DarthFed said:
Roger should have never lost to Rafa on grass and that still holds true.
I don't understand your insistence on saying this. I understand it's the thing that bothers you the most about the head to head but it's a delusional proposition.
No, this is not fan, banter. It's the truth. First time they played was at Wimbledon 2006 when Federer was more or less playing the highest level of tennis we've ever seen (arguably) all year, and Nadal literally had less than 10 combined matches on grass in his career under his belt. The result? A competitive 4 set affair which, after a terrible start, Nadal served (and choked) for the second set, lost it in a tie-break, won the third, and lost the fourth. Nadal was never going to win that match as he wasn't ready and Roger was a flat out better player then.
But nobody who watched their subsequent Wimbledon final in 2007 could make a claim such as "Roger should never have lost to Nadal on grass." If your argument revolves around "the ball doesn't kick as high" then that's one of the silliest, most simplistic notions I've ever heard since Nadal doesn't win on grass by looping top spin forehands and relying on how high it kicks. There's a reason he's far more aggressive. There's also a reason Roger struggles to break Nadal's serve on grass so much (Nadal went the whole 2008 match being broken once), and his backhand regressed considerably in 2008. So for your statement to ring true it hinges on Roger returning better (which he's been struggling to do for literally 7 years now) AND hitting his backhand better, something he's always struggled to do against Nadal. That's a lot of tennis related reasons right there, and that's not even touching on the mental aspect.
It's like you willingly decide to ignore how their matches unfold. Roger had one of his career best serving performances at the Wimbledon final in 2007, played fantastic, and was still actually outplayed from the baseline (wonder if our good pal Cali will make a thread about that).
Then, and this is where your argument gets super biased, you have 2008, when Nadal was the best player in the world, playing better tennis, had a mental edge over Roger, was brimming with confidence, and Roger was going through what was by then, his worst year since winning his first major. So why should Roger not have lost that match? He was outplayed. He was second best. He raised his level and it still wasn't enough. He didn't have a higher gear in him at that point (not that he's not capable in general). You can't isolate a match from context and just think about it in terms of "oh, Roger is better and far more accomplished on grass, therefore he should have won" because then I could have said the same about Nadal had he lost to Djokovic in their 5 set semi at the FO in 2013, or in the final last year, or any time he loses on clay to anyone ever.
