There can be no doubt about it: sport does not get any better.
Sunday’s battle was the greatest Wimbledon final of all time, the
perfect match in every respect except one: the wrong man won. My
admittedly biased view (I’m a Federer fan) is that poetic justice, and
the narrative arc of the match, would have been better served by
Federer, and not Nadal, triumphing in the dying light. Here are five
reasons why:
1) Comebacks make for the best sporting stories, and a victory for
Federer would have been the most remarkable of comebacks, eclipsing
Murray’s against Gasquet in the fourth round.
2)Â The greatest sporting performances are those in which a player
reveals, in the course of a match, qualities that no one suspected
them of possessing. Nadal didn’t reveal anything new during Sunday’s
final; we knew before it started that he was a player of machine-like
strength and consistency, able to maintain a certain level of
performance whatever the situation. But few people could have
suspected that Federer was capable of such bloody-mindedness, such
courageous determination to stay in a match that he should have lost
in three sets. Steeliness isn’t a quality one associates with Federer,
largely because he has never had much need for it; his talents mean
that he has rarely had to fight.
3) Federer is, though only 26, like the king whose grip on power is
waning. He clearly does not feel ready to hand over power, and there
is something both heroic and tragic about the spectacle of him
clinging so desperately on. It matters, of course, that Federer is
such a likeable king; few people felt much sadness, for example, when
Sampras was toppled. It would have been a glorious act of defiance had
Federer managed to resist Nadal’s onslaught.
4) Surely a player as great as Federer deserved to beat Borg’s record.
In many ways, he has been unlucky that his career has overlapped with
Nadal’s – the best ever clay court player. Had it not done so, he
would surely have won at least two grand slams by now, equalling Rod
Laver’s record. So it seems almost cruel that Federer should have been
denied the chance to break Borg’s record as well.
5) Federer’s backhand passing shot to save the second match point in the
fourth set tie-break was so brilliant, in the circumstances (and
remember his backhand hadn’t been working very well up to that point
in the match), that it alone deserved to win him the title.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
I agree, wholeheartedly. Especially point #2. Honestly I did not expect him to stage such a remarkable comeback, and he sure deserved it.
I disagree William. A Federer win would have been great – I was also rooting for him. But it would be part of the usual sporting cliche of the great comeback. It was a more interesting match, and a less obvious plot to have Nadal dominant, a Federer fightback complete with championship points saved, and then Nadal winning a war of attrition during which he got his pysche sorted out. (It’s not true to say he was a robot like usual – in the 4th set tie break he let victory slip through his grasp, choking, letting his lead slip and serving a double fault when moments from triumph.) The result of this amazing match was rare – it meant that both player’s reputations were enhanced. Nadal for obvious reasons, Federer showing with that fightback that the Spaniard wasn’t the only one with cojones on Centre Court
I cannot agree any less and quite honestly it reflects my thoughts as well. I am a Roger fan and would have loved him to win the match. But it is not so much about whether one was a Roger Fan or not. He deserved to win because not only he demonstrated indomitable will, determination and mental strength at a time of crisis but he proved what it takes to usurp the most prestigous tennis title from him on his favorite court. Federer has been and will remain the best player ever to have played on Wimbledon center court. At two sets each and 7-7 down in the match, both players proved that one is not less to another. The winning game and the one before went onto deuce. It was more of a ceremonial requirement that one of them had to break in another’s serve.
It’s next to impossible to win five in a row and impossible to win six in a row and who else but Federer to create such a unique record. He had such a historic moment to leave an indelible record and alas, he came so close it but missed it.
When Nadal said that Federer is the best, he knew it having seen Federer more closer than any of us. He didn’t say just for friendship and courtesy sake but Nadal knew more than anyone else what makes Federer what he is and why he has remained the No. 1 player for so long.
Both players were remarkable, as anyone would expect from the two top players in the world. However, Nadal was consistent throughout, despite losing championship points and watching Federer bring the match back to a tie.
Federer didn’t seem to have quite the same mental will as Nadal on the day. Even on the unforced errors and crucial missed points, Nadal kept his head high and didn’t look like he was even thinking about it. That must have been tough, regardless of how ‘machine-like’ he can be.
I say this from an unbiased view; the winner didn’t matter to me. Both players had such strong reason to make that win and I simply hoped it would be an entertaining Wimbledon Final. In that, I wasn’t disappointed in the slightest.
In terms of the first point…Murray’s comeback won’t be eclipsed for me for a long while (and wouldn’t have been even if Federer had won), because of the match’s sheer entertainment value. Far from stressful, it was good fun from the moment Murray started to pull the match back and fire up the crowd. Clichéd, maybe, but great for a laugh.
I wanted Federer to win, but he himself was least able to do so when Nadal left the court clear for a smash. Federer wanted to win so much that he got too excited by the prospect of winning, and paradoxically was in fact better when the going was tough and almost impossible. Nadal also lost when the prize was well within his grasp. Wimbledon defeated each candidate in turn and then Federer, with his greater sense of Wimbledon history, including his own contribution to it, was more burdened down and finally lost.
rubbish!!!! – Nadal wanted it more… simple as that. Was thrilled he won such an epic game.
Delighted to see a change at the top – nothing more boring that someone dominating a sport/competition … Nadal showed real spine to recover form two match points to claim eventual victory
i like Federer – but he is only 26 – he’ll be back.
I look forward to watching the two of them continue to do battle.
I had the good fortune to have a pair of Centre Court seats last Sunday for what I consider to be the greatest tennis match I have seen at Wimbledon since I made my first visit as an eleven year old in 1962 when Rod Laver was king of the court.
I don’t agree with the analysis above. Federer did brilliantly to turn the match around from what could easily have been a straight sets victory for Nadal. However he was far too erratic in his overall performance. Despite superb serving and excellent passing shots, he committed far more unforced errors than usual, especially in his approach shots to the net when his normally reliable volleying skidded into the base of the net on too many occasions.
Possibly as has been said of Serena Williams in the Ladies’ Final a day earlier, Federer simply wanted that sixth title too passionately (although you’d never know it from his on court demeanour!) and this may have accounted for the errors that peppered his game.
Having said all this, the whole match was an absolute thrill to watch and to be a part of. The electric surge of my fellow crowd members cheering ‘Roger-Roger-Roger’ or ‘Rafa-Rafa-Rafa’ and the leaping to our feet as yet another unbelievable rally concluded with an astounding piece of play from either contestant is very far removed from the ‘Ooh I say’ years of beloved Dan Maskell whose TV commentaries first inspired me in the early 1960s. Yet the core of admiration within me for the athleticism and strategies of nearly 50 years of tennis heroes remains with me in 2008 utterly undimmed.
It was a great match to watch. The best man in sports doesn’t always win.
So who was the best man? Answer: They both were.
When only a point here or there over five close sets makes the difference, who can really say who was the better player.
We are so wrapped up in a winner and loser society we lose sight of the fact that both men provided a marvelous four and a half marathon for all to enjoy.Federer need not be saddened by playing so heroically and Nadal does know the real battle he was in.
Thank you both for such a wonderful display of unbridled grittiness. Just think of what still awaits tennis fans!!
My Dad told me many years ago, ” It does not matter whether we win or lose. It is how we play the game”
Nadal played as well as he could have played (based on current level of his game and form), though one wonders if he has room to improve even more.
Federer played as well as he could have played (again, based on current level of play and form) — only from the third set onwards. He had far more winners than Nadal, but twice as many unforced errors. Nadal won only four more points in the whole match; clearly, if Federer had cut down on his unforced errors to 24, same as Nadal, he would have won.
If the rain had come earlier Federer would have won. The difference between the pre-rain and post-rain Federer was chalk and cheese. Whatever happened in the locker room, it made him a different man. Perhaps the French Open was preying on his mind? On the other hand, if the rain had held off a quarter of an hour, Nadal would have won in three sets which would have been an unfortunate dismissal of a great champion.