The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Nadalfan2013]

Federer accumulated a lot of his slams during the weak era against the likes of Baghdatis, Philippoussis, Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzales, etc. He is however 3-9 and 6-9 in slams vs Nadal & Novak. It just goes to show you that he was just lucky to be older than them and win before they arrived cause otherwise he would not even have reached 10 slams. Oh and he only wins on fast surfaces where he can servebot but on the real clay surface where you actually have to play all the shots he barely won. Please thank 'King Roger' for the existence of this thread.

 

[britbox]

The French is the worst slam, the least prestigious. 1 French Open title is the equivalent of 5 AO or 10 Wimbledons, only until Rafa wins 80 RG titles will he be in the GOAT category. In my eyes he’s 20th on the list, behind Andrew Castle and Tomic

So by your math... if Nadal has 11 French Opens then he has 110 Wimbledons... Federer won't be pleased... 2 more Wimbledon titles and a total of 10 would be the equivalent of Gaston Gaudios French Open title.

 

[King Roger]

1 Wimbledon is the equivalent of 10 FO , it’s that simple

 

[King Roger]

2009 will be the best year of all time, the bull was slaughtered and Federer defeated the bull slayer in the final. This proves Soderling is better than Rafa , and Federer is better than Sodering. Advantage Federer

 

[DarthFed]

it's a never ending argument. The fact is that you will never know when Fed's prime really was. You say it was 04-07 but that is very convenient because this is when he was at his most dominant, you don't really take any other factors into account. As soon as he started losing in 2008 (11 years ago at the ripe age of 26/27) he was past his prime. Isn't it utterly ridiculous to claim Federer was past his prime by 08? in the prime of of his physical prowess? Now why is it that Fed fans said this? because he started losing in slams. This requires a more in depth analysis though. Federer's best years were indeed 04-07 but we absolutely need to take into account his competition, whether you like it or not. Nadal came into the scene in 2005 but he initially was very poor on grass and hardcourts, he was getting wasted by nobodies at USO and AO. He was improving his grass court game every year, making finals of W in 06, then 07 and then 08, each time improving his results. Nadal started to play well on hards after 09, when he made his first AO final. He won all of his 4 HC slams after 09, which makes sense as by 09 he was in early 20s... so was reaching his prime as he approached mid 20s. Djokovic started making his mark at 19, in 2007. So what happened in 2008 exactly? when Roger, all of sudden, got OLD at 26? Djokovic beat him at AO, Nadal at FO and Wimbledon and then Roger won USO. Now go back to 2005, extract Roddick and insert Andy in AO semis (instead of Djokovic). Also go back and extract 05 Nadal (who was 19) and put him in 08 Wimbledon. Guess what? 99% chance Federer would've won 08 AO, 08 Wimbledon, made FO finals and won USO. You think not? you know it. There is no way Federer suddenly went old in his mid 20s especially considering that at 36 he won a slam. It is true that around 2012-2017 Federer was past his prime but still playing at a high level in spurts. It is true that Djokovic's prime 11-18 didn't coincide with Federer's prime (i would argue 04-10, not just the convenient 04-07 which is preposterous) but just as past his prime fed beat prime djoker on occasion, baby joker was beating prime fed in 07-08. It goes both ways, we can both find examples that suit our arguments. What is clear though is that, without a doubt, having to face a slightly past his prime Fed and prime Nadal is HARDER than facing the likes of Hewitt, Roddick and little baby Nadal between 04-07. I would argue Djokovic has had it toughest between the 3 of them and Djoker got the added bonus of Andy Murray too.

I do think there is a compelling argument to be made that Djokovic is best ever. He has 15 slams and i think has the most complete game of the 3. Several people have called his highest level, highest level ever achieved, including Nick Bolletieri (there are many others i forget at the moment). He has a winning record against Fed and Nadal (no-one else has) and only one that could win all masters titles and 4 slams in a row, probably most impressive feats after # of slams. He will inch closer to Fed but i think having most # slams is not the only factor when assessing best ever.

I said 2004 - 2009 was his prime. 2004-2007 were his peak years or if we want to be more particular we could reduce it to 2005-2006. As far as 2008...there are two sides to that and we can each push our own narrative. Clearly Roger was at a consistently lower level than we saw the 4 years before. He lost to a bunch of guys he never had lost to before or after. His play at slams was better but still far from strong. Djokovic only had that AO and then was barely visible at majors for a couple years after. So the question you may want to ask yourself is whether Roger of his strong years loses badly at AO in straights to a baby Novak and whether he loses rather weakly at Wimbledon to a guy without much of a serve with an incomplete game?

I'd say Djokovic clearly should have a big edge in H2H with Federer. Roger has played him a lot more in his 30's than when he was in his prime.

 

[MikeOne]

He was a Sampras fan who hated Roger and had to like Nadal until Novak emerged.

Haha..

Sampras was my favourite player but fed, rafa and djoker have surpassed him and i have no issues with that.

I never had a problem with Federer when he emerged into the scene; actually, i welcomed his arrival as i thought roddick and hewitt were not worthy of following in sampras’ foot steps.

I only started to see federer in a less positve light when his fans started proclaiming he was greatest ever by 2005... i had more of a problem with his fans than with him at this point though.

This changed when nadal rose and started beating him. I didn’t like nadal at first as he initially came across as flashy and cocky but this is before i realized he was all substance and conducted himself with class. Federer went through a period when he wasn’t very likeable, he couldn’t believe nadal started beating him and would routinely shrug it off as sort of a fluke, saying publicly that nadal was a grinder and 1 dimensional. Have you heard djokovic or nadal say this of rivals? To me, federer was two faced, portrayed image of gentlemen and sportsmanship but beneath the surface i saw a bit of arrogance, nastiness and he came across as a sore loser. He just got nasty when nadal started beating him... i have to admit, i definitely enjoyed seeing nadal beat him over and over and over again... loved every minute of it. Nadal humbled federer and made him eat all those words he uttered about nadal being a subpar player that somehow federer just always played poorly against. Federer sounded like cali back then, maybe cali is federer! Lol.. but federer, over the years, came to realize nadal was more skilled than he gave him credit for initially. I recall him calling nadal a real shot maker, a very talented player in recent years, wow, what a change from what he used to say before.

I admire federer for his ability but he has always come across as a bit fake and arrogant. Nadal, to me, is more authentic and i find his game quite exciting, especially on clay, he has a unique style. I probably like djokovic the best, he shows his emotions more, love how fired up he gets and i think you see the real novak, as opposed to someone who acts perfectly on outside but is someone different on inside. Djokovic rubs some in wrong way but i love that he shows so much emotion on court...

 

[MikeOne]

I said 2004 - 2009 was his prime. 2004-2007 were his peak years or if we want to be more particular we could reduce it to 2005-2006. As far as 2008...there are two sides to that and we can each push our own narrative. Clearly Roger was at a consistently lower level than we saw the 4 years before. He lost to a bunch of guys he never had lost to before or after. His play at slams was better but still far from strong. Djokovic only had that AO and then was barely visible at majors for a couple years after. So the question you may want to ask yourself is whether Roger of his strong years loses badly at AO in straights to a baby Novak and whether he loses rather weakly at Wimbledon to a guy without much of a serve with an incomplete game?

I'd say Djokovic clearly should have a big edge in H2H with Federer. Roger has played him a lot more in his 30's than when he was in his prime.

Yes, i think 08 novak would’ve beaten 04-07 fed at AO. Why not? Davydenko was giving federer fits at AO, so was baghdatis.. safin took him out in 05, a safin that barely did anything in 05. Novak had already beaten fed in 07 and was supremely confident, handled a possessed tsonga rather steadily in final. By the way, djokovic had a good 08 season, even won end of year atp tour tournament.

Nadal, in 08 wimbledon, was crushing opponents, even murray. Yes, i do think 08 nadal could’ve beaten 04-07 fed at wimbledon. Federer made 08 final without dropping a set yet had lost sets before making finals between 04-07. Fed looked amazing before finals, then of course, he just old and choked in final?

 

[DarthFed]

Haha..

Sampras was my favourite player but fed, rafa and djoker have surpassed him and i have no issues with that.

I never had a problem with Federer when he emerged into the scene; actually, i welcomed his arrival as i thought roddick and hewitt were not worthy of following in sampras’ foot steps.

I only started to see federer in a less positve light when his fans started proclaiming he was greatest ever by 2005... i had more of a problem with his fans than with him at this point though.

This changed when nadal rose and started beating him. I didn’t like nadal at first as he initially came across as flashy and cocky but this is before i realized he was all substance and conducted himself with class. Federer went through a period when he wasn’t very likeable, he couldn’t believe nadal started beating him and would routinely shrug it off as sort of a fluke, saying publicly that nadal was a grinder and 1 dimensional. Have you heard djokovic or nadal say this of rivals? To me, federer was two faced, portrayed image of gentlemen and sportsmanship but beneath the surface i saw a bit of arrogance, nastiness and he came across as a sore loser. He just got nasty when nadal started beating him... i have to admit, i definitely enjoyed seeing nadal beat him over and over and over again... loved every minute of it. Nadal humbled federer and made him eat all those words he uttered about nadal being a subpar player that somehow federer just always played poorly against. Federer sounded like cali back then, maybe cali is federer! Lol.. but federer, over the years, came to realize nadal was more skilled than he gave him credit for initially. I recall him calling nadal a real shot maker, a very talented player in recent years, wow, what a change from what he used to say before.

I admire federer for his ability but he has always come across as a bit fake and arrogant. Nadal, to me, is more authentic and i find his game quite exciting, especially on clay, he has a unique style. I probably like djokovic the best, he shows his emotions more, love how fired up he gets and i think you see the real novak, as opposed to someone who acts perfectly on outside but is someone different on inside. Djokovic rubs some in wrong way but i love that he shows so much emotion on court...

It's all good bud, I'm just roasting you a bit. We go back a long ways on the old boards and I think you'd agree a lot of it was about Roger not passing Pete and Rafa represented the only chance of stopping Roger for awhile.

I actually find Rafa to be fake humble mainly because all of them have to be arrogant to be that good. The guy makes more self-serving comments than the rest of them combined. And he is as much a sore loser as Roger, often makes excuses when he loses. Novak is truly rare in that he is not a sore sport at all in defeat but remember how brash he was when he started out? He had his moments of arrogance too.

 

[MikeOne]

It's all good bud, I'm just roasting you a bit. We go back a long ways on the old boards and I think you'd agree a lot of it was about Roger not passing Pete and Rafa represented the only chance of stopping Roger for awhile.

I actually find Rafa to be fake humble mainly because all of them have to be arrogant to be that good. The guy makes more self-serving comments than the rest of them combined. And he is as much a sore loser as Roger, often makes excuses when he loses. Novak is truly rare in that he is not a sore sport at all in defeat but remember how brash he was when he started out? He had his moments of arrogance too.

Federer just outright belittled nadal’s game, nadal doesn’t do that with opponents. In fact, he regularly admits opponent was too good and that he will try and improve. Did federer ever say anything remotely close to this? Federer even belittled novak’s game a little bit at the beginning. What nadal does, which i admit is annoying, is claim he is injured when he loses sometimes. Federer was a bit nasty though, but political.. very subtle.

Out of all, novak is the best sport, notice how genuinly happy he seems for his opponents when he loses to them at times... he was brash at first but he matured.

They all make excuses though, it’s typical of players that are great.. but it’s to the degree they do it and how..

They are all great and have been great for the spot, we are just nitpicking here...

 

[DarthFed]

Yes, i think 08 novak would’ve beaten 04-07 fed at AO. Why not? Davydenko was giving federer fits at AO, so was baghdatis.. safin took him out in 05, a safin that barely did anything in 05. Novak had already beaten fed in 07 and was supremely confident, handled a possessed tsonga rather steadily in final. By the way, djokovic had a good 08 season, even won end of year atp tour tournament.

Nadal, in 08 wimbledon, was crushing opponents, even murray. Yes, i do think 08 nadal could’ve beaten 04-07 fed at wimbledon. Federer made 08 final without dropping a set yet had lost sets before making finals between 04-07. Fed looked amazing before finals, then of course, he just old and choked in final?

Novak edged him at Toronto in 07 but that's an MS event. I think it's a little more telling that Roger handled him before and after that match at majors until late 2010. A strong version of Roger isn't losing to Novak at that point. Safin's 2005 match is considered one of the highest quality matches of all time, that was better than a young Djokovic could produced.

As for Wimbledon 2008, no Roger didn't get old, he was already carrying scars against Nadal due to the clay beatdowns that year, the result was two ridiculously poor sets and an all around erratic match. People, mainly Roger detractors, always overstated his level that match. I remember the boards, the Roger haters were saying they found new respect for Roger after that. I wonder why? Maybe because he had finally lost a match on grass? Anyways that match aged poorly if we are talking level of play, particularly from Roger. And Rafa being worthless on grass by the time he was 26 makes it look even worse for Roger. I mean we can talk Rafa's tenaciousness and all that but we are talking a guy with a mediocre serve at that point. One who was allergic to net and could barely flatten a forehand to save his life. That was the definition of a poor loss.

 

[DarthFed]

Federer just outright belittled nadal’s game, nadal doesn’t do that with opponents. In fact, he regularly admits opponent was too good and that he will try and improve. Did federer ever say anything remotely close to this? Federer even belittled novak’s game a little bit at the beginning. What nadal does, which i admit is annoying, is claim he is injured when he loses sometimes. Federer was a bit nasty though, but political.. very subtle.

Out of all, novak is the best sport, notice how genuinly happy he seems for his opponents when he loses to them at times... he was brash at first but he matured.

They all make excuses though, it’s typical of players that are great.. but it’s to the degree they do it and how..

They are all great and have been great for the spot, we are just nitpicking here...

Fed has had his moments of course. I do think he quickly respected Nadal though. That one-dimensional comment was in early 2006 I believe. His tone quickly changed after that. I don't think Roger belittled Novak's game, they just didn't like each other for a long time.

 

[MikeOne]

Novak edged him at Toronto in 07 but that's an MS event. I think it's a little more telling that Roger handled him before and after that match at majors until late 2010. A strong version of Roger isn't losing to Novak at that point. Safin's 2005 match is considered one of the highest quality matches of all time, that was better than a young Djokovic could produced.

As for Wimbledon 2008, no Roger didn't get old, he was already carrying scars against Nadal due to the clay beatdowns that year, the result was two ridiculously poor sets and an all around erratic match. People, mainly Roger detractors, always overstated his level that match. I remember the boards, the Roger haters were saying they found new respect for Roger after that. I wonder why? Maybe because he had finally lost a match on grass? Anyways that match aged poorly if we are talking level of play, particularly from Roger. And Rafa being worthless on grass by the time he was 26 makes it look even worse for Roger. I mean we can talk Rafa's tenaciousness and all that but we are talking a guy with a mediocre serve at that point. One who was allergic to net and could barely flatten a forehand to save his life. That was the definition of a poor loss.

I’m not sure safin’s level in 05 was better than djokovic’s in 08 semis, he played a heck of a high quality match and was dominating before that semis. It’s also about matchups, safin’s power game was never a good matchup for fed. Djokovic’s movement, defense and offense, on that hardcourt has been more difficult for fed. Novak has straight setted fed twice at AO and in one year played probably highest quality fed has ever faced in a 4 set loss, lost 1,2 first two sets. Safin’s level WAS NOT higher than this.

In 06, rafa gave fed a 4 set match, in 07 a tough 5 setter and in 08 beat him. Coincidence that every year results improved?

I think roger had lost sets in every wimbledon run between 04-07 before making finals. In 08? Zero sets before making finals... now let’s play our little game. Extract 05 roddick or hewitt and put them in 08 w final vs a fed that had lost no sets in route to finals...

 

[DarthFed]

I’m not sure safin’s level in 05 was better than djokovic’s in 08 semis, he played a heck of a high quality match and was dominating before that semis. It’s also about matchups, safin’s power game was never a good matchup for fed. Djokovic’s movement, defense and offense, on that hardcourt has been more difficult for fed. Novak has straight setted fed twice at AO and in one year played probably highest quality fed has ever faced in a 4 set loss, lost 1,2 first two sets. Safin’s level WAS NOT higher than this.

In 06, rafa gave fed a 4 set match, in 07 a tough 5 setter and in 08 beat him. Coincidence that every year results improved?

I think roger had lost sets in every wimbledon run between 04-07 before making finals. In 08? Zero sets before making finals... now let’s play our little game. Extract 05 roddick or hewitt and put them in 08 w final vs a fed that had lost no sets in route to finals...

Roger lost no sets in 06 before the finals against a tougher slate of opponents than he faced in 08. The way Roger returned in 08 he'd have had plenty of problems with Roddick. Roger wasn't exactly good in the 09 final either and we know how that one was.

Roger in 08 lacked the consistency of prior years and that led to lots of big losses against non-elite players as well. Fed especially struggled in the big moments, 1-13 BP's and blew a 4-1 lead in a must-win 2nd set. Do I think a strong version of Roger handles Rafa on grass that day? Yes, he has a way better game on grass, needless to say, and the matchup issues are especially overblown on that surface. Roger didn't lose that match because of Rafa's lefty spin, he lost because he was badly outplayed in big moments and was especially passive the first two sets.

 

[Moxie]

It's all good bud, I'm just roasting you a bit. We go back a long ways on the old boards and I think you'd agree a lot of it was about Roger not passing Pete and Rafa represented the only chance of stopping Roger for awhile.

I actually find Rafa to be fake humble mainly because all of them have to be arrogant to be that good. The guy makes more self-serving comments than the rest of them combined. And he is as much a sore loser as Roger, often makes excuses when he loses. Novak is truly rare in that he is not a sore sport at all in defeat but remember how brash he was when he started out? He had his moments of arrogance too.

Nadal isn't "fake-humble." That's a Fed fan trope. It doesn't take arrogance for the 3 of them to be good, it takes confidence, and there is a difference. Federer has never hidden his arrogance. Nadal and Djokovic, coming up behind, had to couch it differently, but, as you mentioned, Djokovic was pretty brash early on, including towards Rafa. Had to learn to temper that. And they have all made self-serving comments when they've lost, so don't put that all on Nadal, by a long stretch. You just remember what you like.

 

[DarthFed]

Nadal isn't "fake-humble." That's a Fed fan trope. It doesn't take arrogance for the 3 of them to be good, it takes confidence, and there is a difference. Federer has never hidden his arrogance. Nadal and Djokovic, coming up behind, had to couch it differently, but, as you mentioned, Djokovic was pretty brash early on, including towards Rafa. Had to learn to temper that. And they have all made self-serving comments when they've lost, so don't put that all on Nadal, by a long stretch. You just remember what you like.

With Nadal the self-serving comments aren't mainly when he loses. He's pushed for 2 year ranking, less HC tournaments and rotating YEC to include clay.

 

[Moxie]

With Nadal the self-serving comments aren't mainly when he loses. He's pushed for 2 year ranking, less HC tournaments and rotating YEC to include clay.

Don't confuse this with arrogance. Also, he never made the same kind of snide comments against the likes of Fed's about Berdych or even Nadal or Djokovic when he lost to them. Working within the system for changes is not that terrible, even if you see them as self-serving. Denigrating your opponents when you lose is worse, on the level of sportsmanship. When he lost to Berych in W. '10, he piled on the injury excuses and insisted that he could have beaten him. He has called Nadal a grinder when he lost to him, talked of Djokovic's shot against in USO '10 as a shot not worry of a challenger, or words to that effect. And there are more quotes like these. Try to make that better than Nadal discussing changes in the future for tennis.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Yes, i think 08 novak would’ve beaten 04-07 fed at AO. Why not? Davydenko was giving federer fits at AO, so was baghdatis.. safin took him out in 05, a safin that barely did anything in 05. Novak had already beaten fed in 07 and was supremely confident, handled a possessed tsonga rather steadily in final. By the way, djokovic had a good 08 season, even won end of year atp tour tournament.

This does not make any sense. 08 Novak was confident because he won against Fed in 07 in Canada Masters. Then, how can he beat Fed in 2004-07 at AO as he would not be confident as he does not have that win yet. This is all just meaningless mind-bending exercises with no definite conclusions.

 

[Ricardo]

I’m not sure safin’s level in 05 was better than djokovic’s in 08 semis, he played a heck of a high quality match and was dominating before that semis. It’s also about matchups, safin’s power game was never a good matchup for fed. Djokovic’s movement, defense and offense, on that hardcourt has been more difficult for fed. Novak has straight setted fed twice at AO and in one year played probably highest quality fed has ever faced in a 4 set loss, lost 1,2 first two sets. Safin’s level WAS NOT higher than this.

In 06, rafa gave fed a 4 set match, in 07 a tough 5 setter and in 08 beat him. Coincidence that every year results improved?

I think roger had lost sets in every wimbledon run between 04-07 before making finals. In 08? Zero sets before making finals... now let’s play our little game. Extract 05 roddick or hewitt and put them in 08 w final vs a fed that had lost no sets in route to finals...

Rafa looked like god this year until the final, and laid an egg.....oh don’t tell me Novak was playing so well that Rafa did air swing fh on hardcourt, frickin HARDCOURT! The exceptional thing about Djoker is he plays 90-95% almost all the time, but when an offensive player is on fire he would hit through Novak.....regardless of how Djoker plays.

 

[DarthFed]

Don't confuse this with arrogance. Also, he never made the same kind of snide comments against the likes of Fed's about Berdych or even Nadal or Djokovic when he lost to them. Working within the system for changes is not that terrible, even if you see them as self-serving. Denigrating your opponents when you lose is worse, on the level of sportsmanship. When he lost to Berych in W. '10, he piled on the injury excuses and insisted that he could have beaten him. He has called Nadal a grinder when he lost to him, talked of Djokovic's shot against in USO '10 as a shot not worry of a challenger, or words to that effect. And there are more quotes like these. Try to make that better than Nadal discussing changes in the future for tennis.

Yeah the excuses for the Berdych loss were bad and most Federer fans criticized him for it because he sounded a lot like Rafa there.

I'm guessing you've blocked all of Rafa's excuses out. Remember after Tsonga demolished him at AO and Nadal said "this is not his real level, no". Or 6 months after Murray beat him at USO he complained to the ATP about the long schedule and specifically mentioned he had no energy left during that match. Or how about his interview before 2012 talking about his 2011 losses to Djokovic where he said he controlled a lot of those matches and mentioned that he had heat stroke in Miami.

And "working within the system for changes" lol, you don't think it's a coincidence that every frickin change he wants would obviously help him? What would you be saying if Roger came out and said they should make the courts faster again or that there should be more grass tournaments and less clay tournaments? I'm guessing you wouldn't see it as "working within the system for changes."

 

[MikeOne]

Roger lost no sets in 06 before the finals against a tougher slate of opponents than he faced in 08. The way Roger returned in 08 he'd have had plenty of problems with Roddick. Roger wasn't exactly good in the 09 final either and we know how that one was.

Roger in 08 lacked the consistency of prior years and that led to lots of big losses against non-elite players as well. Fed especially struggled in the big moments, 1-13 BP's and blew a 4-1 lead in a must-win 2nd set. Do I think a strong version of Roger handles Rafa on grass that day? Yes, he has a way better game on grass, needless to say, and the matchup issues are especially overblown on that surface. Roger didn't lose that match because of Rafa's lefty spin, he lost because he was badly outplayed in big moments and was especially passive the first two sets.

you know you will be challenged when you make such points. First, let's talk about Fed's 06 vs his 08 run and then talk about the inexplicable phenomenon of Federer always playing bad vs Nadal but not others, it being nothing to do with nadal's quality of tennis.

1. Roger's 06 vs 08 Wimbledon runs. In route to finals in 06, Roger beat Gasquet-Henman-Mahut-Berdych-Ancic-Bjorkman. In 08, Roger beat Hrbaty-Soderling-Gicquel-Hewitt-Ancic-Safin. When you claim that he faced a tougher slate of opponents in 06, as if it's not even debatable. prepare yourself to elaborate. I don't see it and if you will make your arguments, i will counter easily because it is quite easy to make an argument either way.... So i will call BS on this

2. Roger just happens to play poorly vs Nadal, every time. There are a couple of assumptions made here that are quite extraordinary
a. Roger is mentally weak. The fact is that Federer has won 20 slams because he has always been a mental giant, no-onem no matter how talented, does this without being a mental giant. Everyone faces players that matchup rather well against them, Nadal does several things that bother Roger.
b. Roger beats other players because he is able to summon his best all the time. One extraordinary assumption is that he just has dips in his level vs Nadal and no-one else. To believe that Federer has been able to summon his top level against everyone else, all the time, is absurd. Federer regularly beat the likes of Roddick, Hewitt and others on days when he wasn't at his top level, he couldn't do it vs Nadal. No tennis player can wake up every day and play their top top level, it is their ability to win when they are not at their top level that makes them great. There is this extraordinary bar set for when he faces Nadal, he must be at his uppermost level, but this same bar is not set against other players. In the 08 Wimbledon final, Federer didn't seem to be at his top level in first two sets but the level he displayed on that day could've been enough to beat 05 Roddick or 05 Hewitt, it wasn't against Nadal. Roger, did, however, reach his top level in the last 3 sets, he played at an incredibly high level and even so, barely got past Nadal 7-6, 7-6 and then lost 8-6.

Question - when Federer faced 18 year old Nadal for the very first time in their career, ON HARD COURTS, was he already intimidated by Nadal? he lost 3,3 on a masters tournament! This was a sign of things to come, Nadal's game had unique qualities to it that bothered Federer.

3. Nadal's serve was sh&t on grass and his game weak. For whatever reason, Rafa's serve was quite effective during his 08 Wimbledon run, there was no better example than when he faced Andy Murray in quarters. If i recall correctly, Murray couldn't even muster 1 break point! and Murray has always had a great return. I can't explain it but Nadal's serve has been a bit of a mystery throughout his career, he served lights out at USO 2010 (serving 135 bombs regularly) but then suddenly it went away. I will say that on grass, however, his serve has been quite effective, maybe the bounce was different than on hards. His major weakness, to me, has been his return of serve on grass, not his serve. Regarding Nadal's game on grass between 06-08, very underrated. In 06, Federer made finals without dropping a set but lost a set vs Nadal and i remember vividly that Nadal hit 20+ winners in that set, it has an incredible level. In 07 final, nadal pushed Roger to 5 and then in 08 beat him. No matter what you say, Nadal's level on grass during this streak was very high, higher than the level 03 Philipouisis, 05 Roddick showed, CLEARLY. The only exception may be 04 Roddick, who for a set was possessed but over entire match, 07-08 nadal played at a higher level than even 04 Roddick, CLEARLY. Nadal was hitting MANY more winners from the baseline than even 04 Roddick and serving effectively... plus doing things Roddick could never do - cover court and take winners away from Fed.