said:
I am not even a Nadal fan is because of the way the court homogenization. Had Nadal played in 90's grass, and 90's hard court with 90's clay court speed were vastly different and win them all, I would be his fan. I'm sure that Nadal would won even more clay tournament and be considered a second tiered player if he could not even win Wimbledon with 90's grass or any one of two: US Open or Australian Open in 90's hard court. Even in 2000's most of the fans look down at RG champions due to the nature of clay court specialist.
Click to expand...

He beat the greatest grass court player of all time, whilst he was in his Prime, in 2008. That alone says something about Nadal's achivements on grass.

The best version of Djokovic wouldn't come close to 2008 Wimbledon Federer. He was somewhat closely matched with the 2012-2016 Federer, 2008 and earlier was Federer at his greatest.

No one else beat Federer during those years in Wimbledon, and no one could have.

Sampras might have had a chance on grass, but we saw Federer beating Sampras in their Wimbledon match in 2001.
 
REKX said:
He beat the greatest grass court player of all time, whilst he was in his Prime, in 2008. That alone says something about Nadal's achivements on grass.

The best version of Djokovic wouldn't come close to 2008 Wimbledon Federer. He was somewhat closely matched with the 2012-2016 Federer, 2008 and earlier was Federer at his greatest.

No one else beat Federer during those years in Wimbledon, and no one could have.

Sampras might have had a chance on grass, but we saw Federer beating Sampras in their Wimbledon match in 2001.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my point is that it was taken place after the change to the soil and the type of grass. If the grass type didn't change one bit, Nadal might not be able to do what he did. It makes a lot of difference. If Wimbledon ever changed back to 90's grass type, we'd see a different game. The ball would skid even more than today's grass.
 
coolboarder said:
Yeah, my point is that it was taken place after the change to the soil and the type of grass. If the grass type didn't change one bit, Nadal might not be able to do what he did. It makes a lot of difference. If Wimbledon ever changed back to 90's grass type, we'd see a different game. The ball would skid even more than today's grass.
Click to expand...

I wish they left the damn grass alone as it was in Sampras day
No way that djoker , nadal or Murray could have beaten samp or fed on those style of courts
 
REKX said:
He beat the greatest grass court player of all time, whilst he was in his Prime, in 2008. That alone says something about Nadal's achivements on grass.

The best version of Djokovic wouldn't come close to 2008 Wimbledon Federer. He was somewhat closely matched with the 2012-2016 Federer, 2008 and earlier was Federer at his greatest.

No one else beat Federer during those years in Wimbledon, and no one could have.

Sampras might have had a chance on grass, but we saw Federer beating Sampras in their Wimbledon match in 2001.
Click to expand...

People forget the amazing speed of prime Federer
I forgot to but I watched him in his prime on ytube and he moves like a deer
 
FedFosterWallace said:
Or will he? ;)
Click to expand...
299371_10150419390649778_57870_n.jpg
 
Federer and Del Potro said:
You forgot to say you were a Federer/Nadal fan here.

#Exposed
Click to expand...

He said "when it counted Nadal beat Federer". Yes he did but when it counted more Federer won 20 slams and Nadal a couple less. Ask Raonic is he'd rather beat Fed at Wimbledon and not go on win the title or would he prefer to win Wimbledon without playing any big names.

Same with Rosol and Brown against Nadal.

The butthurt Vamos "think-tank" talk about the h2h far more than his real big achievement of winning 10(?) FO titles.
 
Sudacafan said:
Roger is the best player, Rafa the best competitor.
Click to expand...

Federer has more slams though, he won the seven rounds when it counted more times than Nadal so I'd say

Federer is the better player, Federer is the better competitor(wins more where it counts more - slams), Nadal is better in the h2h against his rivals.
 
TheFifthSet said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nadal was never gonna win Wimbledon more than the odd time. It took him being in the form of his life, a below par Federer in the final and overall a very weak draw to get it done once and only repeated it in 2010 in a time frame where the tour was a mess.
 
augustobt said:
How can someone be the "best competitor" if he breaks and bend the rules on his favor?
Click to expand...
That, if true, is part of the “competition”. :D
Actually, what I mean and thought was understood, is that Nadal never loses against himself.
Never loses championship points, hardly ever allows comebacks from his opponents when dominating.
He is mentally stronger.
 
What about a Fedal Wimbledon final rematch 2018, 10 years later?
It’s just possible, as Nadal won’t skip grass.
 
Sudacafan said:
That, if true, is part of the “competition”. :D
Actually, what I mean and thought was understood, is that Nadal never loses against himself.
Never loses championship points, hardly ever allows comebacks from his opponents when dominating.
He is mentally stronger.
Click to expand...
Part? A bad one, specially.

You can say that he's the best "fighter" in that aspect, but "competitor"? That's one of his worse things, by the definition of competitor.
 
Sudacafan said:
What about a Fedal Wimbledon final rematch 2018, 10 years later?
It’s just possible, as Nadal won’t skip grass.
Click to expand...
Actually not. A rematch 10 YEARS later seems pointless, however, we could've had a rematch in 2009 - the very year after. You know why it didn't happened? Because Nadal forfeited Wimbledon 10 minutes after the Draw came out. That's how he skips tournaments left and right, that's what he always did.
 
augustobt said:
Actually not. A rematch 10 YEARS later seems pointless, however, we could've had a rematch in 2009 - the very year after. You know why it didn't happened? Because Nadal forfeited Wimbledon 10 minutes after the Draw came out. That's how he skips tournaments left and right, that's what he always did.
Click to expand...
Well, if it is a sin to skip a tournament, what would you call it to skip a whole surface calendar?
 
Sudacafan said:
Well, if it is a sin to skip a tournament, what would you call it to skip a whole surface calendar?
Click to expand...
Like Nadal did this spring with the hard-court tournaments? Because after Australia he skipped Acapulco, Indian Wells and Miami claiming an 'injury' - a week later the latter he was winning a comfortable 3 setter against World No4 without dropping sweat. Or would you prefer the mysterious injury that came after the Rosol loss in 2012 where he had to skip the entire Fall/Winter hard-court season? Do you REALLY want me to start listing such occasions?
 
I dislike his gamesmanship and those passing shots he used to do from ridiculous angle. I feel like Fed outplayed him in a lot of matches he ended up losing and that his brilliance went unrewarded at times.
 
augustobt said:
Like Nadal did this spring with the hard-court tournaments? Because after Australia he skipped Acapulco, Indian Wells and Miami claiming an 'injury' - a week later the latter he was winning a comfortable 3 setter against World No4 without dropping sweat. Or would you prefer the mysterious injury that came after the Rosol loss in 2012 where he had to skip the entire Fall/Winter hard-court season? Do you REALLY want me to start listing such occasions?
Click to expand...
Please share with us the proofs you got about Nadal faking injuries.
 
augustobt said:
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Click to expand...


Even a kid can see the pattern of imaginjuries, ha.

Fun fact: Every time he gets his ahhs kicked by a big hitter, he is/was/gets berry berry injured before/throughout/after the match.

10 years of the same crahp and counting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

REKX
  • Poll Poll
I want your excuses why Nadal won Wimbledon 2008
2 3
Replies
137
Views
9K
Nadalgaenger
Nadalgaenger
REKX
Reasons Why Nadal Dominated Federer During Their Prime?
2 3 4
Replies
172
Views
16K
ewiewp
E
REKX
Why was the Federer Nadal 2007 Wimbledon Match so close?
2 3
Replies
103
Views
7K
Rafa24
Rafa24
REKX
  • Locked
Why So Much Nadal Hate Here?
5 6 7
Replies
326
Views
29K
mikeler
mikeler
REKX
Nadal Consistently Beat Federer When It Mattered
2
Replies
98
Views
7K
Jonas78
J
Back
Top