The glaring argument in favor of Nadal vs. Federer of last year is the quality of tennis.
Not so much an error-free game, because it wasn't on Federer's side, but the belief that Federer a year younger and without dropping a set, and Nadal in his physical prime made a better clash of greats than an older Federer and a comeback Roddick, and a tournament without Nadal period.
While that is a fair argument, a match can be judged as great on many levels, and in terms of closeness and points played, the 2009 Wimbledon Men's Final is unquestionably at the top.
Now, whether to asses that Nadal of 2008 was better than Federer and Roddick of '09 as players is a matter of opinion, as again, Federer did make a lot more unforced errors against Nadal in the '08 final, and there could be an argument made that it is a mental struggle for Federer and that against Nadal he does not play his best tennis.
Against Roddick, he can and did, and Roddick has improved by every analytical perspective, it seems.
However, I admit, this might be a "what have you done for me lately" thought process. Although I did see the Federer vs. Nadal from last year on Saturday, so it was like watching back to back great games, and 16-14 still sounds better.
35 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete