roger federer won last year's men's wimbledon final.
roger federer won last year's men's wimbledon final.
who won last year's men's wimbledon final?
roger federer
nadal entered the 2008 wimbledon championships as the two-time runner-up. he was riding a winning streak of 17 matches. nadal had lost the previous two finals to roger federer, including the 2007 wimbledon final, which was considered to be one of the great matches in recent times. nadal defeated german andreas beck in the first round. he then lost his first set of the tournament in a tight second-round match against latvian ernests gulbis. nadal stormed through the rest of the tournament, thrashing nicolas kiefer, 7-6(3), 6-2, 6-3, russian mikhail youzhny, 6-3, 6-3, 6-1 and future wimbledon champion andy murray, 6–3, 6-2, 6-4. nadal then defeated surprise semifinalist rainer schüttler 6-1, 7-6(3), 6-4 to set up a third consecutive wimbledon final with 5-time defending champion roger federer. nadal then played what is considered the greatest match in tennis history, defeating federer in a 4-hour, 48-minute match, 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(5), 6-7(8), 9-7 in the longest wimbledon final in history. the win gave nadal his first grand slam outside the french open, and his fifth grand slam overall. the match is notable for its long, well-crafted rallies and the clutch shots produced on crucial points. federer saved two match points in the fourth-set tie-break, but eventually caved on nadal's fourth match-point. the two greatest passing shots of the tournament were hit back-to-back late into the fourth-set tiebreak. nadal hit a clutch forehand pass to set up match-point on his own serve. federer responded with a backhand pass to save the match-point. federer eventually closed out the set, but lost the match. many experts agree this match set nadal up to the great success that would ensue in the following months.
2008 rafael nadal tennis season
gettier provides several examples of beliefs that are both true and justified, but that we should not intuitively term knowledge. cases of this sort are now termed "gettier (counter-)examples". because gettier's criticism of the justified true belief model is systemic, other authors have imagined increasingly fantastical counterexamples. for example: i am watching the men's wimbledon final, and john mcenroe is playing jimmy connors, it is match point, and mcenroe wins. i say to myself: "john mcenroe is this year's men's champion at wimbledon". unbeknownst to me, however, the bbc were experiencing a broadcasting fault and so had broadcast a tape of last year's final, when mcenroe also beat connors. i had been watching last year's wimbledon final, so i believed that mcenroe had bested connors. but at that same time, in real life, mcenroe was repeating last year's victory and besting connors! so my belief that mcenroe bested connors to become this year's wimbledon champion is true, and i had good reason to believe so (my belief was justified) — and yet, there is a sense in which i could not really have claimed to "know" that mcenroe had bested connors because i was only accidentally right that mcenroe beat connors — my belief was not based on the right kind of justification.
edmund gettier