The problem I have with someone claiming Roger shouldn't have lost to Nadal at Wimbledon in 2008 is that it ignores pretty much all the common wisdom we know about tennis through years of watching.
In 2007, when Roger beat Nadal in 5 sets in the final, nobody had much criticism to offer about Federer. He played well throughout the match, served fantastic, but was forced to sweat and looked to be in trouble at one point in the fifth set due to coming up against a great player playing great tennis. It was that simple. Roger won, but Nadal was close and blew break point opportunities in the fifth. Nobody said Roger shouldn't have gone to 5 sets with Nadal. Everyone, including Roger fans, just gave both players props, and recognized that Nadal was improving on grass and could catch up soon.
Fast forward a year: Nadal is playing his best ever tennis. He's the most in-form player in the world, dominated the clay season again, and just humiliated Roger in the final. Capitalizing on that momentum, he wins his first grass court title in Queens by playing some tremendous tennis, and EVERYONE thought he's the co-favorite to win Wimbledon. Again, revisionist historians may attempt to change that, but I distinctly remember the feeling coming into Wimbledon in 2008, and it really felt like it might be Nadal's time due to his form, his mental edge over Roger, in addition to Fed's relatively inconsistent form by his standards.
So the players meet in the final. It goes 5 again, only this time, the player who actually improved over the past 12 months and was sky high in confidence beat the player who regressed and was struggling with confidence and mental demons against this particular opponent. To me, that loss makes sense, and looking at it with the benefit of hindsight and only boiling it down to grass court pedigree is disingenuous. Nadal was in the middle of reaching 5 consecutive Wimbledon finals, so clearly he was very good on grass during that period, and somehow ignoring that because he's struggled in the past few years makes no sense. Meanwhile, while Roger at his best should obviously beat Nadal on grass, players are not always at their best. Yes, Roger has defied every common belief about tennis but even he cannot play great all the time. He was not playing very well for the first 2 sets that year. That much is undeniable. However, when you look at WHY he didn't play well, in the context of everything that had happened in 2008, it makes a bit of sense.
And also, let's keep in mind that he really stepped it up in the last 3 sets and still couldn't break Nadal once. So the idea, mainly put forward by Darth, that Nadal didn't need to play particularly well that match is nonsense. It's funny how you guys ignore that Roger was largely outplayed from the baseline by Nadal in the 2007 final, and none of you would say Roger didn't play great then. So a little more props for Nadal, please, and look at it this way: Both the 2007 and 2008 finals went to 5 sets but had different outcomes. The more in form/better player those years won and it makes perfect sense, as tennis matches between evenly matched players boil down to small details that make all the difference (confidence, playing key points better, etc...).
This idea that Roger should have beaten Nadal easily is laughable. He didn't even beat him THAT easily in 2006, when Nadal had literally played fewer than 10 grass court matches IN HIS CAREER! In fact, Nadal was up a break in the second set and blew it, losing on a tie-break, then went back and won the third. I won't go as far as saying he could have been 2 sets to 1 up, as Roger crushed him in the first set and picked his level up in the fourth in a way that made it impossible for Nadal to do much, but it's funny how even that year, it wasn't such a routine victory, and every year since, Nadal improved a step, culminating with the 2008 win.
