Final Nadal - Djokovic - Queen's 2008

[faeaki7]

I remember watching this finale in awe of these two, it was such a slug fest and for Nadal to win it in straights was equally impressive, its no wonder Djokovic has wanted to beat Nadal on clay he has had SO many losses to Nadal over the years, including last years US open in the final and don't say everyone that he was tired, he had a day extra off because of the rain to recoup! it was Nadals will and intensity that over whelmed him, something that has been missing against Novak this year .

[chachris08]

are you sure this was 2008?i thought nadal no longer wear caprice in 2008....vamos rafa.. you are truly the best.

[cj397]

@chachris08 no 2009 is when he stopped. this is the outfit he wore during his amazing french open of 2008

[rebelranger]

Federer played a great French open, probably the best he's ever played. But saying Djokovic can't play on anything other than hard courts is really stupid. He's won 3 Masters series events on clay, been a runner-up twice, and a semifinalist at Roland Garros 3 times and you say he can't play on anything other than hard courts? I'm not understanding you're logic.

[rebelranger]

Roger was possibly the better clay court player from 2004-07 I'll give you that, but that was before Djokovic had really developed. Furthermore, Federer never had Djokovic on his side of the draw all those years at RG, and the one year he did Novak had a wtf match in 2009. From 2008 on, Novak has consistently challenged Nadal more on clay than Federer, and has more clay titles than Federer during that period, which was my point in the FIRST PLACE.

[rebelranger]

Look at Djokovic's record on clay in 2008 and 2009 (last year doesn't really count because Nole changed his serve in midseason). In 2008 he won Rome, lost in the semi's in Monte Carlo (to Federer), Hamburg, and Roland Garros (to Nadal). In 2009 he won in Belgrade, lost in the finals in both Monte Carlo and Rome to Nadal (he beat Federer in Rome), and lost in the Semi's at Madrid in an epic match to Nadal. Soderling beside the 2 RG finals, has done nothing on clay.

[rebelranger]

They are not excuses it is fact. Nadal had sore knees which is why he couldn't beat Soderling that year. Look at last year's French when Nadal crushed Soderling. I'm not saying Djokovic is better on clay courts than he is on hard courts, but he's better than Federer on clay courts. Also, Djokovic did not have both Del Potro and Soderling in his draw in 2009, only Del Potro, and in a one on one match up on clay I'm sure Djokovic would have beaten Del Potro in 2009.

[cj397]

@rebelranger lol nah, robin played much better in their R16 match in 2009 french. "sore knees".

and roger is the 2nd best clay courter of this era... djokovic does not touch roger on clay.

[rebelranger]

@cj397 Roger isn't the second best clay court player in the era, he's just lucky he wasn't on the same side of the draw all the time like Djokovic was. And of course Robin played better at the round of 16 match, because Rafa was injured. Hell, you wonder why he missed Wimbledon that same year. And speaking of Djokovic, I think his win over a healthy Rafa today at Madrid proves he's more than a capable clay court player.

[cj397]

@rebelranger This decade roger def was. this is the end of the 2000's. roger WAS. and yes NOW that novak's finally beaten nadal on clay in such a nice way especially since he beat him on hard 2 tourneys in a row, he's "more than capable". my comment was 2 months ago. Rafa was not INJURED when he lost, he makes bullshit up all the time.

[rebelranger]

@cj397 Oh please. The only bullshit is coming out of your mouth trying to say he makes it up. Rafa had tendinitis going into Madrid that year and pulled out of Wimbledon. He doesn't miss a grand slam unless there's a legitimate reason. Look at this years Australian Open when he kept playing with an injury against Ferrer. He knew his legs weren't good enough to beat Ferrer that night and he still kept playing.

[youziness]

@rebelranger rafa had tendinitis since like 2006. When his physical abilities is not 100% he will blame because its important part of his game. Too bad its tennis and federer did win slams without being 100%. Clay court requires top strength and physical condition so its not surprising fed and nadal is looking shaky, their physical dropped. Novak is best physically now and it dosen't look like his game changed a lot, i'll never rate him above nadal and fed. Once he tire out no more.

[lighten098]

@youziness Did you watch The french open finals this year? Did Nadal look 100% coming to the French open this year when he beat Federer. I say Nadal wasn't himself coming to the french open and still not at his best he was able to win the cup. At the first round people where shock how Nadal almost lost to Isner. Overall, this proves once again that he is a beast.

[youziness]

@lighten098 I can say nobody was 100% in this french too. There are no challengers at all. Soderling will never hit like 2009 and murray is injured. Federer is history, 30, 5 yrs older and play 1 handed with poor stamina. Nadal was only beast at 08 10. Watching nadal's performance in the final, 05-07's federer will possibly beat him. This year's french win is least impressive. I guess the time is not right yet.

[lighten098]

@youziness Yes, Djokovic and Federer where at their best. Especially Djokovic coming from a break against Fonini. Why do you bring up Soderling in 2009 just because Nadal lost. That means nothing to him. Nadal is still young and he can still accomplish a lot in his career.

[cj397]

@rebelranger look how many finals and titles roger has on clay over novak. tell me he is RIGHT NOW a "better" (horrible word in tennis terms) clay court player.

[youziness]

@rebelranger U said that but djokovic got kicked by a sup par federer in french 2011. He cant play outside hard court due to the bounce but nadal is good matchup for him though.

[Saberq1]

@youziness FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rebelranger]

Federer may still be able to beat Djokovic on clay, but clay courts definitely favor Djokovic. Federer is more likely to beat Djokovic on the low bouncing, fast grass courts at Wimbledon which Djokovic's game isn't well suited for.

[rebelranger]

I hope you're not suggesting that the Australian Open is slower than the French Open clay. That's about as ridiculous of an assertion I've ever heard. As far as Djokovic at Roland Garros, he's only been knocked out early once in 2009. He made it to the semifinals twice and the quarterfinals twice, 3 of those 4 times he was knocked out by Nadal. Federer would have been knocked out as well if he had to face Nadal that early.

[rebelranger]

5 years isn't almost a decade it's a half decade. Learn to do math first. Furthermore, Federer would not beat Djokovic 4 out of 4 times on clay at the French Open. Federer barely got through a pair of 5 setters in 09 and was lucky Djokovic was eliminated so early. And Djokovic's best surface isn't the Aussie Open, it's clay courts. The only player who's consistently beaten Djokovic on clay is Nadal, whom nobody can beat on clay when he's on his game.

[masterofmucus]

@rebelranger federer can beat djokovic on clay anyday because of the topspin his forehand has as its much much harder to counter topspin on clay than the slow hard courts of aussie open. btw if djokovic cant get thru the early stages of roland garros, how is he a gud clay court player???

[Baddieko]

@rebelranger haha u talk rubbish. How is djokovic better on clay than hard court? He has beaten everyone on hard courts. U must take into context clay courts dont have as much competition as hard courts. Dont say excuses like federer was luck on 2009 or nadal sore knees. His side of draw has del potro and soderling who played much better that year's french open, i doubt djokovic can get through soderling in the semis even if they met.

[rebelranger]

All you do is come up with lame excuses that are flawed logic to try to dumb down Nadal, one of the greatest players ever. Well guess what, excuses are like assholes, everyone has one. In your case, you have many. You're not even worth debating, because you can't come up with anything that's credible.

[rebelranger]

You say Wimbledon is the 2nd slowest and yet it has more aces EVERY YEAR than any other Grand Slam, then say it's slower in the 2nd week, yet we get big servers dominating the finals and service exhibitions like the Roddick-Federer match. Furthermore, you have absolutely no proof that Plexicusion is slower than Rebound Ace. 

[rebelranger]

It is not double standard, you just have no competence. He was coming off a knee injury that stopped him from playing at Wimbledon and he had an abdominal injury when he lost to Del Potro. Meanwhile, you're the one with double standards, first you say that the high bounces on clay courts benefit Nadal more and then try saying he benefits from low bounces at Wimbledon, WTF? Furthermore, you have no credibility on the pace of the courts.

[89Pleasek]

"you just talk"

what am i supposed to do here? dance salsa?

I always RESPOND to somebodys posts, I never start something by MYSELF. Thats a difference. If I came here and there were no posts I wouldnt write shit.

[89Pleasek]

I wanna watch everything in tennis and I dont see no brain in Nadals game. I dont think he spent hours preparing his tactic which is always hit to your oponents backhand.

If there was a match Federer-Federer this would be the most epic match of all times with players hitting all kinds of shots. If there was a match Nadal-Nadal we'd see them hit 200 shots in a rally from the baseline. You prefere the 2 option I suppose

[89Pleasek]

@dud321xyz

Lol Borg retired at 25 in his peak. Bullshit. He was drained and tired. Borgs peak was around 78-79, already in 80 there were signs that he was in slight decline. You dare say that I know nothing about tennis but yet you come up with the biggest bullshit ever

[89Pleasek]

I'm not blaming them, they did what they wanted. But it surely helped Nadal at Wimbledon.

"tennis is actualy long ralies"

well since around 2002 only, before that it there was purely s-v

"nadal is the most exited player the game has ever knew he had historical matches by every meaning of the word australian semie2009 and ausralian 2009final wimbledon2008"

thats your opinion, but isnt it funny that each time he has an exciting match its with federer,maybe federer is making them exciting?

[rebelranger]

As far as Rafa's struggles on hard courts, it has nothing to do with his movement on the courts. Try playing on a hard court yourself and you'll see it's easier than a clay court. All you do is sprint and stop. Rafa struggled in his early years on hard courts because he didn't have the big game that he has now. He didn't have a serve or a backhand, plus he would wear out by the time he got to the US Open. Now he has all the weapons to win grand slams on ALL surfaces.

[rebelranger]

Nadal is 2-3 against Del Potro on hard, but two of Del Potro's wins like Djokovic, came when Rafa was not healthy last year. Davydenko you can make a case for, but every player has someone that always has their number. And as for Federer being a better clay court player than Rafa is a hard court player, that might be true in Rafa's early years, but it's not now. Rafa has two hard court grand slams and will win more.

[89Pleasek]

Bullshit again.When Del Potro beats Nadal on hard courts in 2009 then Nadal was playing like crap.But when Nadal beats Federer in the 2009 Australian Open its ok.Stop using double standards.Its your problem that you cant show up at your best.Del Potro also beat Nadal in Miami 2009 though and that was one of 3 or 4 matches that Nadal lost till Madrid Masters 2009

"Nadal is better than Federer on hard courts now"Well Federer is almost 30 years old.Why dont you compare him to his own generation?

[rebelranger]

As far as players having positive records against Rafa on hard courts, Federer and Murray are both break even with Nadal. Federer is 3-3, while Murray is 4-4. Djokovic does have a positive record against Rafa on hard courts, but many of those wins came against Rafa either before Rafa developed into a hard court player or last year when Rafa wasn't healthy. Furthermore, Rafa has beaten Djokovic on the bigger hard court tournaments, like the Olympics and the US Open.

[89Pleasek]

When Nadal beat Djokovic twice on hard courts in 2007 it was ok, but when Djokovic beat Nadal on hard couts in whichever year then Nadal wasnt as good on hard courts. Dont bullshit. How many times Nadal has beat enMurray on hard court since the 2008 US Open? Once. And lost four. And believe me he'll lose more if they keep playing. That's why it's 4-4 currently (expect Murray to collect a couple more wins in the future).

[rebelranger]

And you're reason for not liking Nadal is a crock of shit. First, he doesn't outmuscle players. He outruns a lot of them yes, but he's not serving 150 mph bombs like Andy Roddick. He also uses a lot more strategy than you think, like adjusting his game to fit grass and hard courts (serving harder, hitting flatter, and coming to the net more). And really, either way, rather he's outhitting or outrunning, it's great tennis to see someone like Rafa who gives 100% all the time.

[89Pleasek]

He is now. Has an average 1st serve speed higher than Federer. And Roddick hits a 150 mph bomb once a year, dont exaggerate. His average is around 130 mph and Nadal can serve like that easily now.

[rebelranger]

Also you have no solid proof that Rebound Ace is faster than Plexicusion. Just because Nadal got hammered one year does not make one court slower or faster in the other. In early 2007 he was still young and developing. He wasn't the player he would be in 2008 or this year. And of course there will be more aces in the first couple of days, that's when most of the matches are played duhh.

[rebelranger]

Nadal hardly struggled in the first week at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2008. He had one close match in 2006 before playing Federer and barely lost a single set in 2008 before the finals. And really, it doesn't slow down that much during the second week. The big servers still manage to make it to the finals year in and year out and we get a serve exhibition for the finals like we did with the 2009 Roddick-Federer match.

[89Pleasek]

He almost lost to Kendrick at the 2006 Wimbledon in either the first or second round. In 2005 he lost to Muller in the second round. In 2007 he was almost eliminated by Soderling and then Youzhny. In 2008 Gulbis gave him a scare (finished in a 4th set tie-break). And dont tell me that hes getting in his rythm in the early rounds cause he hardly losses a set at the French Open in any round. Even in Australia he reached the semis in both 08 and 09 without losing a set, same for this years US Open.

[89Pleasek]

Everybody has his cryptonite. I mean Federer in his prime lost only to Nadal and mostly on clay courts. Can we say the same thing about Nadal? No. He's not even the best hard court player out there cause both Djokovic and Murray beat him where they want and how they want. Nadal will have to bring some similar numbers like Federer in 04-06 to even be considered at the absolute pinnacle of the sport. I mean his US Open trophy is his first hard court tournament won in over 1,5 years!

[89Pleasek]

I don't like Nadal cause all he does is outmuscled, outsweated and outgymed. He still uses his legs more than his brain and I wanna watch tennis, not athletics or a marathone.

[89Pleasek]

Murray might be 1 year younger than Nadal but that doesn't prove anything. Particular players peak at different ages, Nadal will worn out earlier than, say, Murray who peaked later. Borg was already finished at 25 years of age cause he started winning at a teenager. I really expect Nadal to fade quickly in a year or 2.

[rebelranger]

Another thing, don't try to act like I don't know how a hard court plays. I live in America where everything is 99% hard courts, and all I've ever played on are hard courts. Moving on hard courts is easier than moving on clay, because you don't have to learn how to slide.

[89Pleasek]

If it was easier to move on clay courts than on hard courts Nadal would be a 5+ hard court Slam winner by now as he is one of the best movers in the game. On hard courts you have to be more precautious as you can get injured after 1 false step.

[rebelranger]

As far as Rafa's earlier results at the Aussie Open, Murray and Tsonga are both good players. Murray's game suits a slower hard court like the Rebound Ace, and Tsonga's game suits a faster hard court like Plexicusion. The first Murray match was while Nadal was still developing his all around game and the Tsonga loss was before Rafa really broke out in 2008 to win RG, Wimbledon, Toronto, and the Olympics. He would have won the US Open that year if he wasn't tired and was healthy.

[89Pleasek]

@rebelranger

"a slower hard court like the Rebound Ace, and Tsonga's game suits a faster hard court like Plexicusion"

Dont bullshit, Rebound Ace was faster than Plexicusion. If it was slower Nadal wouldn't've lost that badly to Gonzalez in 2007 struggling throughout the tournament (with Kohli,Murray almost beat him) and in 08 he reached the semi without losing a set.

Federer needed 3 attempts to win on the new surface (regardless of his form) and dominated it in 04-07.

[rebelranger]

So despite being the "fastest court in the majors" the US Open had fewer service aces than any GS except the FO, and for what you called the 2nd slowest court, Wimbledon had more service aces than any other slam tournament this year. That is not how a slow surface works.  A slow surface benefits the returner more than the server. Furthermore, you claim that the Aussie Open slowed down and yet on both the men and womens side there's more service aces than the U.S. Open.

[89Pleasek]

Moreover when grass gets wet (and it rains a lot in July in Great Britain), the courts get slippery therefore the ball bounces very low, that's why slices are still darn effective on grass courts and it's easier to ace than on hard courts. Btw out of those 938 aces at Wimbledon this year 200 were in the Mahut-Isner match and I bet that more than 60 % of aces were served in the first couple of days.

[rebelranger]

And on the women's side, Wimbledon has been dominated by the two biggest servers in the women's game, especially Venus who hasn't done shit the last 8 or so years away from Wimbledon. Here's the number of aces by the top 10 ace hitters at each tournament this year.

Australian Open- 814 aces men, 245 women

French Open- 506 aces men, 221 women

Wimbledon- 938 aces men, 306 women

US Open- 614 aces men, 172 women

[rebelranger]

Wimbledon is NOT the second slowest grand slam. It's probably still the fastest. Would it kill you to actually look at the stats? There are more aces, shorter rallies, and less service breaks at Wimbledon than any of the other grand slams. Heck, Wimbledon is still dominated by the big servers, with Fed winning 6 times (yes he's a big server, he's 7th on tour in Aces), while Roddick made it to the finals 3 times, as well as Berdych and Philippoussis.

[89Pleasek]

Grass is a specific surface. I agree that it's darn fast in the first week but once the tournament progresses it's turning into plain ground. You think why Nadal struggled against Peztschner and Haase but then dominated the second week? Why did Nadal struggle in 2005-2007 in the first week but then was a big force in the second?

[89Pleasek]

The number of aces doesn't necessarily mean that it's the fastest surface. Ivo Karlovic hit 77 aces on clay courts a couple of moths ago and if the Mahut-Isner match didn't last 3 days that record would still stand. Grass is still a pretty fast surface but look at the draws in say 2001 and compare it to 2008. In 2001 you got 7/8 serve-and-volleyers, now you got 7/8 baseliners (Federer is still more of a baseliner than a serve-and-volleyer, he uses this tactic 10 % in the match at most).

[89Pleasek]

Yea, in 2007 he barely defeated a 19-year old Murray and then got hammered by Gonzalez but in 2008 he reached the semi without losing a set (yet still got hammered by Tsonga lol), the ball bounces higher on this new blue surface than on the green one which definately works for Nadal.

"most tennis player prefer hard courts because its a lot easy to move" you have no idea how hard it is to move on hard courts, just because Nadal's looping the ball on clay doesn't mean that it's hard

[rebelranger]

@dud321xyz I agree. You said everything I tried to say in much fewer words.

[89Pleasek]

The Us Open has been the same since 2005 but Wimbledon has been slower every year since around 2002. The new blue surface played on at the Australian Open since 2008 is actually slower than its green version. Isn't it weird that he before 2008 Nadal has reached only 1 quarterfinal at the Ozzie Open and once they introduced the blue surface he reached the semi without losing a set.

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek Yes, Rafa isn't the greatest hard court player, it's his weakest surface, but it is absolutely stupid to try to use Federer to dumb down Nadal. As for the speed of the courts at Wimbledon, it is overstated how much it has slowed down. There's still more winners, more aces, and less service breaks at Wimbledon than any other of the other grand slams. Also, the newer surface at the Aussie Open is faster than the Rebound Ace. Heck, there's more aces hit there than at the US Open.

[89Pleasek]

"but it is absolutely stupid to try to use Federer to dumb down Nadal."

And why is that? If Nadal wants to be the new Goat he can't have a total of 16 or more Slams only 2 of which have come on hard courts. Nadal isn't even currently best player on hard courts, Murray has beat him 4 times in a row on this surface regardless of the form of Nadal, those weren't 4 matches in 4 days when Nadal was struggling, he beat him 4 times in a 1,5 year span including 2 Slams, 2 Masters + an exho

[hOOdilol]

Its incredible. Everybody knows his the king of clay prolly the best of all times in that surface. Couple of years ago he had probs playing on hard courts. Suddenly he started to get the feeling of the ball and he began to win hard court tournaments. But now he wins Queens on grass and most important Wimbledon?. Man his developing himself into a complete all around player man. Neither Sampras or Federer were good at clay. But this guy plays in anything.

[reefric]

what are you talking about,federer is the second best player on clay..watch some tennis on t.v man!

[RafaelNadal11]

Actually no, Djokovic is better than Federer on Clay. Of course, Rafa is the greatest Clay tennis player in the history of the game.

[reefric]

that´s your opinion and you´re entitled to it..

[RafaelNadal11]

At least, we can agree on that. You are entitled to your own opinion, too. Thank you.

[reefric]

sure..you´re welcome!

[89Pleasek]

Djokovic better than Federer on clay? Based on what?

[1234xenia1234]

@RafaelNadal11 eeeeh okay... lets look at the facts 4 2 seconds...

Federer: 4 french open finals + french open champion

Djokovic: 0 french open finals

if djokovic is better on clay... how come he hasnt been in a french open final yet??

[rebelranger]

@1234xenia1234 Djokovic is a better clay court player than Federer is now. Use to, you could make the arguement that Federer was the second best clay court player on tour. But even in the year that Federer won the French Open, Djokovic beat Federer a couple times at clay court warm-ups, and Federer was lucky that Djokovic had a 3rd round exit that year. Also, Djokovic hasn't been to a FO final because he's been in Nadal's draw everytime, except for 2009.

[Baddieko]

@rebelranger during 2009 djokovic wont make it pass federer in FO anyway. Del potro and soderling played much better on clay than him. He is too inconsistent in clay cause of poor physical & mental shape, disappearing in 09 10. Federer will like it much more if he meets djokovic in those finals 06,07,08. And he is almost one decade younger than federer right now.

[rebelranger]

@Baddieko I disagree. In 2009 Djokovic was consistently in every clay court final and nearly beat Nadal twice. Federer that year was playing terrible on clay until he played Nadal when he was tired and had sore knees in Madrid. Of course Federer would prefere to play Djokovic in those finals. Anyone would because Nadal's the best clay court player ever. And Djokovic isn't a decade younger than Federer, he's only 6 years younger.

[rebelranger]

@rebelranger Furthermore, Djokovic gives Nadal a little more trouble on clay than Federer does. Sure Federer has beaten Rafa a couple times on clay but one of those times was in Madrid when Rafa had sore knees and was tired after he had a long match with Djokovic. Djokovic always plays Nadal really tough on clay, he just can't finish the job which is so tough to do against Rafa on clay.

[Baddieko]

@rebelranger So did djokovic beat nadal before in clay? 0. Still the same results. Of course i know his age, more than 5 yrs is almost a decade younger than federer. What matters is roland garros, those useless 2 setter master shields had only nadal playing in them, djokovic can meet him in final every time and lose to randoms in french open. His best game is aussie slow hardcourt. 06 07 08 09 FO if djokovic is in final, sure federer will take it all.

[RafaelNadal11]

Yes, this Queen's 2008 Final between Djokovic and Nadal, was the "Dream Final of Champions"!

[almeida062]

why would they call it that when neither of them had won a grass torunament before this match?

[sophierosemary]

Dont you watch much Tennis? The only guy can has beaten Fed at the french for the last 4 years is Nadal.Nadal got lucky at Wimby last year as Fed was not playing well and even then he only just won."Federer not good at clay" WEIRD!!!!!! I agree on Sampras though.

[2charliep]

I'm sorry but that's just silly, both Nadal AND Federer played fanatastic tennis in the Wimbledon final. Perhaps you've not heard, but it's been called greatest tennis match EVER. The fact that Rafa won had nothing to do with luck, in fact if it hadn't rained it probably wouldn't have got past the 3rd set.

[89Pleasek]

Roger's whole 2008 season was a dip.He didn't lose to Djokovic in 3 sets at the AO, won 4 games in th e FO final and end the year without a Masters title accidently.Wimbly 2008 was called the greatest because of its stake and drama,not because of its high level. Nadal played his best whilst Federer was struggling all the time, even though it took Nadal 9-7 in the 5th to defeat an average Federer.

The best match in terms of quality was Fed-Safin AO 2005. Wimbly 2008 isn't even close to that.

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek Oh please. You call the 2008 Federer average? He still won the U.S. Open and reached the finals at both the French Open and Wimbledon. He didn't even drop a set at Wimbledon that year until he met Nadal, who by the way, pushed Federer to 5 sets at Wimbledon the year before. By 2008 Nadal was just better than Federer, and he's a lot better now.

And the 2008 Wimbledon Final WAS the greatest both because of the drama and HIGH quality tennis.

[89Pleasek]

By his standards 2008 was poor. I know you wanna make it look as if it was one of his best years so that Nadal beat a best Federer on his surface. He lost as many matches in 2008 as in 2004-2006 put together, won 1 Slam compared to 3 for a couple of years, won no Masters titles, failed to win the Masters Cup, his win ratio dropped from 95 % to around 80%, won only 4 tournaments the whole year (3 of which are the lowest ranked tournies). Don't think that was caused by Nadal's improvements

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek ok first off winning 4 tournaments in a single year is still a lot for ANY player. Federer won 4 during all of last year. Furthermore, most of those losses came either in the early part of 2008 when he was sick or to Nadal during the clay and grass court seasons. At that time he still managed to make 3 clay court finals on what is suppose to be Roger's weakest surface. 

[89Pleasek]

Well for a guy like Federer who was winning around 10 titles for the previous 5 seasons winning 1 Slam and 3 small tournaments is worse than average. If Federer was ok he wouldn't've lost to random players throughout the year, not only Nadal. As I said, as much as Nadal improved in 2008, Federer played to a certain degree worse than before.

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek He was only SLIGHTLY worst than before. The year before when he was "better" Nadal pushed him to 5 sets at Wimbledon and would have won if he didn't choke the 5th set away, like Federer did in the Aussie Open in 2009 against Rafa. The 2008 and definitely the 2010 Rafa would have beaten Federer at the 2007 Wimbledon.

[89Pleasek]

@rebelranger

That "slightly" meant that he won 30% of what he did in any of the 4 previous years.

4 titles in total compared to 10

1 Slam compared to 3

0 Masters titles compared to 3,4

Losses to guys like Fish, Stepanek,Simon, Roddick compared to losses only to Nadal only on clay

Saying that Nadal from 2008 would've won against Federer at Wimbledon in 2007 is completely hypthetical. I could say that any Federer from 2004-2006 would beat Nadal handily at the 2010 Us Open, prove me wrong.

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek You're overstating how much Federer "declined" in 2008. He would have won 3 slams in 2008 if it weren't for Nadal, and Masters series titles are so overrated. As for the 2004-2006 Federer, well the 2006 Nadal still won a set off of Federer at Wimbledon and nearly won another set. Nadal, with the serve he had at the US Open this year, could beat Federer at a grand slam and away from the clay courts. The real decline in Federer's game came this year, not 2008.

[89Pleasek]

Ohhhh for a Nadal fan to say that "Masters series titles are so overrated" this is huge! Some Nadal fans say that Nadal's 18 Masters titles are more valueable than Federer's 16 Slams.

If it weren't for Nadal, for would've have lost a single match in 3 years. In 2008 Federer was beaten all around not only by Nadal but by guys like Roddick, Blake, Fish, Stepanek. Karlovic, Simon, guy's who he normally pwned for years. So what, they got better too?

[89Pleasek]

Yes, sure, the 2010 US Open Nadal would've beaten the 2006 US Open Federer, keep dreaming. The only time Nadal beat Federer on hard courts in 2004-2007 was when Federer had an ankle injury.

"As for the 2004-2006 Federer, well the 2006 Nadal still won a set off of Federer at Wimbledon and nearly won another se"

Do you actually know that grass is a totally different surface than hard courts? Today's grass courts work more in favor for Nadal than hard courts.

[89Pleasek]

And lol at your "almost won another set". But he didn't. Because Federer didn't let him to. End of story. When Federer lost the third set in the 2006 Wimbledon final he raced to a 5-1 lead in the next set in 20 minutes. You're so underestimating Federer at his prime, they guy was a beast at his best, hardly lost a set whenever he played, Nadal won his first hard court tournament since March 2009 and you're saying that it seems like he's the best fucking hard court player of all time. get a life

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek Ok Mr. Very IMMATURE. You pimp out Federer to be the greatest thing to ever walk the earth and yet he has what, a 7-14 record against Nadal. And grass is different from hard courts, it's FASTER. Thats why so many matches on grass have a bunch of aces and few service breaks, like the Federer-Roddick match and the Isner-Mahut match. Honestly, you're a complete waste of time and can't even keep cool. I've got a life, one that recognizes that Nadal now is BETTER than 2006-07 Federer

[89Pleasek]

Were you born yesterday? There were some analysis in the tele about today's grass speed. The organisers made the surface slower so that it lasted longer. You think why Nadal won Wimbledon with his loopy game?

I bet Nadal is in your retarted mind the best player of all times, especially that he's Murray's and Del Potro's bitch on hard courts.

"Nadal now is BETTER than 2006-07 Federer" ok I'm done with you, really get a life kid

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek Actually I'm about 6 years older than you are, and you sound more childish by calling me retarded. Yes grass today is slower than what it use to, but it is still faster than most if not all hard courts. That's why matches on grass have only a handful of breaks and feel like you're watching a service exhibition. And the reason why Nadal wins at Wimbledon is because of his lefty slice serve, which is more effective on grass, plus he's a GREAT net player.

[89Pleasek]

If you wanna see some good net players go watch some tennis clips from the 90's. Nadal has a decent net game at most it's still something today since we've got 99 % baseliners.

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek Furthermore, Nadal won at Queens, where the grass is still considered to be as fast as Wimbledon was 10 years ago. As for Nadal's losses to Murray and Del Potro, he was hurt when he played both of them at the U.S. Open, much like Federer was sick at the Aussie Open and most of the beginning of 2008. Rafa also wasn't on top of his game at this year's Aussie Open.

[89Pleasek]

Murray actually beat him the last 2 hard courts Slam they played and almost did so at the 2007 Australian Open when he was 19 (led 2-1 in sets), also beat him the last 4 matches on hard courts they played. What, Nadal was injured in Toronto this year too when Murray steamrolled him again?

Del Potro beat him 3 straight times on hard courts, one of which came in Miami 2009 when (Nadal's only loss next to Rotterdam in the first half of 2009) and will do so again if they meet on hard courts.

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek As far as when Nadal played Murray, his knees were giving in by the time he reached the US Open and he was worn down physically. Del Potro did beat Rafa 3 straight times, but as mentioned one of them when Rafa was injured and all of them before Rafa improved his serve. If Del Potro was healthy at the US Open this year, Rafa would have beat him. Federer is a great player, but stop trying to use every freaken excuse in the book to dumb down Nadal.

[89Pleasek]

"If Del Potro was healthy at the US Open this year, Rafa would have beat him" This is the overstatement of the century for a guy who got pwned 6-2 6-2 6-2 the year before and couldn't compete the following year because of a serious injury. It's something like : If Nadal (in his then form) fancied to reach the final of the 2009 French Open, he would be torn apart by Federer in the final.

That's the biggest bullshit ever, why don't you Nadal fans get on earth already.

[89Pleasek]

I can tell you 10 other statements and all of them would be true. If Federer was 5 years younger, Nadal would still be seeking the number 1 position or a Slam outside the French Open. If Murray reached the semis of the US Open this year, he would've won the whole tournament. If Djokovic wasn't shattered in the final of the US this year losing steam after 2 sets, he'd won the final too.

If, if, if... you're talking about Nadal as if he was the best fucking hard court player of all time

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek ummm, you're the one that's not on earth. And I'm not making Nadal out to be the best hard court player of all time, you're just making up bullshit to try to water down Nadal because you're a Federer fan that sees Rafa as a threat to break Roger's record. You come up with all these stupid excuses, Nadal's a clay court player, they slowed down the courts so Rafa can win on other surfaces. That's all BULLSHiT, and yet you completely ignore Nadal's accomplishments AND improvements.

[89Pleasek]

Federer's record is untouchable as for now, you know what winning another 7 or more Slams is? That's not what I'm on about.

They actually did slow grass by quite a bit. Wanna know how many baseliners won Wimbledon since 1981? 2. Connors did it in 1982 and Agassi in 1992. Since 2002 not a single serve-and-volleyer has gone futher than in the quarters. Heck, even Federer who can ser-and-vol well didn't do it often during his 2003-2007 streak cause there was no need to.

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek And if Federer was 5 years younger, it's not like Rafa couldn't beat him. Heck a rookie Rafa beat Federer in straight sets on a hard court, and nearly beat him again a year later in 3 straight sets. That was before Rafa even won his first French Open. Murray is a good player, but the way Nadal was playing at this year's US Open no one would have beat him.

[89Pleasek]

Well a 5 year older Federer is still not a machine. We're talking about Grand Slam matches on hard and grass courts. If Nadal couldn't beat Federer in the second slowest Slam (Wimbledon) why would he do it in Australia or the US Open? We're talking about this super Federer everyone almost forgot about, not the 2008-2009 human version whom Nadal in his prime barely beat in 2 finals. The 2010 US Open Nadal would win a set at most against a 2006 Federer in a Slam.

[89Pleasek]

Ok shouldn'tve called you retarted, sorry for that, but some stuff you write here are really taken out from your Nadal world. Nadal will never reach the level on hard court or grass that Federer reached around 2004-2006.

Btw Nadal has won Queen's only once (when he was at his absolute best) and he is yet to reach even another semi there which pretty much proves my point as Nadal has reached 4 Wimbledon finals (compared to 1 at Queen's).

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek First, before you say Nadal will never reach Federer's level on hard or grass courts please remember he is only 24, and so far has more grand slams than Federer had at this point in his career. Albiet 5 of them have been on clay, but Nadal still has a long ways to go. And when Rafa won at Queens and Wimbledon wasn't Rafa at his very best. IMO, his very best was this year's U.S. Open when he started serving 215 km bombs.

[89Pleasek]

Well according to you he should be undefeated for the next 10 years thanks to his new serve. How did he lose in his very next tournamet to Garcia-Lopez then? He should've double bageled him at least.

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek Furthermore, if "get a life" is your only arguement that Federer is better than Nadal, then you're better off debating a wall.

[rebelranger]

@89Pleasek And furthermore, Nadal was winning in 2008 on surfaces he hadn't won before, like two grass court tournaments and the fast hard courts (at the Olympics) which had given Nadal so much trouble until he won at the U.S. Open this year. So yeah, it is DEFINITELY Rafa's improvements. Heck, most of Roger's GS titles came before Rafa really developed into more than just a "clay court player."

[tvvideos365]

nadal got lucky at wimbledon last year eased throguh the first 2 sets on serve in the third then it rained nadal was all ovr him federer had an amazing comeback and nadal still won he was not lucky

[rebelranger]

Federer was the one that was lucky to push the match to 5 sets. For one, the rain delay helped Federer to start fresh. And two, that backhand down the line when Nadal had match point in the 4th set tiebreak was a lucky shot. If that had gone out Nadal would have won in four sets instead of five.

[tvvideos365]

yh i know if you read my comment properly you'll see that i was saying that nadal wasn't lucky

[BrotherTree1]

@rebelranger yep exactly. federer even got lucky to even win a game let alone win 7 games in that 5th set because rafa got down on himself after losing that 4th set.

[89Pleasek]

Actually Federer was/is a great clay courter. Federer's a better clay court player than Nadal a hard court player. In his prime years Federer was the absolute dominator of grass and hard courts and was has been the 2nd best player on clay after Nadal in the last 6 seasons. Nadal is not even top 3 when hard courts are concerned, even now. Davydenko, Del Potro, Murray, Djokovic, Federer have all a positive record vs Nadal on hard courts.

[kakkaroto92]

haha lo siento pero el oro es de gonzalez ;)

[fortinger]

djokovic va a tener pesadillas con nadal. te has quedado sin oro, djoko :P NADAL CAMPEON BEIJING 08!

[YoSoyZuri]

Federer's error margins are narrower than Nadal's because of the style of his game and they were squeezed ever narrower yesterday by the Spaniard's breathtaking mobility. But this threatened to be as much about an empire imploding as being overthrown. Federer's considerable mental strength is, essentially, manufactured - Nadal's comes naturally". (The Gurdian, Paul Weaver)

[YoSoyZuri]

Boris Becker says "Even now on the hard courts, he's going to have big improvements. It's because of the serve. He has a much better serve and much better positioning on the court on a hard surface. That's the reason why he's at the position right now."

[12maggio]

molto bravo nadal !!!!! nadal  the best player the tennis in the wordl !!!!

[YoSoyZuri]

TORONTO (AFP), Mon 21 Jul- Boris Becker says the newest king of tennis was crowned at Wimbledon as Rafael Nadal ended the glory run of Roger Federer. Beker says "Nadal must now be considered the best player in the world ahead of the Swiss".

[thereallyajy]

well well well..it appears that IS possible to win Queens and Wimbledon in the same year!!!

[ETworldjone]

Nadal has incredible potential...but it is still going to be very very hard against federer who is serving like never before. Nadal...try ur best!!!

[YoSoyZuri]

A serve is not everything, lol. Look what happened to Karlovic! haha. Rafa is the best!

[crazyboyisback]

ik versta er geen flikker van

[timafi]

u can win Queens but that doesn't mean that u'll win Wimbledon,Nadal.7 matches u've got to play and u will find better grass court players;remember Soderling,Youzhny and Djokovic were beating u down until 1 choked and 2 got injured!not so fast buddy;not so fast!

[joshuahascurlyhair]

What about Federer last year then; Tommy Haas gave him a walkover and Richard Gasquet had an injured back after his 5 setter with Roddick, so he too had the advantage of injured opponents; so you cant use that argument.

[joshuahascurlyhair]

And better grass court players than Roddick and Djokovic?!

[quentincador]

right! Lendl won twice the queen's in 89 and 90 but never succed at wimb! two finales lost in 86 and 87! nadal will do the same? let's wait and see...

[lslkdasda]

no way federer wins on Wimbledon.

[joshuahascurlyhair]

Exactly; and its good times for Rafa now seen as the Djoker is in Fed's half.

Oh, how I love life right not

[sinamoravej]

yeah but he has youzhny in the fourth round. Not saying Nadal won't win but Youzhny has always given Nadal trouble. Nadals draw is still pretty tough.

[mavsfan1000]

Gulbis, Murray, and Roddick possibly as well. Rough draw except Djokovic would definitely be the toughest matchup for Nadal.

[felix8989]

Nadal can win Wimbledon this year...

[y2joder]

viva la madre que te parió NADAL kon dos cojones si señor

[Pipoz13]

¿Que excelente punto de matchpoint!de pelicula! Gana y se saca la vincha (seguro para la foto o lucir su cabellera :-D).Que buen oque gano y no se que tiene que ver que un español no gane hace decadas en cesped¡?mejor que informe cuantos d ese pais han ganado tantos torneos o el mas joven en ganar,etc etzzz .Mejor que comente sobre las recogebolas que con ese traje rojo ,les queda sexcelente :-p

[nadalarg]

vamos rafa carajo .. ahora va por wimbledom

[acetennischick]

Nadal deserved that! most competitive sportsman i know of he is..

[dapocopi]

k increible k grande es!!

[Sj77]

Increíble, NADAL eres el mejor y ahora a por Federer en Wimbledon!

[niclassj]

Vamos Rafa. I hope he can keep Djokovic away from the 2nd place.

[12maggio]

grande nadal bella vittoria !!!

[zim83]

Grande Nadal, y patéticos como siempre los comentaristas patrioteros españoles, aunque sin llegar a los niveles de los hooligans de Cuatro.

[Monardo12]

firme que ganara Nadal, pero que voz tan hptamente fastidiosa la del puto comentarista.

[przemas69]

"si! si! siiiiiiiii!" LOL! :D

[Roxysurf18]

El mejor de todo el mundo... un hombre invencible!!!! VaMoS Rafa!!!

[LPRproductions]

El mejor tenista español de la historia !!!!!

[milenaferrante]

thanks a lot! rafael is becoming a legend

[orelero]

his left arm is twice bigger than the average tennis player lol.

[9Bluejay]

Muy Bien

[alexmarbe]

jefazooo

[martinezaguado]

Ahora a por Wimblendon! Vamos Rafa!

[brerair]

Leeeeeeeegend!!