24 thoughts on “Roger Federer vs. Murray Wimbledon 2012 Men’s Final

  1. Obviously by “equal for all the players” i meant of those players playing in that specific generation. Damn youtube digit limit!

  2. I hope so ! Anyway the comparison between Federer and the rest is legit since every generation plays in conditions equal for all the players with a period of evolution for everybody; in other words you cannot compare the skill between Federer and..say Borg, i mean “federer could beat borg” is just stupid. We could say Borg in his gen was able to win 5 Wimbledon one after another, Sampras was able to win 7 wimbledon. Federer was able to do a 5 streak + winning 7 total. Imho, that’s a good meter.

  3. Not of all time just of current time. Modern tennis sort of started with the Sampras generation so we’ve only scratched the surface of talent. The next few generations will definitely show some amazing players.

  4. no Nadal and Djokovic will run their knees out. I give a few more to Djokovic and maybe a french open or two more to nadal

  5. I’d like to remember that in 2008 Federer had mononucleosis and food illness from the beginning of the season, one of the reason of his debacle in 2008 (especially at Australian Open and Dubai). Anyway he was the only one able to beat Nadal in madrid on clay, after all. On the other side Nadal was the first to beat Federer on grass after all those years. But Nadal has never had the same dominant streak as Federer overall, due to his problems with other surfaces.

  6. i take your word because im no experct on tennis,,,im a big federer fan,,,,,his image on the court,,his bach hand,,,every thing i loke about him,,i dont like anything about nadal,,even tho hees incredible player,,,its currently nadal 11 slams federer 17,,,do you think nadal will catch him???

  7. Go look at Wimbledon Champions and French Open Champions and compare and you’ll see how many no names won the French Open compared to Wimbledon.

  8. Federer was able to beat Sampras when he was in a winning streak, at Wimbledon, at 19 years of age,,,,,,mabie but nadal did the same to federer ending the remarcable 6 in a row

  9. Maybe, but Federer was able to beat Sampras when he was in a winning streak, at Wimbledon, at 19 years of age, at their first (and last) meet at official tournaments. Nadal did the same with Federer at their first meet, but not at Wimbledon, and Nadal was already a Grand Slam champion during 2006 and 2007 where he beated Federer in both finals in Roland Garros (and later in 2008 too). So he was “young” but perfectly capable of winning Wimbledon in 2006-2007.

  10. Because Wimbledon is the most prestigious of all tournaments, also called “The Championships” since is the oldest and most desired by every tennis player. And it has the biggest amount of pricemoney for the winner, which is 1.150.000£ equal to 1.450.000 euro. Roland Garros 2012 pricemoney for the winner was 1.250.000 euro . Wimbledon’s title is just the most desired thing a tennis player would dream to have in the pocket!

  11. That’s exactly what I meant… even reaching the same amount of Grand Slams (with Djokovic behind the scenes interfering both won’t be easy) it will be extremely difficult to have a dominant 286 weeks as number one in the next few years, nor he will be able to have a 236 consecutive weeks which is absolutely un-human record (the second is Jimmy Connors with 160, Nadal is at 56). I mean, too many are understimating those numbers, where Federer reached God-like results.

  12. and why is 7 wimbledons better that 7 french opens,,,and federer is nearly 5 years older?????by the way im no experct on tennis

  13. yes but in Wimbledon’s final both in 2006 and 2007,nadal was not in his prime and quite young you must not forget,,,the nadal that lost to federer in in 07 was nowhere as good as the nadal 12 months later,,,and federer in 08 wimbledon final went two sets to love down and only brought it back level on 2 tie breaks,,,,what a match,,,,i was gutted,,,i will never forget that match,,,,,,fantistic tennis throughout,,also its a pity they havent played on grass more

  14. You should not forget that before Nadal beated Federer in 2008 he lost against him at Wimbledon’s final both in 2006 and 2007, during the Federer’s dominant period. And Nadal had a hell of a trouble winning the 2008’s final which was the best game of all time. But he always won the Roland Garros title in those years, reflecting the amazing attitude of Nadal on clay surfaces and less attitude on grass, where Federer is a master. Too bad they had only 3 games on that surface to see more there.

  15. I’m sorry but Nadal is not better than Federer, even with a head to head in his advantage. Federer has 17 Slams, Nadal 11. Federer 4 Aussie, 1 French, 7 Wimbledon, 5 US Open. Nadal 1 Aussie, 7 French, 2 Wimbledon, 1 US Open. Federer leads 3/4 slams. And 7 Wimbledon’s is a hell of a lot better than 7 French Open. Also Nadal did not dominate the tour like Federer did when he was in his prime.

  16. yes the 5 year difference is succnifacent no doubt but nadal beat him at the austraila final and in wimbldon 2008 when federer was in his prime in that spectular final,,what age do you think these 2 were in their prime,,,i think 2008,,i also dont think nadal is as good as in 08,,,im not a fan of nadal atall but his suppier record whatever surface against federer just cannot be over looked,,,but im no experct

  17. Not only that, but in hardcourt surfaces Federer is in advantage by 6-5 (considering outdoor and indoor games). So your statement is COMPLETELY out of this world. If you consider only the total number of victories without taking care of the rest, then Rosol is the best player of all time because he’s 1-0 against Nadal. That’s the reason because the BEST player of all time is judged by the record streak in various categories. Federer is the owner of the most important of these.

Comments are closed.