There is a very obvious reason why Federer’s backhand was initially poor. It is because Nadal has managed to work his topspinning returns on grass now, and just like on clay Federer struggles to handle it, particularly on his backhand side. It is the key reason why Nadal beats Federer on clay because the ball kicks up high upon bouncing hence Federer can’t generate any meaningful power with the backhand return so at best he’ll return a midcourt ball for Nadal to put away. Nadal has managed to use the same trick on grass although to a lesser extent as the topspinner doesn’t kick up as much. But the spin and bounce still makes it incredibly hard to return a meaningful ball.

When I said Nadal won more games last year, I was referring to the final, not the whole tournament
Federer won 7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2. Although this shows that they both won 26 games each, I’m not counting tie breakers because those sets were not decided by a break of serve). My point is that Nadal broke Federer three times, Federer broke him only twice. Therefore it is clear that Nadal was already getting close to Federer on grass even though Federer was at his best last year.

Oh right, fair enough.

Federer made a lot of unforced errors on his backhand though, and had his backhand been at its best, it would've caused Nadal a lot more problems, despite his immense topspin hampering Federer somewhat.

I may be wrong, but is it possible that Federer actually managed to win more points than Nadal in the final? Because when they did a point score, Federer was ahead, despite being behind in the actual score. Did he maintain that slight lead?

Good question and the answer surprises me:

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/showsports.aspx?id=SPOEN20080055962

According to this website, Nadal won 209 points to Federer's 204 points. Like you I thought that Federer won more points because he seemed to have won many of his service games to love.

Going back to the Federer backhand to Nadal's topspin issue, somehow Federer has to find a way to solve this problem as he clearly hasn't managed to yet.

Read this Stickster, it sums up Federer's dilemma in a nutshell:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/skills/5019976.stm

Haha, Stickster. That's a new one. I like it.

That's a good article. Nice find.

It's a real headache for Federer. I hope he can do something to sort it out, because i really want him to win the French open. I really want him to win Wimbledon 8 times as well, and smash the total grand slam record. I still think it's possible he could reach the 20 mark, but obviously reaching such a ridiculously high number of grand slams would an unbelievably difficult achievement.

Yeah I know what you mean about wanting Federer to win the French Open; I wanted him to win it too. That's why I'm glad that Nadal has won Wimbledon, because it's really lit the blue touch paper to their rivalry. Federer will be very angry that Nadal has beaten him in his Centre Court "home".

What would be brilliant now is if Federer wins the French Open - it would be the perfect revenge and add even more fuel into their fight for Tennis supremacy. Also if Nadal reached the US or Australian Open final so he could challenge him on a hard court, although Djokovic is doing that anyway by the looks of it.

As for the Grand Slams, I don't think Federer will reach 20 but he should beat Sampras's 14. Watch out for Nadal though! He turned only 22 last month and has already bagged 5 Grand Slams - at the same age Federer only had one - Wimbledon 2003. The big question though is if Nadal's body can handle the incredible amount of strain he exerts on it. Time will tell.

However you look at it, Tennis is the real winner. Many sports fans will be intrigued by one of the best sporting rivalries in history and will be glued to their TVs come the US Open in September.

Federer should sail past Sampras. I think it's just a matter of time. If he doesn't beat it, it would be a travesty.

As for Nadal, what he's doing is truly remarkable. Let's just hope he doesn't burn out and retire early like the great Bjorn Borg.

He's another who could've obliterated the grand slam record (which was set after he retired) if he didn't retire so early. And if he competed in the Australian open.

Agreed, Borg would have won a few more slams for sure. He never won the US Open or the Australian (although he only competed in it once) so that would be his achilles heel when considering him for the greatest ever player. In fact, I believe only Andre Agassi is the only man to have won a grand slam on all three surfaces.

Even though Federer has won two fewer slams than Sampras, I still consider him to be a greater player. Sampras never even reached the final of the French, whereas Federer's reached the last three, plus a semifinal when Nadal again knocked him out. More importantly, Sampras's game was too one dimensional for my liking - by contrast Federer has the greatest all court game the sport has ever seen in my opinion.

Can I just say it's an absolute pleasure to chat with you about this mate. I'm a little disappointed about the lack of interest shown in here with regard to the final as I thought most people would have watched it and had something to say. Clearly this hasn't been the case. Still, I'm glad to be discussing it with you anyway Stickster

I couldn't watch the Final because I had my Visa Interview the next day and I'm now trying to find when the replay of that match is available in my area. Since I didn't see the match, I couldn't comment on it. But from the reports I read, some were of the opinion that if there was no rain break, Nadal could've won in straight sets as Federer was struggling with his backhand. But after the rain break in the 3rd set, he seemed to get his game back on track...

I dunno whether its true or not, but whatever it was, it's an incredible performance from both players especially from Nadal not only because I'm a big fan of him, but its proof that he's improved a lot and he's getting better and better as time goes. Federer will have his hands full at the US Open what with Nadal seemingly improving with every tournament and Djokovic having good record on hard courts this year. Federer has only won 1 title for this year I think and if Nadal can somehow keep his blistering form this year, he has a good shot at Rank 1...

Great to see Rafa lifting the Wimbledon trophy. What a player!!!

I certainly feel that that final was the changing of guard in men's tennis. Federer will no longer be the dominate force in the sport but I do really hope he gos on to surpass Sampras record.

Thanks man, it's a pleasure talking to you as well. You certainly know your stuff.

I agree completely about the Sampras thing. Federer undoubtedly has a superior game. I remember watching those two play each other at Wimbledon a few years back. I was delighted when Federer beat him. Great game, and it signalled a new king in tennis.

As for Agassi - he's not the only one. Rod Laver and Roy Emerson have also won on all surfaces, but that was back in the 60's. Only Agassi has done it in the modern era.

It's a shame Borg can't be added to that list as well, because he came so close at the US open a number of times.

I think the main difference between Agassi and Laver was, Agassi won all four Slams during his career so its called something like the 'Career Grand Slam'. What Rod Laver did was even more exceptional that he won all four majors in the same year twice(1962 and 1967 I think). That is called 'The Grand Slam' (i-e) Holding all four majors at the same time. After Rod Laver, noone has done it and only Federer has come close to doing it(holding 3 titles at the same time) but each and every time, Nadal is in his way and now Djokovic has also stepped up a bit.

I also think Federer's era of complete dominance is over. Yes he'll still win Titles and might break Sampras' record, but he won't be that same dominant player he was until last season IMO.

Laver and Emerson won everything in their era but back then the US and Australian Open were played on grass. Therefore Andre Agassi is the only man to win a grand slam on all three surfaces - grass, clay and hard.

Immortal: I have to agree that Federer's complete dominance is over. He's getting challenged on every surface now. That's the nature of sport I guess - no one stays at the top forever.

We've seen over players respond, and return to utterly dominant again. There's nothing to say Federer can't. The nature of his play, means he should be able to last a good few years, whereas Nadal could easily burn out.

Also, an injury to Nadal could ruin it all for him. Just look at Safin. Injuries, followed by a lack of games, followed by a lack of wins, then low confidence, and you're on a road of despair.

Anything can happen yet.

Its not just Nadal who's challenging Federer now. Djokovic is playing extremely well in hard courts. Then there are a host of young guys coming up now. IMO Gulbis is a star for the future. That guy already has the right mind and gameplay to be one of the best and he's just 19 now. So he'll only improve. I don't think Federer will be back to his dominant best again. He might improve even better than his previous years, but the quality of his Challengers have also improved quite a lot and they've all bridged the gap or will soon do it.

He couldn't win on his best surface even though he was on his best form possible for that Final. Its extremely tough to keep up his dominance from now on. Yes injuries to some Challengers might help him, but its all ifs and buts. In the same way, I can say a sudden Injury to Federer might mean he maynot even break Sampras' record. Anything is possible in Sports. But the way I see it happening from now on, Federer's era of dominance is over after his Defeat to Djokovic in Melbourne. He has won only 1 title this year and if he carries on like this for the rest of the year, he's going to lose his No.1 Rank as Nadal is breathing down his neck and so is Djokovic...

Very well said and I completely agree.

It's not impossible, but it's highly unlikely that he'll win majors on the regular like he used to.

He was ill though, which explains why this year hasn't been his best.

Every Sportsperson has some problems. Sometimes its mental problem, sometimes its physical illness or injuries, etc. It can never be used as a reason for under performing. Nadal carries little injuries like Blisters right from French Open. He even took a Medical time-out to treat those blisters once in Paris. He hurt his Knee twice in Wimbledon, once against Youzhny and once in the Final. Everyone has to battle past difficulties. So it can never be used as an excuse.

Federer being ill earlier in the season is not the only reason he's not winning. His main competitors have all raised their game and they've closed the gap to Federer quality-wise. So to just say Federer is not playing to his best only due to illness is not right. It might be one of the reason in the earlier part of the season. But IMO he played extremely well in Wimbledon without even dropping a set until the finals and he came through the tougher draw when compared to Nadal. So Federer played his best Tennis against Nadal in the finals and there is simply no excuse to lose on his favourite surface. The only reason he lost was on that day Nadal was simply too good to win the title. There was no other reason. Nadal 100% deserved to win and Federer 100% deserved to lose. No other excuses like Light factor or illness or rain breaks, etc. Nadal was simply too good for him, end of.

Federer is yet to beat Nadal this year. Before the start of the Hamburg Masters, people were saying that Djokovic is very close to Nadal now and he might even take the 2nd spot ahead of Nadal. Now what has happened is, Nadal is just 550 points behind Federer and if things happen like this for the rest of this year, Nadal will most certainly take the No.1 Spot. So everyone has to up their game to beat Nadal(Even Federer) as Nadal has been the best Tennis player this season so far...

Federer suffered from glandular fever which undoubtedly affected him during the Australian Open. I'll give him that. But he was 100% for Wimbledon - his favourite and most successful surface - and still lost. No excuses there I'm afraid.

Stickster you remind me of my mate: he'll defend Federer fiercely but you have to see the reality that Nadal is a serious rival - he can beat Federer even when the Swiss maestro is playing great. Vice versa.

That's why I love this rivalry. Two of the sport's greatest players fighting it out for supremacy. Rolll on Flushing Meadows!

Woo, I was there, sipping on strawberrys and cream, champagne, cheesecake and watching Fed-Hewitt and Gasquet-Murray!

About the final. I dont think Federer will be the same again, Nadal is like this itch he cannot scratch and Fed looks distraught when he steps on court against him.

Woah, i never said Nadal isn't a serious rival. I'm not defending Federer blindly, or because he's my favourite player. I also love Nadal, he's my joint second favourite player, and i love watching him win. I'm quiet happy about him winning Wimbledon.

I still think Federer can comeback and win many more Wimbledon titles though.

As for him having no excuses for not winning this year - he doesn't need any. You don't look for excuses when you were beaten by a man as great as Nadal, in one of the greatest and closest finals ever. You could argue Federer showed what a great champion he is more this year than in many previous successful Wimbledon campaigns - despite losing.