Comments on: 5 Reasons Why Nadal Beat Federer in the Wimbledon 2008 Final

By: Josh Gaspard

Josh Gaspard — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:50:51 +0000

i do not agree with federer improving his backhand one bit! his backhand is pretty much why he lost! he was hitting easy balls out with his backhand. in 2007 and 2006 was his best years by far from 2008!

By: Hannnns

Hannnns — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:44:21 +0000

Well, actually Nadal had won four titles in Roland Garros before he went on to deny Federer a sixth successive success in Wimbledon.

By: Tom B.

Tom B. — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:11:21 +0000

Hey guys,
It seems that none of you really play tennis or compete enough.
Sometimes one lucky stroke or placement of the ball decide a game and that could lead to set and match and so on….
The Rodger Nadal match 2 tennis gods could have gone either way like last year. To me it was the best match of the Century!!!!!

By: okris

okris — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:25:36 +0000

I think Federer has a problem about his age, he can’t move so fast to balance like Nadal, so maybe if Federer wants get to win again, he must improve his attack, like play bravely at the net…

By: William Baly

William Baly — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:57:34 +0000

I have noticed in many of Federer’s matches he doesn’t capitalize enough on break points. He loses concentration. This is evident on many of his matches with Rafael Nadal. You cannot go 1 for 10 on break points or lose 4-1 leads. He has lost leads in matches he should have one. I believe that Roger is the most talented player out there, but he has to concentrate harder, be more patient and aggressive when the opportunity arises, especially against Rafael Nadal.

At the previous French Open finals against Rafael Nadal he had opportunities in those matches which he let slip by. You cannot afford to do that against someone as determined as Rafa. If you watch the Pete Sampras/Roger Federer Wimbledon match, you see an aggressive Federer with an excellent serve and volley game. What happened to that guy? I am not saying that he needs to serve and volley on every point just that he needs to be more aggressive. He cannot afford to play that passive game where Nadal is hitting high topsin forehands to his backhand and controlling the points.

And lastly, Federer has to believe that he can beat Nadal. Personally, I think that he is the more talented player, and he should not be losing to Nadal. Nadal beats him with consistency, mental toughness and effort.

By: Amar Gogoi

Amar Gogoi — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:01:39 +0000

The hard spanish flamenco rock overpowered the lucid swiss county song on a damp wimbledon afternoon and who is complaining? Roger needs only few days of lay offs in Swiss Alps all alone to re set his goals and may be a few drinks with John before moving to Flushing Meadows. Even God falters sometimes, Roger is human!!

Good reading any way.

By: Tennis Drills

Tennis Drills — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:10:03 +0000

I agree pretty much with all your points. Nadal really did have the confidence and positive moves out on the court. However I think he struggled in landing the killer blow and allowed Federer to almost snatch the match back. Obviously this should improve as he gets older and more experienced with these “big time” tennis slam finals. All in all it was the greatest game of tennis I have ever watched and I look forward to more between these two giants of the tennis world.

By: jessey

jessey — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:28:52 +0000

Nadal’s incredible fitness also seems to be a factor.
It seems to me that at multiple times during the match, Federer had to mentally pump himself up to reach the same level of speed and power and percision that Nadal was playing ALL through out the match. The fact that Federer was able to do that was incredible (especially at the tiebreaker of that infamous fourth set.)
But towards the end of the fifth set where there was not a quick win (tiebreaker,) the extra fitness began to show an edge, and it was clear that Federer was fading where as Nadal became even more focus.

By: Tomaz

Tomaz — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:48:06 +0000

Good points, Daniel. I think that Roger should play the exact “boring” strategy to Nadal that Nadal plays to him: Play to backhand again and again and again…

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:25:27 +0000

I personally fully agree with the 5 reasons exposed as causes. I think it’s been hard for Roger to keep consistency over the years with no serious constant opponent until 2007. I believed then Roger got enough and was about to retire the same way as Bjorg and Henin. But he’s still here. I think he has changed his game to lower the risks from the beginning of his pro career…That helped him to rise up consistency and win so many time. But he has nothing of a real dinker (Nadal is the modern prototype) and should be more offensive, just as he was for the last correction given to Nadal in semifinal of Masters cup. Developing new tactical orientations of his game around a powerful cross short drive and a straight drop shot volley (the same as Tsonga in Australian’s 08 semi) will help him to play Nadal like the leftie he is.
I think Roger has been so successful that he’s loosing patience again (just like at the beginning of his career, with experience on top) in the game and lost again every opponent who keeps the ball in for a while with high bounces from lifting and neutralizing his serve. When he often won through tiebreaks he’s more on the edge now and loose just a few points.
He mentionned he developped e few new shots for Roland Garros but I haven’t been able to them more than now and then. His game based on neutralizing in the middle then drive inside out with pace and or short cross shots to attack always straight is now to predictive for the defensive game of Nadal. A defense is build to contain attacks and is not suitable for a wide range of them. Diversity and powerful short cross drive will help Roger from my point of view. If not, he’ll fall in the same trap as Andy, great “quite predictable” shots.