Roboblogger's statement that Nadal has not lost a match since 2007 final is a little misleading, especially as he says that this shows Roger Federer's era of invincibility is passed.
Federer's era of invincibility HAS past. The statement is not the least bit misleading if you don't take it out of context. Read further where the author goes on to say:
But next week will be the first time the Spaniard will actually walk out as defending champion having missed the 2009 event through injury.
Who won in 2007 and 2009? Fed of course!
Who won in 2008 and last year, in 2010? Nadal of course! Federer doesn't win slams where he has to meet Nadal in the final, and last year he didn't even get to the semis of Wimbledon.
The final of 2008 where Nadal scraped by in near darkness did not show any sign of Roger's decline either. Roger is the supreme master on grass. Dismiss him at your peril, and watch him win his 17th Grand Slam in 2011 and his 7th Wimbledon title on July 3rd.
The '07 and '08 epics that pitted Federer against Nadal were both VERY close, but showed the tennis world that Federer was not untouchable at Wimbledon. If you want to call Nadal's victory in '08 "scraping by", then you have to acknowledge Federer's wins in '07 and '09 as the same.
Even though Nadal missed the '09 tournament, Roddick pushed him to the brink of defeat when Federer won 16-14 in the fifth.
And how do you put a happy face on Federer losing to Berdych in the quarters LAST year? Obviously, the tour players know he is not the same Federer who was dominating the tour in '07. As the author said, he is no longer considered invincible.
It sounds like you're dismissing Nadal. We'll see who's holding the trophy at the end...