Didn't nadal get lucky this time?

Question

Nadal had to face youzhny in the 4th round who had to come through a tough 5 setter against stepanek, then nadal he had to face murray in the quarter final who again came through a tough 5 setter against gasquet and then he had to face rainer schlutter in the semi final who also played a marathon quarter final against clemant and i bet these players were really fatigued and didn't play their best against nadal and if they did nadal would have been champion today i hope you agree with me!!

Answer 1

If you had actually watched the final , you would not have asked such a stupid question !!

Both players are better than most of the men on all surfaces. Head to head Nadal won a match on a missed forehand. Both are great players.

Answer 2

yaaaa federer lost because of bad light

Answer 3

nah his awesum and deserved his win

Answer 4

well of course he would have been champion... ddduuurrr... hahahaha...

and he didn't get lucky.. he's just REALLY good... for the last two years, he had been facing five setters throughout the championships and he still got to go to the finals... and in case you didn't remember, last year's finals was a five setter and he almost beat Federer too... he can beat those players even though they're at their best... Nadal's been improving throughout the years and i bet he gave himself a lot of beating for losing last year's finals after almost winning it therefore he really worked hard to improve his game for this year...

if you ddin't notice, his serve has totally improved this year... again.. he ddnt get lucky.. he just got a LOT better...

Answer 5

I don't think so. He played superb tennis. He did not beat any ordinary player in the final, he beat Federer.

So if you think Nadal's opponents were tired so was Federer's

Federer

in R2, Robin Soderling (Soderling won 7-5 0-6 6-3 6-4 in R1)

in R3, Marc Gicquel (4-6 5-7 7-6 7-6 6-3 in R2)

in QF, Mario Ancic (6-3 6-4 3-6 4-6 11-13 in R4)

in SF, Marat Safin (3-6 7-5 7-6 6-3 in QF)

and Federer had 3 set win over all his opponents up to the final.

Nadal

in R2, Ernest Gulbis (5-7 5-7 7-6 6-7 in R1) Nadal won by 7-5 2-6 6-7 3-6 in R2

in R4, Mikhail Youzhny (5-7 7-6 4-6 7-6 3-6 in R3)

in QF, Andy Murray (7-5 6-3 6-7 2-6 4-6 in R4)

in SF, Rainer Schuettler (6-3 5-7 7-6 6-7 8-6 in QF)

Is there anything to choose between? Hardly anything.

About the bad light! If it was of bad light, do you think Nadal is supernatural, so that the bad light will only affect Fedex and Rafa was unaffected by it?

Answer 6

Well Federer had to play Ancic and he had a 5 setter and so did Safin, right?  Maybe Nadal got more worn out players. I'm not really sure.

Answer 7

that doesnt really matter because federer had it really lucky as well. Especially because he didnt face djokovic in the semi's

Answer 8

There is nothing called being lucky.  It is simply hard work meeting opportunity.  Nadal work hard for every point he gets and it doesn't matter how close the person came to winning if he doesn't win doesn't mean the other person was lucky.  It simple means he started playing better and the other person stayed the same or decline in his game.

Answer 9

But you what Nadal won the wimbledon.

Answer 10

No, the player who can defeat the king of grass court in final can beat anybody.

Answer 11

Well if you look at the statistics than no he didn't. He made 27 errors out of the whole match. Federer made 52! thats almost double!!

His mind wasn't in the game although he crawled back he made mistakes that 2 years ago he wouldn't have made but you know its the finals of wimbledon although it herts to loose it think of how it would feel to loose in the 1st round?

Answer 12

Another depressed Fed-tart who can't stomach his beloved Roger's loss. Stop being such a dumbass and face the truth.

Even y'all who are saying Federer lost bcoz of the light, its just ludicrous.

If Rafa stomped through to the finals through an easy draw, how do u explain his win over Federer who literaly cruised through his side of the draw without breaking a sweat?