source: http://tennistalk.com/en/blog/Cheryl_Murray/20080808/Federer_and_Nadal_-_Is_it_love,_hate_or_something_else_entirely_-_Part_1
source: http://tennistalk.com/en/blog/Cheryl_Murray/20080818/Federer_and_Nadal_-_Is_it_love,_hate_or_something_else_entirely_-_Part_2
Federer and Nadal - Is it love, hate or something else entirely?
(part 1) 2008-08-08 08:51:52
I have long been fascinated with the ongoing dynamic between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. How could I fail to be otherwise? They are inextricably intertwined with each other, perhaps more so than any two single sportsmen ever have been before. I have never witnessed two men that seemed destined to break each others' hearts and steal each others' dreams as Roger and Rafa. Forget about Pete and Andre – they were an appetizer to the banquet that is Federer and Nadal.
Unlike Sampras and Agassi, the appeal is not due simply to the frequency of their meetings. That is far too pedestrian for Roger and Rafa. They've met roughly half the number of times (18) as their rivalry predecessors (34). No, Nadal-Federer is more complex, more subtle and infinitely more interesting than anything we have seen before. It's as though every meeting is a proverbial life or death encounter.
They have already met in six Grand Slam finals, more than any other duo in history. Each time they look across the net at each other, history is at stake. Not every match they play is a great match – in fact, some of them probably don't even qualify as good. Without mincing words, the French Open final this year was a complete embarrassment. For some reason this just adds to the allure. Perhaps it is the ever-present threat of looming disaster that draws us in so completely.
While Rafa hoisted that fourth trophy in Paris this year, I watched Roger. The image that came to my mind distinctly (and quite uncomfortably) was of a man who had come into the match with a half-healed wound; one that Nadal ruthlessly, efficiently and without remorse clawed open again. I thought (not for the first time) that Federer must have hated him just a little bit right at that moment, no matter how much they are reputed to like each other.
Whether it is fabrication or real, we ARE fed a steady diet of Rafa and Roger as the consummate gentlemen, full of nothing but admiration, respect and casual friendliness with each other. And make no mistake, there is plenty of evidence to suggest this to be the case. Rarely are they ever anything but scrupulously polite to each other. Nadal was quick to leap to the defense of Federer this year, when the press began murmuring about a drop in form. When asked which player he would like to see succeed him as the number one player in the world, Federer named Nadal without a moment's hesitation. They have shared a private jet (from Montreal to Cincinnati last year) and formed a united front against the Big Bad Wolf (also goes by the name "ATP President Etienne de Villiers").
And if there is something odd (read – not 100% genuine) about Nadal claiming that Federer is "still number one on clay" we give it a pass - despite the fact that Federer has beaten Nadal once in nine tries on the dirt. Such statements are attributed to the fact that he is a humble champion, a nice guy and a host of other things that are probably true. Rest assured that the condescension which licks at the edges of those statements is not lost on Federer, though. I don't necessarily think that Nadal does it on purpose, but the net effect is the same. Tomorrow I will continue the article. We'll look at the patented Federer Thinly Veiled Insult and how this year's Wimbledon has now completely thrown the relationship off-balance.
(part 2) 2008-08-18 17:38:43
Roger Federer always seems to be at the giving end of… we'll call them "less than gracious" comments between the two men. To my knowledge, in fact, Nadal has never said anything uncomplimentary about his rival. Federer? Not so much. There will be some who claim that Roger is simply more candid in interviews than Rafa. And that's true to some extent – Nadal is hardly known for laying it all out there when he talks to the press. On the other hand, I recall Roger claiming that Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick were his biggest competition – at a time where he had beaten each of them upwards of nine times in a row. He must save his honest moments for Rafa.
And what moments they were. My own personal favorite was Roger calling Rafa one-dimensional throughout the clay court season in 2006. The first incidence was before they played the final in Monte Carlo (which Nadal won). Roger said it several more times and lost several more times. Later, Roger claimed that he was actually COMPLIMENTING Nadal, because he executed his single dimension so well. It's amazing how a round of consecutive losses can change one's perspective... That still makes me chuckle.
The "big one", of course, is the accusation of cheating Federer issued after losing that heart-breaker in Rome (also in 2006). Federer had two match points in the fifth, but couldn't convert. Nadal went on to win in a tie break and Federer, incensed at losing, claimed that Toni Nadal was coaching his nephew during the match. Several US commentators claim they saw nothing untoward from the Nadal camp; either way sour grapes was not a good look for Roger. Since then, Federer's barbs have been more carefully concealed, so that they are more back-handed compliments than anything else. After his loss at Wimbledon this year, the Swiss man was full of compliments for his opponent – until somebody asked him about the playing conditions. There Federer said "It's rough on me, obviously, to lose the biggest tournament in the world over maybe a bit of light." He must have forgotten that the guy who won played in the same conditions.
In the end, though, Federer's position is understandable. He's the one who has been on the losing end of this rivalry. The clay season has been Nadal's for four years and Roland Garros, the only Grand Slam to elude Federer, is slipping further away from Federer, not getting closer. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, Federer took Nadal to four sets – this year he took four GAMES. His claims that he has "figured out Nadal's game" on clay is not much more than posturing at this point.
Nadal has been gracious, but then again he has been given little reason not to be. Except for the 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon losses, Federer has not taken anything from Nadal. Roger's held that number one spot, but there has always been a sense that Rafa would get there eventually anyway. It has been Nadal's own hard court form that has been his biggest issue, so why wouldn't he gladly shoulder the role as "the good guy"?
The balance of the relationship has been maintained up until this point because, although Nadal has won most of their matches (12-6), Federer has followed up his Roland Garros loss with a Wimbledon victory. They basically took turns stealing the other's dreams. And Nadal could maintain his sense of humility by saying "Roger is still the number one player in the world, so he's the favorite". None of those things is true anymore; the dynamic as we've known it for three years now is in shambles and Federer is at the bottom of the rubble.
Showing posts with label article. Show all posts
Showing posts with label article. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Future of Federer...
Where to now Mr. Federer? Coach Gilbert? Coach Sampras?
Posted by Steve Host on July 15th, 2008
What does the world’s best tennis player do after losing one of the greatest tennis matches ever played on his favorite surface? Get better.
Every sports writer under the sun is writing about how Federer has fallen from grace and Nadal is the new world No. 1. Nadal pulled out of the Stuttgart tournament the week after Wimbledon, thus losing him 250 points as he had previously won the title in 2007, in other words winning Wimbledon only put him 50 ranking points closer to the No. 1 ranking.
You do not get to No. 1 in the world and dominate a sport like tennis without being one of the most competitive human beings on the planet. I believe that Federer and his team are looking at every possible way that he can get better; from a new coach to different training regimes to different string patterns and equipment. Does this sound crazy, yes but at this level of professional sport any edge could mean the difference between winning and losing.
I believe Federer will hire a full time coach before the U.S. Open. Candidates that would be able to fill this position are, Brad Gilbert, who is a real strategy guru and when combined with Federer’s talent and array of skills, could take Federer miles ahead of the competition again. Pete Sampras could be another candidate, yes he has not coached but let’s be serious - the guy knows what he is doing on the big stage! Could you imagine Federers next opponent looking over the net and seeing Federer and then looking over to his box and seeing his coach, Pete Sampras? That’s pretty intimidating!
Federer has been the catalyst for taking men’s professional tennis to another level over the past four years and he was years ahead of the competition. He has dragged his competition to new heights. They are now starting to catch him but he still has the fight and talent to take his game to another new level.
Watch out world! Federer Part 2 is coming soon.
Link: http://www.tennisgrandstand.com/archives/1394
Posted by Steve Host on July 15th, 2008
What does the world’s best tennis player do after losing one of the greatest tennis matches ever played on his favorite surface? Get better.
Every sports writer under the sun is writing about how Federer has fallen from grace and Nadal is the new world No. 1. Nadal pulled out of the Stuttgart tournament the week after Wimbledon, thus losing him 250 points as he had previously won the title in 2007, in other words winning Wimbledon only put him 50 ranking points closer to the No. 1 ranking.
You do not get to No. 1 in the world and dominate a sport like tennis without being one of the most competitive human beings on the planet. I believe that Federer and his team are looking at every possible way that he can get better; from a new coach to different training regimes to different string patterns and equipment. Does this sound crazy, yes but at this level of professional sport any edge could mean the difference between winning and losing.
I believe Federer will hire a full time coach before the U.S. Open. Candidates that would be able to fill this position are, Brad Gilbert, who is a real strategy guru and when combined with Federer’s talent and array of skills, could take Federer miles ahead of the competition again. Pete Sampras could be another candidate, yes he has not coached but let’s be serious - the guy knows what he is doing on the big stage! Could you imagine Federers next opponent looking over the net and seeing Federer and then looking over to his box and seeing his coach, Pete Sampras? That’s pretty intimidating!
Federer has been the catalyst for taking men’s professional tennis to another level over the past four years and he was years ahead of the competition. He has dragged his competition to new heights. They are now starting to catch him but he still has the fight and talent to take his game to another new level.
Watch out world! Federer Part 2 is coming soon.
Link: http://www.tennisgrandstand.com/archives/1394
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Articles on Wimbly 08
Interviews:
Nadal & Federer On-Court Interview
R. Federer Post-Match Interview
R. Nadal Post-Match Interview
---
By Journalists/Writers:
The Spin Master
Imposing his game on grass, Rafael Nadal ripped powerful topspin and sidespin shots to dethrone Roger Federer in a Wimbledon marathon that was the greatest match of all time.
L. JON WERTHEIM for Sports Illustrated
The Green Clay of Wimbledon
Congratulations to Wimbledon. I hope the tournament officials of the All-English Club are happy. Sunday they got a nearly five hour tennis match that, for the television viewer who began watching at eight a.m. promptly, took up their entire morning and most of their afternoon.
D.K. WILSON for The National Sports Review
Final drama provides special ending
Just when you thought this tournament had seen everything – and it had seen a lot of things: Venus Williams winning her fifth title; the top four ladies’ seeds all eliminated by the end of the first week; the resurgence of Marat Safin; a first British girls’ winner since 1984 – this topped it all.
BYRON VALE for Wimbledon.org
Nadal, new king of Centre Court
Wimbledon has a new king. Rafael Nadal dethroned Roger Federer after a five-year reign by winning the longest-ever Wimbledon men's final.
RONALD ATKIN for Wimbledon.org
Sublime Spaniard stretches the imagination
So now we know. For 65 matches spanning six years we have wondered who could possibly be the man to stop Roger Federer on grass, and at Wimbledon. Did such a player exist, or was Federer's elegant supremacy such that the mere idea was the stuff of ridiculous imagination?
KATE BATTERSBY for Wimbledon.org
Roger unravels on Centre Court
As the light faded over Centre Court, an era faded with it. Roger Federer's grasp on the Championships was finally loosened by Rafael Nadal in a final that will be remembered forever by all who saw it.
ALIX RAMSAY for Wimbledon.org
Darkest hour for Federer
After his epic five-set battle, Roger Federer was due in the press interview room at 9.55pm, with the newly minted champion Rafael Nadal next up at 10.20pm. Perhaps to make sure that he would only have to do the 10-minute minimum as the world waited for him to dissect his defeat, the beaten finalist eventually appeared, red-eyed and disconsolate, at 10.10pm on the dot. What followed was as much of a roller-coaster as the match itself.
DREW LILLEY for Wimbledon.org
Nadal delighted with amazing win
Over the past two weeks Rafael Nadal has had a number of evening matches, culminating in very late press conferences. Tonight, the clock had ticked past 10.35pm when the 22-year-old emerged for his post-match interview, but the bleary-eyed journalists let him off, engaging in a rousing round of applause when the new men's singles champion stepped in the room.
HELEN GILBERT for Wimbledon.org
Nadal triumph means Federer faces greatest ever challenge
The five-times Wimbledon champion will need every ounce of his fighting spirit if he is to maintain his position on top of the men's game after his defeat on Sunday.
PAUL NEWMAN for The Independent
Federer rocked by hardest loss
Roger Federer admitted losing his Wimbledon crown to Rafael Nadal was the toughest defeat of his career.
The Press Association
Federer still No. 1 in tennis rankings
Many tennis observers now regard Rafael Nadal as the top men's player after his stirring five-set Wimbledon victory on Sunday, but the computer says the honour goes to the man he conquered. Roger Federer of Switzerland is No. 1 in the latest ATP rankings, released Monday, the 232nd consecutive week he has been in the top spot.
CBC Sports
Federer's Creaky Future?
Farewell, Roger Federer? Sonny Bunch, an assistant editor for The Weekly Standard who blogs for the magazine Doublethink, thinks Federer’s loss to Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon is evidence that "Federer is done."
CHRIS SUELLENTROP for The New York Times
The baton passes, no?
Few matches live up to hype. This one did.
AKSHAY SAWAI for Hindustan Times
Match of the century marks dawn of a Spanish Rafa-lution
Rafael Nadal's epic triumph in the most extraordinary of Wimbledon finals is the best advertisement for tennis since... well, since Roger Federer arrived as a grand slam champion five years ago with a game to die for.
LiveNews.com
VIEW: It could be the start of a new era
The score line - 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7 - said it all. In one of the most dramatic and tense Wimbledon finals in many years, Rafael Nadal edged Roger Federer out to win the Wimbledon title. But more than the result, the game could well be a turning point in men's tennis.
The Times of India
COUNTER VIEW: One swallow does not a summer make
In the longest Wimbledon men's final in history, Rafael Nadal finally succeeded in defeating world number one, Roger Federer, on a grass court. But does Nadal's victory indicate a changing of the guard, as many have suggested? Is the loosening of Federer's vice-like grip on the Wimbledon trophy a portent?
The Times of India
---
From Other Players:
Henman on Nadal's Wimbledon Win
Rafael Nadal's victory over Roger Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon men's final is the best match I have ever seen.
TIM HENMAN for BBC Sport
Fish to Fry
I spoke with Pete Sampras yesterday, and he says "Hi' to all his fans at TennisWorld. We talked mostly about the Wimbledon final, and his pal and hitting buddy, Roger Federer.
Peter Bodo interviews PETE SAMPRAS for TennisWorld
Roger Federer not a spent force for Fitzgerald
One lost Wimbledon final doesn't mark the end of Roger Federer's tennis dominance, according to respected Australian David Cup captain John Fitzgerald.
JOHN FITZGERALD, Australian David Cup captain
---
Looking Ahead:
Beijing the Fifth Grand Slam
THE Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open. And this year, a fifth grand slam: the Beijing Olympics.
TALEK HARRIS, Hong Kong, China
Nadal & Federer On-Court Interview
R. Federer Post-Match Interview
R. Nadal Post-Match Interview
---
By Journalists/Writers:
The Spin Master
Imposing his game on grass, Rafael Nadal ripped powerful topspin and sidespin shots to dethrone Roger Federer in a Wimbledon marathon that was the greatest match of all time.
L. JON WERTHEIM for Sports Illustrated
The Green Clay of Wimbledon
Congratulations to Wimbledon. I hope the tournament officials of the All-English Club are happy. Sunday they got a nearly five hour tennis match that, for the television viewer who began watching at eight a.m. promptly, took up their entire morning and most of their afternoon.
D.K. WILSON for The National Sports Review
Final drama provides special ending
Just when you thought this tournament had seen everything – and it had seen a lot of things: Venus Williams winning her fifth title; the top four ladies’ seeds all eliminated by the end of the first week; the resurgence of Marat Safin; a first British girls’ winner since 1984 – this topped it all.
BYRON VALE for Wimbledon.org
Nadal, new king of Centre Court
Wimbledon has a new king. Rafael Nadal dethroned Roger Federer after a five-year reign by winning the longest-ever Wimbledon men's final.
RONALD ATKIN for Wimbledon.org
Sublime Spaniard stretches the imagination
So now we know. For 65 matches spanning six years we have wondered who could possibly be the man to stop Roger Federer on grass, and at Wimbledon. Did such a player exist, or was Federer's elegant supremacy such that the mere idea was the stuff of ridiculous imagination?
KATE BATTERSBY for Wimbledon.org
Roger unravels on Centre Court
As the light faded over Centre Court, an era faded with it. Roger Federer's grasp on the Championships was finally loosened by Rafael Nadal in a final that will be remembered forever by all who saw it.
ALIX RAMSAY for Wimbledon.org
Darkest hour for Federer
After his epic five-set battle, Roger Federer was due in the press interview room at 9.55pm, with the newly minted champion Rafael Nadal next up at 10.20pm. Perhaps to make sure that he would only have to do the 10-minute minimum as the world waited for him to dissect his defeat, the beaten finalist eventually appeared, red-eyed and disconsolate, at 10.10pm on the dot. What followed was as much of a roller-coaster as the match itself.
DREW LILLEY for Wimbledon.org
Nadal delighted with amazing win
Over the past two weeks Rafael Nadal has had a number of evening matches, culminating in very late press conferences. Tonight, the clock had ticked past 10.35pm when the 22-year-old emerged for his post-match interview, but the bleary-eyed journalists let him off, engaging in a rousing round of applause when the new men's singles champion stepped in the room.
HELEN GILBERT for Wimbledon.org
Nadal triumph means Federer faces greatest ever challenge
The five-times Wimbledon champion will need every ounce of his fighting spirit if he is to maintain his position on top of the men's game after his defeat on Sunday.
PAUL NEWMAN for The Independent
Federer rocked by hardest loss
Roger Federer admitted losing his Wimbledon crown to Rafael Nadal was the toughest defeat of his career.
The Press Association
Federer still No. 1 in tennis rankings
Many tennis observers now regard Rafael Nadal as the top men's player after his stirring five-set Wimbledon victory on Sunday, but the computer says the honour goes to the man he conquered. Roger Federer of Switzerland is No. 1 in the latest ATP rankings, released Monday, the 232nd consecutive week he has been in the top spot.
CBC Sports
Federer's Creaky Future?
Farewell, Roger Federer? Sonny Bunch, an assistant editor for The Weekly Standard who blogs for the magazine Doublethink, thinks Federer’s loss to Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon is evidence that "Federer is done."
CHRIS SUELLENTROP for The New York Times
The baton passes, no?
Few matches live up to hype. This one did.
AKSHAY SAWAI for Hindustan Times
Match of the century marks dawn of a Spanish Rafa-lution
Rafael Nadal's epic triumph in the most extraordinary of Wimbledon finals is the best advertisement for tennis since... well, since Roger Federer arrived as a grand slam champion five years ago with a game to die for.
LiveNews.com
VIEW: It could be the start of a new era
The score line - 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7 - said it all. In one of the most dramatic and tense Wimbledon finals in many years, Rafael Nadal edged Roger Federer out to win the Wimbledon title. But more than the result, the game could well be a turning point in men's tennis.
The Times of India
COUNTER VIEW: One swallow does not a summer make
In the longest Wimbledon men's final in history, Rafael Nadal finally succeeded in defeating world number one, Roger Federer, on a grass court. But does Nadal's victory indicate a changing of the guard, as many have suggested? Is the loosening of Federer's vice-like grip on the Wimbledon trophy a portent?
The Times of India
---
From Other Players:
Henman on Nadal's Wimbledon Win
Rafael Nadal's victory over Roger Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon men's final is the best match I have ever seen.
TIM HENMAN for BBC Sport
Fish to Fry
I spoke with Pete Sampras yesterday, and he says "Hi' to all his fans at TennisWorld. We talked mostly about the Wimbledon final, and his pal and hitting buddy, Roger Federer.
Peter Bodo interviews PETE SAMPRAS for TennisWorld
Roger Federer not a spent force for Fitzgerald
One lost Wimbledon final doesn't mark the end of Roger Federer's tennis dominance, according to respected Australian David Cup captain John Fitzgerald.
JOHN FITZGERALD, Australian David Cup captain
---
Looking Ahead:
Beijing the Fifth Grand Slam
THE Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open. And this year, a fifth grand slam: the Beijing Olympics.
TALEK HARRIS, Hong Kong, China
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Another article: Suffering the fall of tennis god Federer
A Federer fan suffers as his god meets his match
Eben Harrell, Special to SI.com
"Federer as Religious Experience." That's the title of the essay on the Swiss tennis player Roger Federer by the great American novelist (and former junior tennis star) David Foster Wallace. The essay, published in 2006, attempted to capture the qualities of Federer's play -- his balletic movement, his fusion of power and grace, and his exploration of seemingly impossible angles, spins and shots -- that seem to raise the five-time Wimbledon champion above the mundane, misjudged, and often flawed execution that so often characterizes tennis, as it does all human endeavor.
Foster Wallace's ecstatic reverence for Federer became the definitive text for a legion of fans -- in which I include myself -- who have this last week suffered the blank and aching sadness that often accompanies the collapse of a belief system.
On July 6, as I watched Federer lose a four-hour 48-minute five-set match to the up-and-coming Spanish superstar Rafael Nadal -- a match that John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg both described as the greatest ever played -- I felt a creeping realization as the duo battled into twilight that I was witnessing something more profound than my hero losing a tennis match: I was witnessing the death of beauty.
For as much as even his own fans admire his play, there is nothing lithe, elegant or graceful about Rafael Nadal, oh he of bulging biceps and perennially itchy butt. A spectacular athlete, Nadal has risen to the top of men's tennis with strength and determination. He's a bruiser (case in point: on Sunday, he directed 25 percent of his serves to Federer's body; Federer chose that aggressive line only four percent of the time).
And Nadal's a scrapper. He has a canny ability to use the angles created by his opponent against them, employing shots that, while not quite good enough to end rallies, still keep an opponent heaving balls back, often on the run, in a Sisyphean nightmare from which only an error can provide release. Tennis analysts call his style of play "counterpunching."
For three years now, Nadal has neutralized Federer's talents on clay courts. The pulverized brick at the French Open -- tennis' slowest surface -- allowed him to grind the Swiss down. But in two successive finals at Wimbledon, in 2006 and 2007, Federer had managed (just) to raise above Nadal on a surface that acted as cynosure for all his talents. (Federer has an uncanny understanding of how to harness the living ground under his feet with shots that the grass propels past opponents with unexpected furtherance.)
But even on the hallowed ground of Center Court (so often compared to a cathedral), Federer was humbled on Sunday by Nadal's dogged consistency and refusal to be awed by even his most artful plays. The victory upended the romantic but now so obviously fanciful belief that loose, creative, attacking play will triumph over obstinacy and revanchism. Watching Federer succumb to Nadal's will, I felt like I was watching an angel fall. Nadal had grabbed his ankles and wrestled him to the ground.
So what now for us lost and suddenly godless Federer fans? Where do we go from here?
In his great book How Jimmy Connors Saved My Life, Joel Drucker wrote of how he despised a young Connors because his dogged counterpunching was a foil to John McEnroe's artistry. Eventually, Drucker came to take inspiration from Connors, accepting that it is perfectly acceptable to get your hands dirty and fight hard. It is even admirable, in a way, to succeed despite one's limitations.
Nadal is no Connors, who supplemented his bullying play with verbal aggression on the court. He plays fair and is magnanimous in victory. And if his words are to be believed, he is as big a Federer fan as any. Nadal always says of Federer that he is the greatest of all time, an invocation of immortal skill that particularly appeals to Federer fans. Perhaps Nadal offers a lesson: one must accept greatness in all its guises -- even greatness wrought of brute force.
And what now for Federer himself?
The greatest fear will be that he will walk away from tennis as Bjorn Borg did at age 25, after devastating losses to McEnroe in the Wimbledon and U.S. Open finals, saying that he was no longer the best tennis player in the world, so he no longer felt the hunger to play. Chances are that Federer, now 26, will stay on and embrace the challenge. And we should love him even more for it.
Rolex -- one of this trilingual Swiss gentleman's main sponsors -- likes to run an advertisement with a picture of Federer and a caption that reads "unrivalled". To be unrivalled is also to be solitary, even lonely. Federer now has company. For better or for worse, he has joined the rest of us mortals who are struggling against our limitations, in search of a beauty that is just beyond our reach.
Eben Harrell covered this year's Wimbledon for TIME magazine and Time.com
Source: SportsIllustrated.CNN.com
Eben Harrell, Special to SI.com
"Federer as Religious Experience." That's the title of the essay on the Swiss tennis player Roger Federer by the great American novelist (and former junior tennis star) David Foster Wallace. The essay, published in 2006, attempted to capture the qualities of Federer's play -- his balletic movement, his fusion of power and grace, and his exploration of seemingly impossible angles, spins and shots -- that seem to raise the five-time Wimbledon champion above the mundane, misjudged, and often flawed execution that so often characterizes tennis, as it does all human endeavor.
Foster Wallace's ecstatic reverence for Federer became the definitive text for a legion of fans -- in which I include myself -- who have this last week suffered the blank and aching sadness that often accompanies the collapse of a belief system.
On July 6, as I watched Federer lose a four-hour 48-minute five-set match to the up-and-coming Spanish superstar Rafael Nadal -- a match that John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg both described as the greatest ever played -- I felt a creeping realization as the duo battled into twilight that I was witnessing something more profound than my hero losing a tennis match: I was witnessing the death of beauty.
For as much as even his own fans admire his play, there is nothing lithe, elegant or graceful about Rafael Nadal, oh he of bulging biceps and perennially itchy butt. A spectacular athlete, Nadal has risen to the top of men's tennis with strength and determination. He's a bruiser (case in point: on Sunday, he directed 25 percent of his serves to Federer's body; Federer chose that aggressive line only four percent of the time).
And Nadal's a scrapper. He has a canny ability to use the angles created by his opponent against them, employing shots that, while not quite good enough to end rallies, still keep an opponent heaving balls back, often on the run, in a Sisyphean nightmare from which only an error can provide release. Tennis analysts call his style of play "counterpunching."
For three years now, Nadal has neutralized Federer's talents on clay courts. The pulverized brick at the French Open -- tennis' slowest surface -- allowed him to grind the Swiss down. But in two successive finals at Wimbledon, in 2006 and 2007, Federer had managed (just) to raise above Nadal on a surface that acted as cynosure for all his talents. (Federer has an uncanny understanding of how to harness the living ground under his feet with shots that the grass propels past opponents with unexpected furtherance.)
But even on the hallowed ground of Center Court (so often compared to a cathedral), Federer was humbled on Sunday by Nadal's dogged consistency and refusal to be awed by even his most artful plays. The victory upended the romantic but now so obviously fanciful belief that loose, creative, attacking play will triumph over obstinacy and revanchism. Watching Federer succumb to Nadal's will, I felt like I was watching an angel fall. Nadal had grabbed his ankles and wrestled him to the ground.
So what now for us lost and suddenly godless Federer fans? Where do we go from here?
In his great book How Jimmy Connors Saved My Life, Joel Drucker wrote of how he despised a young Connors because his dogged counterpunching was a foil to John McEnroe's artistry. Eventually, Drucker came to take inspiration from Connors, accepting that it is perfectly acceptable to get your hands dirty and fight hard. It is even admirable, in a way, to succeed despite one's limitations.
Nadal is no Connors, who supplemented his bullying play with verbal aggression on the court. He plays fair and is magnanimous in victory. And if his words are to be believed, he is as big a Federer fan as any. Nadal always says of Federer that he is the greatest of all time, an invocation of immortal skill that particularly appeals to Federer fans. Perhaps Nadal offers a lesson: one must accept greatness in all its guises -- even greatness wrought of brute force.
And what now for Federer himself?
The greatest fear will be that he will walk away from tennis as Bjorn Borg did at age 25, after devastating losses to McEnroe in the Wimbledon and U.S. Open finals, saying that he was no longer the best tennis player in the world, so he no longer felt the hunger to play. Chances are that Federer, now 26, will stay on and embrace the challenge. And we should love him even more for it.
Rolex -- one of this trilingual Swiss gentleman's main sponsors -- likes to run an advertisement with a picture of Federer and a caption that reads "unrivalled". To be unrivalled is also to be solitary, even lonely. Federer now has company. For better or for worse, he has joined the rest of us mortals who are struggling against our limitations, in search of a beauty that is just beyond our reach.
Eben Harrell covered this year's Wimbledon for TIME magazine and Time.com
Source: SportsIllustrated.CNN.com
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Fantastic article on the Wimbledon Final and more
Wimbledon 2008 Report Card
By Steve Tignor
When it was all over, when the only thing left to do was watch Brad Gilbert stand up, touchingly and awkwardly, and applaud for Rafael Nadal in the ESPN studios, I slouched back into the couch cushions, still sweating a little, and said, aloud, to no one: “Now I have to describe this?” Was it possible to do this match justice? Was it possible to give it a grade?
A few minutes later Nadal appeared in the pressroom. He was asked how he felt about his victory over Roger Federer, on Centre Court, after five hours and as many match points, 9-7 in the fifth set, with darkness surrounding him, for his first Wimbledon title. He answered in the only way that made any kind of sense: “Impossible to describe.” I thought: You’re right, Rafa, but you’re not helping.
It’s his job to play and mine to write. And can a tennis writer ask for anything better to write about than what happened at Wimbledon this past weekend? Let the A-pluses flow.
Rafael Nadal
The image of Nadal from Sunday that comes to my mind first is not of him pumping his fist, screaming “vamos!” or belting an inside-out forehand winner, though it’s easy to recall one of those if necessary. It’s of him holding the winner’s trophy in the dark on Centre Court, his face and the top of his white jacket lit up by a hundred flashbulbs, his headband gone and hair loose. This was a new Nadal. In the blink of an eye, he’d shed the pirate look and the beast of Mallorca image and taken on the bearing and style of a Wimbledon champion—albeit one who isn't above biting the trophy. He was no longer the world’s greatest No. 2, no longer the hard-working second-fiddle, no longer destined to be mentioned after the words those grand words, “Roger Federer.” Nadal is now part of the sport’s history and tradition in his own right. That’s what happens when you win on Centre Court. It’s why the all-time greats like Federer and Pete Sampras love this place the most—it made them. I could imagine seeing this photo of Rafa in 30 years, in the parade of Wimbledon champions from Jack Kramer to Roger Federer. “The Spanish great Nadal at Wimbledon,” the caption would read.
I said coming into Wimbledon that Nadal had a new aura about him, a No. 1-player’s aura, and he maintained it right until the end. Or almost until the end. He was the better player in the final, particularly once the rallies began, and could have won in straight sets. But like last year, he got tight at the finish line. Up two sets and tied at 3-3 in the third, Nadal played brilliantly to reach 0-40 on Federer’s serve. He may have let a brief vision of himself holding the trophy pass through his disciplined mind, because suddenly he couldn’t get the ball over the net, even on a forehand return of a second serve. Federer came back to hold, found his rhythm on his serve and forehand, and matched Nadal shot for shot the rest of the way.
Nadal got himself back to the brink again in the fourth set, only to suffer the same last-second nerves. Up 5-2 in the tiebreaker, with two serves coming, he double-faulted and dumped a routine backhand into the net. After the second shot, he showed one of the few traces of anger he would betray all afternoon, whipping his racquet like a fly-swatter. Again he pushed back to the brink, hitting one of the many, many shots of the match, a thread-the-needle forehand pass after a mad dash across the baseline. That brought him to match point, where he went with the percentages—swing serve to Federer’s backhand, swing approach to the same spot—and was beaten by Federer’s own thread-the-needle backhand pass into the corner.
At this point, Nadal could have been forgiven for wondering, Am I meant to win Wimbledon? As Nadal’s last return floated long to end the fourth set, I thought we may finally have discovered a weakness, a chink in the mental armor: Faced with the prospect of fulfilling his dream of winning the world’s biggest tournament, Nadal couldn’t close the deal. A couple points into the fifth set, I knew we'd found no such thing. Nadal came out and hit his first few backhands with the same gusto and confidence he’d shown on that shot all afternoon. By the time he’d held for 1-1, the fist-pumps were back. Somehow, the fact that his lifelong dreams had been horribly, cruelly crushed a few minutes earlier had been utterly forgotten.
The classic example of ice-in-the-veins willpower in tennis is Bjorn Borg’s victory in the fifth set of the 1980 Wimbledon final, after he had squandered multiple match points in the 18-16 fourth-set tiebreaker. His opponent that day, John McEnroe, has often wondered how Borg was capable of staying in the moment. Nadal’s achievement, while almost identical (this tiebreaker was 10-8 but equally heartbreaking), surpasses Borg’s for the simple fact that the Swede got to serve first in that fifth set, while Nadal had to serve second.
This is the equivalent of being the away team in extra innings in baseball. When you have to serve to stay in the match, you’re always just a couple of bad swings away from defeat. Nadal faced one break point in the final set, at 3-4. He took Federer’s return and drilled an inside-out forehand into the corner, then finished with an overhead and a fist-pump. Dick Enberg chuckled at the chutzpah: “Nadal has the guts of a daylight burglar,” he said. The term was apt: If he misses that go-for-broke forehand, he’s most likely just lost the Wimbledon final. He didn’t miss it. In the end, the match that I thought might reveal the limits of Nadal’s mental resources revealed the opposite. He had even more—more willpower in the head, more ice in the veins—than we knew.
What does Nadal’s win represent? Think back to David Foster Wallace’s allegedly brilliant essay from the NY Times two years ago, "Roger Federer as Religious Experience." I’ve brought this piece up before, but it’s worth revisiting because it’s representative of an attitude among traditionalist tennis aficionados, in my opinion. The setting was the 2006 Wimbledon final. Foster Wallace cast the calm, free-flowing, instinctive Federer as the modern-day manifestation of tennis genius. Nadal was summed up, in derogatory fashion, as a “martial” player, limited and earthbound compared to Federer. Could this article appear in a major publication and be lauded the same way now, after Sunday’s final? I don’t think so. Nadal has shown that tennis genius doesn’t have to be cool and free-flowing. It can be martial. It can be grinding. It can grunt. It can be unorthodox rather than elegant. It can have its roots in the grungy clay-court game yet still conquer the genteel grass version. It can wear pirate pants rather than cardigans. It can be all those things and still make you shake your head in awe, just as we do with Federer.
Think about the final game of the match, when Nadal attempted, after all the earlier failures and with the light speedily dimming, to serve it out at 8-7. He nervously sent his first forehand long. On the next point, he hit a serve wide, and, for the first time all match, followed it to the net, where he knocked off an easy volley. From some players, you might call this a bailout option, a way to avoid a nerve-wracking rally. From Nadal, it was the opposite: He saw that when he was trying to finish the match, the dynamics of the points were working against him—he was getting tight, playing the percentages, playing not to lose. So he changed the dynamic. It was a simple and gutsy—instinctive—move. If there’s such a thing as tennis genius, this was it.
What would a genius be without a little luck to help? On the final point, Nadal looked tight again as he popped a sitter backhand to Federer’s service line. It looked like a sure opportunity for Federer, and he closed on the ball. But it wasn’t where he thought it was going to be. It had taken a weird bounce and jumped right. Federer mistimed it and hit it weakly into the net. In the end, Nadal had triumphed on grass the old-fashioned way—with a bad hop.
I interviewed Nadal at Key Biscayne in 2006. He was antsy and guarded most of the time. But when I asked about Wimbledon, he became vehement. He made a fist and said, “I will do well at Wimbledon.” The year before, he had lost in the second round to Gilles Muller. I didn’t believe that this Spanish clay-courter would ever do much on grass. What I didn't know was that winning on clay, where he was supposed to win, didn’t get to the bottom of Rafael Nadal. He wanted to be a tennis champion. That meant winning on Centre Court. The photo proves it: He’s a tennis champion. A+
Men’s Final
Was this the greatest match of all time? SI’s Jon Wertheim had an unintentionally funny line when he was interviewed about it on the PBS Newshour yesterday. He said, “I’m usually pretty level-headed about these things, but I’m going to say unequivocally that this was the greatest match in tennis history.” I know what he means.
What are the elements that go into “greatest” matches? First there’s the level of play. The highest-quality match I had ever seen before yesterday was the 2007 Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal. This beat it. By a lot. The winner to error ratios, particularly Nadal’s, were excellent, and Federer served like a dream. But it was the shots that didn’t become winners that were even more remarkable. So many balls that would have screamed past anyone else were returned, with authority. You won’t find them on the stat sheet.
It was tough to tell the opening of the first set from the closing of the fifth. At both times, Federer and Nadal were running full out and playing forcefully. It was go-for-broke tennis, but within intelligent limits; rallies consisted of a short series of probing jabs, quick moves up and back, and then a haymaker to end it. If one guy left a ball hanging, the other rifled it toward a corner every time. Nadal has improved his backhand from last year. He slaps through it with more flat pace than he gets on his forehand. Federer not only couldn’t break it down, he couldn’t push Nadal into his backhand corner and open up the court. Nadal played a version of the game he uses against Federer on clay, but he was more willing to go into the forehand corner and take risks even when he wasn’t positioned near the center of the court. He mixed up his serve constantly, and went to the body at the right moments. As for Federer, he started slowly but gained traction by giving a master class in grass-court tennis over the last three sets. Wide serve, forehand into open court: This is the modern equivalent of the serve and volley, and no one does it as effectively as Federer. He seems to love serving on Centre Court more than anywhere else.
Beyond the basics of tactics and execution, it was the style with which these two played that raised the match still further. Borg vs. McEnroe in 1980 was a long series of forays and angles; Sampras vs. Ivanisevic in 1998 was a long series of serves bulleted into the frames of the returners; Federer vs. Nadal was a series of topspin missiles that bent and dove in midair and landed in the farthest reaches of the court. For all their differences, if you just watched their strokes and the paths their shots took, you’d have a hard time telling who had hit what. Both swing with a violent upward motion around the head that carries their bodies off the ground. This co-style is how tennis circa 2008 will be remembered.
Of course, it’s the differences that made the match worth watching. Federer’s characteristic winner was a seemingly impossible forehand that he hit inside-out while floating away from the ball. A remarkable shot, since he gets almost none of his body into it. (In his own way, Federer blows up the textbook every bit as much as his opponent.) Nadal’s version of this shot was the crosscourt backhand that he consistently hammered with a completely open stance and his upper body jerked downward, in the opposite direction of the ball. He used this for offense, and also as a sort of goalie-style defensive shot when Federer sent a hard approach down the middle. In both cases, his control with it was uncanny.
In a “greatest” match, the high-quality play must be backed up with drama, personality, history. We had plenty of all three. The personalities and body languages, as always, were polar opposites: Nadal bustled around the court between points, chest out, brows furrowed; Federer leaned back as he flipped his feet in front of him with casual assurance. The history was tied to the same legend, Bjorn Borg, who was sitting in the stands: Federer was trying to break Borg’s modern record of five straight Wimbledons; Nadal was trying to become the first man since the Swede to win the French and Wimbledon back to back. As for drama, it was heightened by the race against encroaching darkness, which lent a wild edge to the end of the fifth set. This match would always have been a classic, but the flash-bulbs that peppered the dusky trophy ceremony ensure that it will be instantly recognizable in the future, its atmosphere as unique as its shot-making.
Then we came to the end. Nadal’s celebration—a helpless, painfully relieved fall to his back, with his legs and arms splayed—was electric. You felt like he was at the center of a current that was circling Centre Court and exploding in flash photos. But there are two moments I’ll remember just as much at that. Before the final point, Nadal’s Uncle Toni finally couldn’t take it anymore. He had to get out of his seat and move down to the front row of the player’s box. He lifted his arm and gestured to his nephew to do it now. The spontaneity and urgency of that gesture captured the excruciating nature of the moment. After the final point, when Federer put the last ball into the net and Nadal hit the dirt, you could see Roger Federer’s father, Robert, proudly sporting his son’s red RF logo hat, immediately stand to clap. He kept clapping as Nadal climbed the player’s box, crushingly hugged his parents and Uncle Toni, and stamped past the Federer entourage to shake hands with Federer’s agent, Tony Godsick. Would you think less of me if I told you I had a tear—or two, or three—in my eye, for Rafa, for Robert Federer, for Uncle Toni, for Mirka, who touched Nadal’s leg as he walked past, and for Mr. and Mrs. Nadal, who sat tormented for seven hours before they could let it out? In what other sport, in what other arena, on what other night, would you see anything like this?
Greatest ever, by a mile. A+
Roger Federer
For a world No. 1 and five-time defending champion, Federer looked oddly aggrieved through much of his final against Nadal. HawkEye had it in for him, the chair umpire annoyed him, a Nadal shot that landed inside the line inspired a wild, hopeless challenge. The force of Nadal’s momentum over the last few months seemed to have put doubt in Federer's mind, and he wasn’t happy about it—why should he, Roger Federer, doubt himself on Centre Court against anybody? But he did. You could see it in the way his shots on break points found the net. You could see it in the way he quickly surrendered a 4-2 lead in the second set and lost four straight games. That just doesn’t happen to him against anyone else.
Which makes his stubborn comeback effort all the more impressive. Federer, as he said afterward, “tried everything.” But he was playing a guy who could match him, jaw-dropping winner for jaw-dropping winner, and who was using his tricky serve to keep him terminally off-balance. Late in the fifth set, Federer opened a return game by hitting a forehand winner down the line. It was an intimidating shot that might have rattled another player. Two points later, Nadal cracked his own, equally intimidating forehand winner and eventually held. Against everyone else, Federer can, and does, assume a natural superiority; he knows he’s better, and that if he plays well, he’ll win. He can’t assume this against Nadal. He has to start on equivalent mental footing with the Spaniard. This leaves Federer, as I said, a little aggrieved and unsure of himself.
Federer was a good loser. He looked gutted and exhausted when he talked to Sue Barker, his hair uncharacteristically sweaty and lank, a far cry from the ebullient winner in the white jacket of previous years. We might have wished that he hadn’t mentioned how dark it was and that the conditions were tough—they were for both guys—but Federer managed to keep it light when he said he played the “worst” opponent on the “best surface.” To ask for perfect grace and no trace of bitterness from him at this moment would be to ask too much.
Federer showed off the runner’s-up plate with surprising, classy enthusiasm, and walked around the court waving as if he were still the champ. What’s that Kipling line we hear so much about at Wimbledon: “If you can meet triumph and disaster and treat them just the same…”? On Sunday, Federer came as close as anyone could expect to living up to that brutal ideal. A
The Cardigan
I began by hating it, especially the big RF monogram. But on Centre Court, after the match, as Federer tried to hide his crushing disappointment, it worked. This is the traditional outfit of the tennis gentleman. And the gentleman, as Kipling says, defines himself by how he handles defeat. Whatever Federer was thinking on the inside, he looked sporting on the outside. A
Marat Safin
He showed he still can command the big stage now and then, but, unlike the two finalists, he doesn’t have the ambition to make Centre Court his home. He’s got everything else, and seeing—hearing—that old fabulous backhand walloped down the line again made the tournament a little more fun. A-
Brad Gilbert
I didn’t see much of him, so he couldn’t become grating. But how can you not like a guy, who, right after a 9-7 fifth-set final, states that it will not be Federer who breaks Sampras’ record of 14 Slams, it will be Nadal. Never mind that Gilbert once said Federer would win 20 Slams and recently gave TENNIS Magazine three reasons why Nadal wouldn’t win this year’s French Open. He's a man with big ideas, even if they can be a little hare-brained. A-
Dick Enberg/Patrick McEnroe
The best call of the final was by these guys, for ESPN Classic. Not too much talk, and a couple of good lines from Enberg, who called the match what it was: “excruciatingly entertaining.” A-
Bjorn Borg
The tie, the shirt, the unflappable demaeanor: The guy’s as good at watching as he was playing. Let’s bring him to Flushing Meadows, even if he can't stand the place. A-
Andy Murray
Has the teeth-barer turned a corner and begun to rein in his disorganized game? I’m going to say yes, even though he reigned it in too far against Nadal. The match with Gasquet was hilarious. B+
Chris Fowler
He tried too hard when he calls matches, but he’s a pro in the studio, and I thought ESPN’s post-final wrap was solid and entertaining. It did justice, with a little wackiness thrown in, to the match that had just been played. B+
John McEnroe
I thought he had an off day on Sunday. He’s always low-key, but this time he seemed to be restating the obvious more often than usual. Still, I wouldn’t want to hear anyone else call Federer-Nadal. B
OK, I can’t write any more at the moment. I’ll have to say good night to the best fortnight—or at least the best final two days of a fortnight—I can remember.
Who did I forget? Who deserved an F?
---
By Steve Tignor
When it was all over, when the only thing left to do was watch Brad Gilbert stand up, touchingly and awkwardly, and applaud for Rafael Nadal in the ESPN studios, I slouched back into the couch cushions, still sweating a little, and said, aloud, to no one: “Now I have to describe this?” Was it possible to do this match justice? Was it possible to give it a grade?
A few minutes later Nadal appeared in the pressroom. He was asked how he felt about his victory over Roger Federer, on Centre Court, after five hours and as many match points, 9-7 in the fifth set, with darkness surrounding him, for his first Wimbledon title. He answered in the only way that made any kind of sense: “Impossible to describe.” I thought: You’re right, Rafa, but you’re not helping.
It’s his job to play and mine to write. And can a tennis writer ask for anything better to write about than what happened at Wimbledon this past weekend? Let the A-pluses flow.
Rafael Nadal
The image of Nadal from Sunday that comes to my mind first is not of him pumping his fist, screaming “vamos!” or belting an inside-out forehand winner, though it’s easy to recall one of those if necessary. It’s of him holding the winner’s trophy in the dark on Centre Court, his face and the top of his white jacket lit up by a hundred flashbulbs, his headband gone and hair loose. This was a new Nadal. In the blink of an eye, he’d shed the pirate look and the beast of Mallorca image and taken on the bearing and style of a Wimbledon champion—albeit one who isn't above biting the trophy. He was no longer the world’s greatest No. 2, no longer the hard-working second-fiddle, no longer destined to be mentioned after the words those grand words, “Roger Federer.” Nadal is now part of the sport’s history and tradition in his own right. That’s what happens when you win on Centre Court. It’s why the all-time greats like Federer and Pete Sampras love this place the most—it made them. I could imagine seeing this photo of Rafa in 30 years, in the parade of Wimbledon champions from Jack Kramer to Roger Federer. “The Spanish great Nadal at Wimbledon,” the caption would read.
I said coming into Wimbledon that Nadal had a new aura about him, a No. 1-player’s aura, and he maintained it right until the end. Or almost until the end. He was the better player in the final, particularly once the rallies began, and could have won in straight sets. But like last year, he got tight at the finish line. Up two sets and tied at 3-3 in the third, Nadal played brilliantly to reach 0-40 on Federer’s serve. He may have let a brief vision of himself holding the trophy pass through his disciplined mind, because suddenly he couldn’t get the ball over the net, even on a forehand return of a second serve. Federer came back to hold, found his rhythm on his serve and forehand, and matched Nadal shot for shot the rest of the way.
Nadal got himself back to the brink again in the fourth set, only to suffer the same last-second nerves. Up 5-2 in the tiebreaker, with two serves coming, he double-faulted and dumped a routine backhand into the net. After the second shot, he showed one of the few traces of anger he would betray all afternoon, whipping his racquet like a fly-swatter. Again he pushed back to the brink, hitting one of the many, many shots of the match, a thread-the-needle forehand pass after a mad dash across the baseline. That brought him to match point, where he went with the percentages—swing serve to Federer’s backhand, swing approach to the same spot—and was beaten by Federer’s own thread-the-needle backhand pass into the corner.
At this point, Nadal could have been forgiven for wondering, Am I meant to win Wimbledon? As Nadal’s last return floated long to end the fourth set, I thought we may finally have discovered a weakness, a chink in the mental armor: Faced with the prospect of fulfilling his dream of winning the world’s biggest tournament, Nadal couldn’t close the deal. A couple points into the fifth set, I knew we'd found no such thing. Nadal came out and hit his first few backhands with the same gusto and confidence he’d shown on that shot all afternoon. By the time he’d held for 1-1, the fist-pumps were back. Somehow, the fact that his lifelong dreams had been horribly, cruelly crushed a few minutes earlier had been utterly forgotten.
The classic example of ice-in-the-veins willpower in tennis is Bjorn Borg’s victory in the fifth set of the 1980 Wimbledon final, after he had squandered multiple match points in the 18-16 fourth-set tiebreaker. His opponent that day, John McEnroe, has often wondered how Borg was capable of staying in the moment. Nadal’s achievement, while almost identical (this tiebreaker was 10-8 but equally heartbreaking), surpasses Borg’s for the simple fact that the Swede got to serve first in that fifth set, while Nadal had to serve second.
This is the equivalent of being the away team in extra innings in baseball. When you have to serve to stay in the match, you’re always just a couple of bad swings away from defeat. Nadal faced one break point in the final set, at 3-4. He took Federer’s return and drilled an inside-out forehand into the corner, then finished with an overhead and a fist-pump. Dick Enberg chuckled at the chutzpah: “Nadal has the guts of a daylight burglar,” he said. The term was apt: If he misses that go-for-broke forehand, he’s most likely just lost the Wimbledon final. He didn’t miss it. In the end, the match that I thought might reveal the limits of Nadal’s mental resources revealed the opposite. He had even more—more willpower in the head, more ice in the veins—than we knew.
What does Nadal’s win represent? Think back to David Foster Wallace’s allegedly brilliant essay from the NY Times two years ago, "Roger Federer as Religious Experience." I’ve brought this piece up before, but it’s worth revisiting because it’s representative of an attitude among traditionalist tennis aficionados, in my opinion. The setting was the 2006 Wimbledon final. Foster Wallace cast the calm, free-flowing, instinctive Federer as the modern-day manifestation of tennis genius. Nadal was summed up, in derogatory fashion, as a “martial” player, limited and earthbound compared to Federer. Could this article appear in a major publication and be lauded the same way now, after Sunday’s final? I don’t think so. Nadal has shown that tennis genius doesn’t have to be cool and free-flowing. It can be martial. It can be grinding. It can grunt. It can be unorthodox rather than elegant. It can have its roots in the grungy clay-court game yet still conquer the genteel grass version. It can wear pirate pants rather than cardigans. It can be all those things and still make you shake your head in awe, just as we do with Federer.
Think about the final game of the match, when Nadal attempted, after all the earlier failures and with the light speedily dimming, to serve it out at 8-7. He nervously sent his first forehand long. On the next point, he hit a serve wide, and, for the first time all match, followed it to the net, where he knocked off an easy volley. From some players, you might call this a bailout option, a way to avoid a nerve-wracking rally. From Nadal, it was the opposite: He saw that when he was trying to finish the match, the dynamics of the points were working against him—he was getting tight, playing the percentages, playing not to lose. So he changed the dynamic. It was a simple and gutsy—instinctive—move. If there’s such a thing as tennis genius, this was it.
What would a genius be without a little luck to help? On the final point, Nadal looked tight again as he popped a sitter backhand to Federer’s service line. It looked like a sure opportunity for Federer, and he closed on the ball. But it wasn’t where he thought it was going to be. It had taken a weird bounce and jumped right. Federer mistimed it and hit it weakly into the net. In the end, Nadal had triumphed on grass the old-fashioned way—with a bad hop.
I interviewed Nadal at Key Biscayne in 2006. He was antsy and guarded most of the time. But when I asked about Wimbledon, he became vehement. He made a fist and said, “I will do well at Wimbledon.” The year before, he had lost in the second round to Gilles Muller. I didn’t believe that this Spanish clay-courter would ever do much on grass. What I didn't know was that winning on clay, where he was supposed to win, didn’t get to the bottom of Rafael Nadal. He wanted to be a tennis champion. That meant winning on Centre Court. The photo proves it: He’s a tennis champion. A+
Men’s Final
Was this the greatest match of all time? SI’s Jon Wertheim had an unintentionally funny line when he was interviewed about it on the PBS Newshour yesterday. He said, “I’m usually pretty level-headed about these things, but I’m going to say unequivocally that this was the greatest match in tennis history.” I know what he means.
What are the elements that go into “greatest” matches? First there’s the level of play. The highest-quality match I had ever seen before yesterday was the 2007 Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal. This beat it. By a lot. The winner to error ratios, particularly Nadal’s, were excellent, and Federer served like a dream. But it was the shots that didn’t become winners that were even more remarkable. So many balls that would have screamed past anyone else were returned, with authority. You won’t find them on the stat sheet.
It was tough to tell the opening of the first set from the closing of the fifth. At both times, Federer and Nadal were running full out and playing forcefully. It was go-for-broke tennis, but within intelligent limits; rallies consisted of a short series of probing jabs, quick moves up and back, and then a haymaker to end it. If one guy left a ball hanging, the other rifled it toward a corner every time. Nadal has improved his backhand from last year. He slaps through it with more flat pace than he gets on his forehand. Federer not only couldn’t break it down, he couldn’t push Nadal into his backhand corner and open up the court. Nadal played a version of the game he uses against Federer on clay, but he was more willing to go into the forehand corner and take risks even when he wasn’t positioned near the center of the court. He mixed up his serve constantly, and went to the body at the right moments. As for Federer, he started slowly but gained traction by giving a master class in grass-court tennis over the last three sets. Wide serve, forehand into open court: This is the modern equivalent of the serve and volley, and no one does it as effectively as Federer. He seems to love serving on Centre Court more than anywhere else.
Beyond the basics of tactics and execution, it was the style with which these two played that raised the match still further. Borg vs. McEnroe in 1980 was a long series of forays and angles; Sampras vs. Ivanisevic in 1998 was a long series of serves bulleted into the frames of the returners; Federer vs. Nadal was a series of topspin missiles that bent and dove in midair and landed in the farthest reaches of the court. For all their differences, if you just watched their strokes and the paths their shots took, you’d have a hard time telling who had hit what. Both swing with a violent upward motion around the head that carries their bodies off the ground. This co-style is how tennis circa 2008 will be remembered.
Of course, it’s the differences that made the match worth watching. Federer’s characteristic winner was a seemingly impossible forehand that he hit inside-out while floating away from the ball. A remarkable shot, since he gets almost none of his body into it. (In his own way, Federer blows up the textbook every bit as much as his opponent.) Nadal’s version of this shot was the crosscourt backhand that he consistently hammered with a completely open stance and his upper body jerked downward, in the opposite direction of the ball. He used this for offense, and also as a sort of goalie-style defensive shot when Federer sent a hard approach down the middle. In both cases, his control with it was uncanny.
In a “greatest” match, the high-quality play must be backed up with drama, personality, history. We had plenty of all three. The personalities and body languages, as always, were polar opposites: Nadal bustled around the court between points, chest out, brows furrowed; Federer leaned back as he flipped his feet in front of him with casual assurance. The history was tied to the same legend, Bjorn Borg, who was sitting in the stands: Federer was trying to break Borg’s modern record of five straight Wimbledons; Nadal was trying to become the first man since the Swede to win the French and Wimbledon back to back. As for drama, it was heightened by the race against encroaching darkness, which lent a wild edge to the end of the fifth set. This match would always have been a classic, but the flash-bulbs that peppered the dusky trophy ceremony ensure that it will be instantly recognizable in the future, its atmosphere as unique as its shot-making.
Then we came to the end. Nadal’s celebration—a helpless, painfully relieved fall to his back, with his legs and arms splayed—was electric. You felt like he was at the center of a current that was circling Centre Court and exploding in flash photos. But there are two moments I’ll remember just as much at that. Before the final point, Nadal’s Uncle Toni finally couldn’t take it anymore. He had to get out of his seat and move down to the front row of the player’s box. He lifted his arm and gestured to his nephew to do it now. The spontaneity and urgency of that gesture captured the excruciating nature of the moment. After the final point, when Federer put the last ball into the net and Nadal hit the dirt, you could see Roger Federer’s father, Robert, proudly sporting his son’s red RF logo hat, immediately stand to clap. He kept clapping as Nadal climbed the player’s box, crushingly hugged his parents and Uncle Toni, and stamped past the Federer entourage to shake hands with Federer’s agent, Tony Godsick. Would you think less of me if I told you I had a tear—or two, or three—in my eye, for Rafa, for Robert Federer, for Uncle Toni, for Mirka, who touched Nadal’s leg as he walked past, and for Mr. and Mrs. Nadal, who sat tormented for seven hours before they could let it out? In what other sport, in what other arena, on what other night, would you see anything like this?
Greatest ever, by a mile. A+
Roger Federer
For a world No. 1 and five-time defending champion, Federer looked oddly aggrieved through much of his final against Nadal. HawkEye had it in for him, the chair umpire annoyed him, a Nadal shot that landed inside the line inspired a wild, hopeless challenge. The force of Nadal’s momentum over the last few months seemed to have put doubt in Federer's mind, and he wasn’t happy about it—why should he, Roger Federer, doubt himself on Centre Court against anybody? But he did. You could see it in the way his shots on break points found the net. You could see it in the way he quickly surrendered a 4-2 lead in the second set and lost four straight games. That just doesn’t happen to him against anyone else.
Which makes his stubborn comeback effort all the more impressive. Federer, as he said afterward, “tried everything.” But he was playing a guy who could match him, jaw-dropping winner for jaw-dropping winner, and who was using his tricky serve to keep him terminally off-balance. Late in the fifth set, Federer opened a return game by hitting a forehand winner down the line. It was an intimidating shot that might have rattled another player. Two points later, Nadal cracked his own, equally intimidating forehand winner and eventually held. Against everyone else, Federer can, and does, assume a natural superiority; he knows he’s better, and that if he plays well, he’ll win. He can’t assume this against Nadal. He has to start on equivalent mental footing with the Spaniard. This leaves Federer, as I said, a little aggrieved and unsure of himself.
Federer was a good loser. He looked gutted and exhausted when he talked to Sue Barker, his hair uncharacteristically sweaty and lank, a far cry from the ebullient winner in the white jacket of previous years. We might have wished that he hadn’t mentioned how dark it was and that the conditions were tough—they were for both guys—but Federer managed to keep it light when he said he played the “worst” opponent on the “best surface.” To ask for perfect grace and no trace of bitterness from him at this moment would be to ask too much.
Federer showed off the runner’s-up plate with surprising, classy enthusiasm, and walked around the court waving as if he were still the champ. What’s that Kipling line we hear so much about at Wimbledon: “If you can meet triumph and disaster and treat them just the same…”? On Sunday, Federer came as close as anyone could expect to living up to that brutal ideal. A
The Cardigan
I began by hating it, especially the big RF monogram. But on Centre Court, after the match, as Federer tried to hide his crushing disappointment, it worked. This is the traditional outfit of the tennis gentleman. And the gentleman, as Kipling says, defines himself by how he handles defeat. Whatever Federer was thinking on the inside, he looked sporting on the outside. A
Marat Safin
He showed he still can command the big stage now and then, but, unlike the two finalists, he doesn’t have the ambition to make Centre Court his home. He’s got everything else, and seeing—hearing—that old fabulous backhand walloped down the line again made the tournament a little more fun. A-
Brad Gilbert
I didn’t see much of him, so he couldn’t become grating. But how can you not like a guy, who, right after a 9-7 fifth-set final, states that it will not be Federer who breaks Sampras’ record of 14 Slams, it will be Nadal. Never mind that Gilbert once said Federer would win 20 Slams and recently gave TENNIS Magazine three reasons why Nadal wouldn’t win this year’s French Open. He's a man with big ideas, even if they can be a little hare-brained. A-
Dick Enberg/Patrick McEnroe
The best call of the final was by these guys, for ESPN Classic. Not too much talk, and a couple of good lines from Enberg, who called the match what it was: “excruciatingly entertaining.” A-
Bjorn Borg
The tie, the shirt, the unflappable demaeanor: The guy’s as good at watching as he was playing. Let’s bring him to Flushing Meadows, even if he can't stand the place. A-
Andy Murray
Has the teeth-barer turned a corner and begun to rein in his disorganized game? I’m going to say yes, even though he reigned it in too far against Nadal. The match with Gasquet was hilarious. B+
Chris Fowler
He tried too hard when he calls matches, but he’s a pro in the studio, and I thought ESPN’s post-final wrap was solid and entertaining. It did justice, with a little wackiness thrown in, to the match that had just been played. B+
John McEnroe
I thought he had an off day on Sunday. He’s always low-key, but this time he seemed to be restating the obvious more often than usual. Still, I wouldn’t want to hear anyone else call Federer-Nadal. B
OK, I can’t write any more at the moment. I’ll have to say good night to the best fortnight—or at least the best final two days of a fortnight—I can remember.
Who did I forget? Who deserved an F?
---
Monday, May 19, 2008
Rafa vs Raja: Lather, Rinse, Repeat
Hamburg '08 Final
[2] R. Nadal def. [1] R. Federer
7-5 6-7(3) 6-3
Official ATP article: Nadal Wins Hamburg Battle for 26th Career ATP Title
Post-match interviews: Rafa (post#193), Roger (post#9726) -- read these, gotta note their insightful and respectful comments towards each other
---
No surprises here. The King of Clay prevails. (As I'd hoped and predicted.)
Ain't really disappointed. Just baffled by how strange the match went.
The weirdnesses:
1st SET
Rog was a double break up in the first set at 5-1, then squandered it after Raf's injury consultation. What the-?? Raf's sporting extreme looks of pain during injury-time, followed by his hopping all over the court like an Energizer bunny, don't jive.
2nd SET
Rog, up 5-2 in the second set, nearly let it go again by letting Rafa catch-up 5-5 and even lead him at 6-5. Rog's head-banging-against-the-net made it even weirder. Thank God for prolonged drama by letting the tiebreak go Rog's way to secure the set.
Final SET
Last set was an anti-climax of sorts. Raf served for the match at 5-1, only to give away two more games to Rog, and at last end the match at a decent 6-3 scoreline. Nice of Rafa to keep the breadstick in the bakery. ;-)
But it was a close match, as usual between these two. Their rivalry still stands (and looks to be long-standing), now at an imbalanced 9-6 H2H in Rafa's favor (8-1 on clay, d*rn).
Nevertheless, onwards to Roland Garros - the most important clay tournament of all.
Roger, now's your time to shine! *spoken as a true believer in Raja & the God of tennis* ;-)
-tmsh-
Monday, May 12, 2008
This (sort of) breaks my heart
Rafa readying himself to "resign"...
....from his #2 position, before ever having tasted being #1.
Can't help it that it breaks my heart, sort of.
Especially as he's been the undisputed #2 all these years, trying so hard to catch up to Roger... only to now potentially drop back to #3, surpassed by Djokovic (of all people). >:-(
C'mon Raf... keep up the spirit! Your Vamos days aren't over yet!
-tmsh-
---
Nadal resigned to rankings drop
Rafael Nadal believes he will lose his world number two position to Novak Djokovic by Wimbledon at the latest.
The Spaniard lost valuable points when his defence of the Rome Masters title ended in the second round, while Djokovic went on to lift the trophy.
"The logical thing is that he goes past me here in Hamburg, or at Roland Garros or Wimbledon," said the 21-year-old.
Nadal was hampered by blisters in Rome but he said: "I've had a few days off, and I'm much better."
Earlier in the season, Nadal had an outside chance of overtaking world number one Roger Federer, who had a poor start to the season by his high standards.
However, Nadal now finds himself with a stack of ranking points to defend from now until Wimbledon and any slip could see Djokovic move up a place.
The Serb has been the form player of the season so far, winning the Australian Open as well as the Masters Series events in Indian Wells and Rome.
"He's a great player and he's doing things very well," said Nadal of his Serbian rival.
"If I'm number three I'm number three. When it happens I just have to accept it and fight to get the position back."
Nadal, the world's best player on clay, has complained bitterly about this year's schedule, which has three clay-court Masters Series tournaments, plus Barcelona, crammed into four weeks.
The Spaniard successfully defended his titles in Barcelona and Monte Carlo but saw his 17-match unbeaten run in Rome ended in the second round by compatriot Juan Carlos Ferrero.
Nadal will lose his place if he fails to pass the quarter-finals and Djokovic reaches the semis of the Hamburg Masters Series on May 11-18, 2008.
Source: bbc.co.uk
....from his #2 position, before ever having tasted being #1.
Can't help it that it breaks my heart, sort of.
Especially as he's been the undisputed #2 all these years, trying so hard to catch up to Roger... only to now potentially drop back to #3, surpassed by Djokovic (of all people). >:-(
C'mon Raf... keep up the spirit! Your Vamos days aren't over yet!
-tmsh-
---
Nadal resigned to rankings drop
Rafael Nadal believes he will lose his world number two position to Novak Djokovic by Wimbledon at the latest.
The Spaniard lost valuable points when his defence of the Rome Masters title ended in the second round, while Djokovic went on to lift the trophy.
"The logical thing is that he goes past me here in Hamburg, or at Roland Garros or Wimbledon," said the 21-year-old.
Nadal was hampered by blisters in Rome but he said: "I've had a few days off, and I'm much better."
Earlier in the season, Nadal had an outside chance of overtaking world number one Roger Federer, who had a poor start to the season by his high standards.
However, Nadal now finds himself with a stack of ranking points to defend from now until Wimbledon and any slip could see Djokovic move up a place.
The Serb has been the form player of the season so far, winning the Australian Open as well as the Masters Series events in Indian Wells and Rome.
"He's a great player and he's doing things very well," said Nadal of his Serbian rival.
"If I'm number three I'm number three. When it happens I just have to accept it and fight to get the position back."
Nadal, the world's best player on clay, has complained bitterly about this year's schedule, which has three clay-court Masters Series tournaments, plus Barcelona, crammed into four weeks.
The Spaniard successfully defended his titles in Barcelona and Monte Carlo but saw his 17-match unbeaten run in Rome ended in the second round by compatriot Juan Carlos Ferrero.
Nadal will lose his place if he fails to pass the quarter-finals and Djokovic reaches the semis of the Hamburg Masters Series on May 11-18, 2008.
Source: bbc.co.uk
Monday, May 5, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
More on the topic of retirement (tennis, not work) ;-)
Retiring Types: How often the top men quit a match
By Kamakshi Tandon
"Typical," went the reaction to Nikolay Davydenko and Novak Djokovic's recent retirements against Roger Federer. But were they? We took the raw data and used it to draw some rough conclusions.
Click here for a calculation of where the top men and women stood in this category 14 months ago. (Note: criteria varies slightly)
Roger Federer’s aura of invincibility may have been fading fast, but over the past week and a half he’s quite literally recovered some of it by default. Three times he's faced his nearest challengers in the rankings, and twice they've handed him victory.
First came Nikolay Davydenko, who quit with a leg injury in the Estoril final. He had lost the first set in a tiebreak and was up a break in the second set. Then in Monte Carlo last week, Novak Djokovic stopped after going down a set and a break to Federer in the semifinals.
The retirements attracted particular attention for two reasons. One was timing: neither involved a mid-match injury that made carrying on impossible. Davydenko still looked competitive in the match, while Djokovic was just a few games away from losing and seemed capable of playing till the end.
Here's how often the top 10 have retired during a match, compared to the amount of matches they've lost during their career. The total number of retirements is given in brackets.
*ATP main draw, Grand Slam and Davis Cup matches only.
The other was the players involved. Both Davydenko and Djokovic have acquired a reputation for dubious defaults in precisely such situations. “I have a little injury and I can't finish the match,” Davydenko told the Estoril crowd, later assuring reporters that he would be ready to play at Monte Carlo in three days’ time.
Djokovic, who received a few boos from the crowd as he left the court on Saturday, made his problem sound even more tepid. “It’s a sore throat. I feel dizziness a little bit in the last three days,” he said afterwards. “I asked the doctor yesterday but he said I don't have nothing, which I really don't believe. I think he didn't give me the right diagnosis, obviously.“But obviously when you're playing against the No. 1 player of the world, you get a lot of balls back and longer points, and I just couldn't get enough energy back after each point... the previous opponents were not that tough and I didn't have long rallies against the previous opponents like I had today.”
So were their actions typical? Yes and no. They've done it before, but it's hardly something they do all the time. They just do it a little more often than most, and a little more dramatically to boot.
The numbers show that Djokovic tends to retire more often than any other top-10 player, but just as significant is the fact that he chooses memorable occasions to do so. Three of his five retirements have come against either Federer or Nadal in the semifinals of big events. Those are also the only times he’s retired facing a big deficit in a match, suggesting he doesn’t want to give his biggest rivals a clean win when he’s unfit.
Most notorious is Djokovic’s French Open meeting with Nadal two years ago, when he pulled the plug after losing the first two sets but declared he felt he had been “in control” of the match. His retirement against the Spaniard at rain-hit Wimbledon last year was more understandable, given that he had played nine hours in the previous two days to defeat Lleyton Hewitt in four sets and Marcos Baghdatis in five. His other two retirements were attributed to the breathing difficulties that plagued him early on and were eventually fixed with corrective surgery.
Here's how often the top 10 have retired while significantly behind in a match, compared to the amount of matches they've lost during their career. The number of retirements while trailing is given in brackets.
*ATP main draw, Grand Slam and Davis Cup matches only.
At other times, however, Djokovic has shown he’s willing to fight through physical problems, starting with a cult match against Gael Monfils at the 2005 US Open when he huffed and puffed his way to victory in five dramatic sets. A gasping Djokovic called numerous injury timeouts during the match, including one during the late stages that delayed Monfils’ service game. Monfils later admitted he had gone cold during the break.
That match also established another damaging perception that clings to the Serb – a habit of calling the trainer during tough contests. “I think he’s a joke, you know, when it comes down to his injuries. The rules are there to be used, not abused,” said Federer after a Davis Cup match in 2006.
Along with James Blake, Federer is the only member of the top ten never to have retired during a match.
Richard Gasquet comes out second on both lists, which only adds to the hits he’s taken for showing a lack of toughness. Accusing of ducking a Davis Cup match with Andy Roddick a couple of weeks ago, he could instead do with the kind of performance he produced against Roddick at Wimbledon last year, coming from two sets and a break down to win their quarterfinal match.
Davydenko stands out for the sheer number of times he’s abandoned a contest, but his marathon schedule means he also plays (and loses) the most matches. He owns the most infamous retirement in men’s tennis, a 6-2, 3-6, 1-2 defeat in the second round of Sopot that made headlines when betting exchange Betfair voided all wagers on the match because of strange betting patterns. Happily for his sporting reputation but intriguingly for match-fixing theorists, a number of Davydenko’s main draw retirements have come when he was even or leading in the match.
Clearly something had to give when Djokovic and Davydenko met in a Davis Cup match earlier this month. And so it proved: Djokovic retired up two sets to one at 4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 0-0.But while they’re high on the list of top-ten players, both fall short of some perennial offenders like Tommy Haas and Juan Martin del Potro, who have repeated retired a game or two away from losing a match. It’s tough to condemn either one too heartily given how many injuries they’ve had to content with, but still, reaching the finish line is clearly not one of their priorities.
Haas takes the cake for once retiring down 6-4, 5-0 to Andrei Pavel in Montreal because of a back injury which flared up during the first set. But it’s just as tricky not to start a match as it is to not finish it: he’s also taken flak for giving Federer walkovers in their past two meetings.
In del Potro’s case, a staggering one-fifth of his 40 career defeats have been unfinished matches, including perhaps the second-most famous retirement in men’s tennis - a 6-1, 3-1 loss to James Blake whose side-effects ended ATP’s experiment with round-robin events. The Argentine was earmarked as a future top-ten player before his physical frailties became obvious - if he ever does get there, he may end up making Djokovic look indefatigable.
from tennis.com
---
Djoker, you're such a Joker indeed. Or a Choker. Both apply.
OTOH, Fed has NEVER retired from a match. (And Blake, credit to you, too.) All 701 matches Fed's had in his career, he's played them to both the W and the L.
That says it all about who truly deserves to be #1.
-tmsh-
By Kamakshi Tandon
"Typical," went the reaction to Nikolay Davydenko and Novak Djokovic's recent retirements against Roger Federer. But were they? We took the raw data and used it to draw some rough conclusions.
Click here for a calculation of where the top men and women stood in this category 14 months ago. (Note: criteria varies slightly)
Roger Federer’s aura of invincibility may have been fading fast, but over the past week and a half he’s quite literally recovered some of it by default. Three times he's faced his nearest challengers in the rankings, and twice they've handed him victory.
First came Nikolay Davydenko, who quit with a leg injury in the Estoril final. He had lost the first set in a tiebreak and was up a break in the second set. Then in Monte Carlo last week, Novak Djokovic stopped after going down a set and a break to Federer in the semifinals.
The retirements attracted particular attention for two reasons. One was timing: neither involved a mid-match injury that made carrying on impossible. Davydenko still looked competitive in the match, while Djokovic was just a few games away from losing and seemed capable of playing till the end.
Here's how often the top 10 have retired during a match, compared to the amount of matches they've lost during their career. The total number of retirements is given in brackets.
*ATP main draw, Grand Slam and Davis Cup matches only.
The other was the players involved. Both Davydenko and Djokovic have acquired a reputation for dubious defaults in precisely such situations. “I have a little injury and I can't finish the match,” Davydenko told the Estoril crowd, later assuring reporters that he would be ready to play at Monte Carlo in three days’ time.
Djokovic, who received a few boos from the crowd as he left the court on Saturday, made his problem sound even more tepid. “It’s a sore throat. I feel dizziness a little bit in the last three days,” he said afterwards. “I asked the doctor yesterday but he said I don't have nothing, which I really don't believe. I think he didn't give me the right diagnosis, obviously.“But obviously when you're playing against the No. 1 player of the world, you get a lot of balls back and longer points, and I just couldn't get enough energy back after each point... the previous opponents were not that tough and I didn't have long rallies against the previous opponents like I had today.”
So were their actions typical? Yes and no. They've done it before, but it's hardly something they do all the time. They just do it a little more often than most, and a little more dramatically to boot.
The numbers show that Djokovic tends to retire more often than any other top-10 player, but just as significant is the fact that he chooses memorable occasions to do so. Three of his five retirements have come against either Federer or Nadal in the semifinals of big events. Those are also the only times he’s retired facing a big deficit in a match, suggesting he doesn’t want to give his biggest rivals a clean win when he’s unfit.
Most notorious is Djokovic’s French Open meeting with Nadal two years ago, when he pulled the plug after losing the first two sets but declared he felt he had been “in control” of the match. His retirement against the Spaniard at rain-hit Wimbledon last year was more understandable, given that he had played nine hours in the previous two days to defeat Lleyton Hewitt in four sets and Marcos Baghdatis in five. His other two retirements were attributed to the breathing difficulties that plagued him early on and were eventually fixed with corrective surgery.
Here's how often the top 10 have retired while significantly behind in a match, compared to the amount of matches they've lost during their career. The number of retirements while trailing is given in brackets.
*ATP main draw, Grand Slam and Davis Cup matches only.
At other times, however, Djokovic has shown he’s willing to fight through physical problems, starting with a cult match against Gael Monfils at the 2005 US Open when he huffed and puffed his way to victory in five dramatic sets. A gasping Djokovic called numerous injury timeouts during the match, including one during the late stages that delayed Monfils’ service game. Monfils later admitted he had gone cold during the break.
That match also established another damaging perception that clings to the Serb – a habit of calling the trainer during tough contests. “I think he’s a joke, you know, when it comes down to his injuries. The rules are there to be used, not abused,” said Federer after a Davis Cup match in 2006.
Along with James Blake, Federer is the only member of the top ten never to have retired during a match.
Richard Gasquet comes out second on both lists, which only adds to the hits he’s taken for showing a lack of toughness. Accusing of ducking a Davis Cup match with Andy Roddick a couple of weeks ago, he could instead do with the kind of performance he produced against Roddick at Wimbledon last year, coming from two sets and a break down to win their quarterfinal match.
Davydenko stands out for the sheer number of times he’s abandoned a contest, but his marathon schedule means he also plays (and loses) the most matches. He owns the most infamous retirement in men’s tennis, a 6-2, 3-6, 1-2 defeat in the second round of Sopot that made headlines when betting exchange Betfair voided all wagers on the match because of strange betting patterns. Happily for his sporting reputation but intriguingly for match-fixing theorists, a number of Davydenko’s main draw retirements have come when he was even or leading in the match.
Clearly something had to give when Djokovic and Davydenko met in a Davis Cup match earlier this month. And so it proved: Djokovic retired up two sets to one at 4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 0-0.But while they’re high on the list of top-ten players, both fall short of some perennial offenders like Tommy Haas and Juan Martin del Potro, who have repeated retired a game or two away from losing a match. It’s tough to condemn either one too heartily given how many injuries they’ve had to content with, but still, reaching the finish line is clearly not one of their priorities.
Haas takes the cake for once retiring down 6-4, 5-0 to Andrei Pavel in Montreal because of a back injury which flared up during the first set. But it’s just as tricky not to start a match as it is to not finish it: he’s also taken flak for giving Federer walkovers in their past two meetings.
In del Potro’s case, a staggering one-fifth of his 40 career defeats have been unfinished matches, including perhaps the second-most famous retirement in men’s tennis - a 6-1, 3-1 loss to James Blake whose side-effects ended ATP’s experiment with round-robin events. The Argentine was earmarked as a future top-ten player before his physical frailties became obvious - if he ever does get there, he may end up making Djokovic look indefatigable.
from tennis.com
---
Djoker, you're such a Joker indeed. Or a Choker. Both apply.
OTOH, Fed has NEVER retired from a match. (And Blake, credit to you, too.) All 701 matches Fed's had in his career, he's played them to both the W and the L.
That says it all about who truly deserves to be #1.
-tmsh-
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Spot-on article about Djoker's SF retirement
April 26th, 2008
Djokovic Taps Out Again, Sets Up Federer v. Nadal Monte Carlo Final
by Sean Randall
When the going gets tough, sometimes the tough and the not so tough quit. And that’s just what the not so tough Novak Djokovic did today, just as he has done before, hitting the eject button when things turned against him in a big match.
Today in the Monte Carlo semifinals, Djokovic retired with a breathing illness to Roger Federer after getting broken to go down 6-3, 3-2. The retirement follows a mysterious pattern of in-match withdrawals by the Serb, who pulled a similar act against Nadal at the French Open, Nadal at Wimbledon and even against Davydenko this year in Davis Cup.
And I feel confident in speaking for many tennis fans in saying that we are tired of this act.
You play to win. You don’t play to quit. If Novak’s looking to make fans and gain their respect, this isn’t how to do it.
In Novak’s defense, I understand he’s had a breathing problem, one that was serious enough to require surgery. So it’s there. That’s a fact. It’s been an issue. But Novak, what I cannot understand is if it’s that serious how come you don’t ever retire when you are winning? And why is it only against the top guys and at moments when you feel like the match is no longer within grasp that decide to wave the white flag?
I think it’s safe to say the guy has a game of a No. 1 player, but much like Richard Gasquet, his fate is going to be determined by what goes on between his ears. And right now he’s not right up there.
Sure there’s a physical component, but it’s seems to be more mental with Novak because he feels it more in the tougher times. And his ego maybe does get the best of him.
Part of being a great tennis player is being a great fighter. And Novak really hasn’t shown much of that fighting spirit up to this point in his career. Even today, if this guy needed to draw some inspiration to continue and possibly come back – it wasn’t like he was playing bad either! – all he needed to do was to look across at the net at Federer who could have easily mailed it in when in the second round Ruben Ramirez-Hidalgo had him by the throat up 5-1 in the third set. To his credit Federer didn’t quit and now look how nicely it’s paid off. Federer didn’t get to No. 1, didn’t win 12 Slams, by being a great frontrunner. There’s more to it.
Novak is going to need to learn that. And last I checked - and I’m no tennis historian - but I don’t recall too man guys with a history of retirements ever reaching the No. 1 ranking. Marcelo Rios had a lot of injuries, so did Gustavo Kuerten. Andy Roddick had issues early in his career, but he’s overcome them. And has Roger Federer ever retired from a match? I can’t remember.
So Novak, you can’t retire your way to No. 1. It’s not going to happen that way. Few doubt your game, but what’s going on between your ears is another matter. You have a lot of money now, hire a psychologist or two and a good trainer and get it worked out in your head. And stop sapping your strength by bouncing the ball a thousand times (I get dizzy also just watching that!), re-adjusting your hat and doing imitations. Save your energy for actual play.
(Imitating Novak would be easy. Just bend over in exhaustion, take a few deep breaths, fall to your knees a few times, look distressed and then signal to the chair umpire. That’s Novak. You don’t even need to do the ball bounce routine.)
As for the match, Federer continued his high level he had set from his Nalbandian win. He looked that good, that impressive. (Did Fed really yell at Novak’s parents telling them to “Shut up” as the announced hinted? If so that was great!). But will it be enough tomorrow against Nadal? Will he continue on this revenge tour? Probably not. I have to stick with Nadal in that one.
I think it will help Federer in getting such a quick match today after a few three setters this week, but this is Nadal’s surface, Nadal’s time of year. He’s built for clay supremacy. And of course Nadal’s got Fed’s number, especially on clay.
Federer, though, I think is playing at a level now where if Nadal is off his game the Swiss can take it. And he’ll be playing without a lot of pressure. But Roger’s going to have to play impeccably and aggressively. Attacking when it’s right and even using that new drop shot of his.
I guess the one bright side of Novak’s retirement is that we do get the Federer-Nadal matchup.
And we are assured no one’s going to hit the eject button during tomorrow’s final.
Source: tennis-x.com
---
Man, this guy voiced my thoughts exactly.
-tmsh-
Djokovic Taps Out Again, Sets Up Federer v. Nadal Monte Carlo Final
by Sean Randall
When the going gets tough, sometimes the tough and the not so tough quit. And that’s just what the not so tough Novak Djokovic did today, just as he has done before, hitting the eject button when things turned against him in a big match.
Today in the Monte Carlo semifinals, Djokovic retired with a breathing illness to Roger Federer after getting broken to go down 6-3, 3-2. The retirement follows a mysterious pattern of in-match withdrawals by the Serb, who pulled a similar act against Nadal at the French Open, Nadal at Wimbledon and even against Davydenko this year in Davis Cup.
And I feel confident in speaking for many tennis fans in saying that we are tired of this act.
You play to win. You don’t play to quit. If Novak’s looking to make fans and gain their respect, this isn’t how to do it.
In Novak’s defense, I understand he’s had a breathing problem, one that was serious enough to require surgery. So it’s there. That’s a fact. It’s been an issue. But Novak, what I cannot understand is if it’s that serious how come you don’t ever retire when you are winning? And why is it only against the top guys and at moments when you feel like the match is no longer within grasp that decide to wave the white flag?
I think it’s safe to say the guy has a game of a No. 1 player, but much like Richard Gasquet, his fate is going to be determined by what goes on between his ears. And right now he’s not right up there.
Sure there’s a physical component, but it’s seems to be more mental with Novak because he feels it more in the tougher times. And his ego maybe does get the best of him.
Part of being a great tennis player is being a great fighter. And Novak really hasn’t shown much of that fighting spirit up to this point in his career. Even today, if this guy needed to draw some inspiration to continue and possibly come back – it wasn’t like he was playing bad either! – all he needed to do was to look across at the net at Federer who could have easily mailed it in when in the second round Ruben Ramirez-Hidalgo had him by the throat up 5-1 in the third set. To his credit Federer didn’t quit and now look how nicely it’s paid off. Federer didn’t get to No. 1, didn’t win 12 Slams, by being a great frontrunner. There’s more to it.
Novak is going to need to learn that. And last I checked - and I’m no tennis historian - but I don’t recall too man guys with a history of retirements ever reaching the No. 1 ranking. Marcelo Rios had a lot of injuries, so did Gustavo Kuerten. Andy Roddick had issues early in his career, but he’s overcome them. And has Roger Federer ever retired from a match? I can’t remember.
So Novak, you can’t retire your way to No. 1. It’s not going to happen that way. Few doubt your game, but what’s going on between your ears is another matter. You have a lot of money now, hire a psychologist or two and a good trainer and get it worked out in your head. And stop sapping your strength by bouncing the ball a thousand times (I get dizzy also just watching that!), re-adjusting your hat and doing imitations. Save your energy for actual play.
(Imitating Novak would be easy. Just bend over in exhaustion, take a few deep breaths, fall to your knees a few times, look distressed and then signal to the chair umpire. That’s Novak. You don’t even need to do the ball bounce routine.)
As for the match, Federer continued his high level he had set from his Nalbandian win. He looked that good, that impressive. (Did Fed really yell at Novak’s parents telling them to “Shut up” as the announced hinted? If so that was great!). But will it be enough tomorrow against Nadal? Will he continue on this revenge tour? Probably not. I have to stick with Nadal in that one.
I think it will help Federer in getting such a quick match today after a few three setters this week, but this is Nadal’s surface, Nadal’s time of year. He’s built for clay supremacy. And of course Nadal’s got Fed’s number, especially on clay.
Federer, though, I think is playing at a level now where if Nadal is off his game the Swiss can take it. And he’ll be playing without a lot of pressure. But Roger’s going to have to play impeccably and aggressively. Attacking when it’s right and even using that new drop shot of his.
I guess the one bright side of Novak’s retirement is that we do get the Federer-Nadal matchup.
And we are assured no one’s going to hit the eject button during tomorrow’s final.
Source: tennis-x.com
---
Man, this guy voiced my thoughts exactly.
-tmsh-
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
'Worst player' earns maiden win
Hard work DOES pay off
Robert Dee, a British tennis player dubbed the worst player in the world, has finally won a match at the 55th attempt and after three years of trying.
Read rest of article here
---
Talk about perseverance!
-tmsh-
Robert Dee, a British tennis player dubbed the worst player in the world, has finally won a match at the 55th attempt and after three years of trying.
Read rest of article here
---
Talk about perseverance!
-tmsh-
Monday, April 21, 2008
Estoril wrap-up article
Federer Snaps Title Drought in Estoril
ATP World No. 1 Roger Federer snapped a five-month title drought by winning his 54th career ATP trophy at the Estoril Open on Sunday.
ATP World No. 1 Roger Federer snapped a five-month title drought by winning his 54th career ATP trophy at the Estoril Open on Sunday.
The Swiss was leading World No. 4 and 2003 champion Nikolay Davydenko of Russia 7-6(5) 1-2 after one hour and 20 minutes, when Davydenko retired due to a muscle strain in his left leg that he sustained towards the end of the first set.
Federer extends his perfect 12-0 record over Davydenko, who captured his second career ATP Masters Series shield at the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, Florida, two weeks ago. It was the pair’s third clay-court meeting.
The 26 year-old Federer put Davydenko under pressure from the start, failing to convert two break points in the first game and three more in the fifth game. Davydenko went 0-4 into the tie-break. Federer moved into a 5-1 lead in the tie-break and eventually won 7-5 in 62 minutes.
Davydenko received treatment for his injury at the end of the first set, and while he responded with a break of the Federer serve in the opening game of the second set - the 26-year-old retired minutes later.
Federer has now won 54 ATP titles in 17 different countries, the most among active players on the ATP circuit.
Earlier this year, the Swiss reached the semifinals at the Australian Open in January (l. to Djokovic) and ATP Masters Series events at Indian Wells (l. to Fish). He also made a quarterfinal exit at AMS Miami (l. to Roddick).
He improves to 16-4 on the season, with his first ATP title since capturing his fourth Tennis Masters Cup title in Shanghai in November 2007.
Federer has been working at the Estoril Open with Spaniard Jose Higueras, the coach to former Roland Garros champions Jim Courier and Michael Chang. Higueras will be at ATP Masters Series Monte-Carlo next week.
Davydenko, who was on an 11-match winning streak going into his ninth career clay-court final, drops to 24-6 on the season. Having made his debut at the Estoril Open in 2001, the Russian has a 13-5 record at the Estádio Nacional. He captured the 2003 title (d. Calleri) and finished runner-up in 2006 (l. to Nalbandian). Davydenko drops to 17-39 lifetime against Top 10 players.
Federer wins €59,100 in prize money and 175 South African ATP Rankings points, while Davydenko collects €31,000 and 120 points. The Estoril Open had a record attendance of 53,888 spectators this year.
WHAT THE PLAYERS SAID
Federer: “It feels great to win a title again and the circumstances were unfortunate. It would have been nice for Nikolay to finish. I think it’s the first time in my life that someone has retired against me – in 70-80 finals. It was cool in the cold conditions, but it is a great start to the clay-court season to win a title.
“It’s a good week for me to start off with. I think [Higueras] is happy for me, he didn’t confuse me and we’ll be off together to Monaco for hopefully a good week there.
“Nikolay felt something at the end of the first set, I saw Nikolay holding his leg before the changeover. I congratulated on a great run in Miami, Davis Cup and it is unfortunate to celebrate a win in this way. I’m still very proud to have won this tournament.”
Davydenko: “When I ran to the left, I felt pain. I felt the muscles in my left leg stretch at the end of the first set. I went to speak to the ATP physio at the end of the tie-break and received a quick massage, but I quickly knew I could not continue. I’m playing on Wednesday in Monaco, and I’ve been told by the physio that he expects me to be okay by then.”
Source: Estoril Open News and Events
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
One down...
Another night of tennis-less tennisThank God for live scoreboards. And MTF chat forums.
Positives:
+ 17 aces on clay, not bad
+ Good come from behind in 2nd + 3rd set..
Negatives:
- Where in the world did his backhand disappear to?
- 53 UEs? Are you kidding me? O_o;;
After 2 hours of me nailbiting at the laptop screen ...he did it! Vamosss.. (phew...)
First round down... another four to go, Rog.
-tmsh-
[edited to add related articles]
Federer wins after Rochus scare, Federer joins Davydenko in second round
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
ATP Feature on Trophiless Fed/Nad
April 7, 2008
ATP World No. 1 Federer, No. 2-Ranked Nadal Look for First Title in 2008 Entering Clay Court Circuit
The first quarter of the season is completed and No. 1 Roger Federer and No. 2 Rafael Nadal are still in pursuit of their first ATP title in 2008.
It is the first time since 1999 on the ATP circuit the top two players going into the European clay court circuit have gone the first three months of the season without winning a title. That year No. 1 Pete Sampras and No. 2 Carlos Moya were winless going into April.
While Federer has gone the first three months without an ATP title for the first time since 2000, Nadal has been without a title since July last year. No. 3 Novak Djokovic has gained ground with titles at the Australian Open in January and ATP Masters Series Indian Wells last month. The 20-year-old Serb is the ATP 2008 Race leader with 331 points and Nadal follows with 249 points. Federer is 6th with 160 points.
See Full ATP 2008 Race
Nadal compiled a 21-6 match record (most wins) on hard courts with runner-up efforts in Chennai (l. to Youzhny) in January and at the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami (l. to Davydenko) on Sunday, falling to Russian opponents each time.
After his runner-up performance in Miami, Nadal was asked about the start of the year. "You know, we have only three months already on the season. Roger has lost more than usually, but it wasn't due to bad results. He's not far away about his level. Djokovic is unbelievable, but at the same time, I am not so far away than Djokovic, too. (I) Play very good start of the season. My goal was to have 1,000 points (200 race points) after Miami. I say before the season my goal is to have 1,000 points in Miami and I will have, I don't know, 1,200, 1,250, something like this. I improve my goal. Last year I have in this moment, this tournament, when I finish winning the Indian Wells I have 1,025 points. I improve. It's a lot of points in three months, so happy for that."
Federer's four tournament span without reaching a final marks the first time since he's been No. 1 going back to Feb. 2, 2004. It is also his longest final drought since the end of 2002 and first month of 2003 when he he went seven tournaments without a final.
"I am disappointed not to see my name, playing in the finals," said Federer after his quarterfinal loss to Roddick. " I mean, it's just disappointing seeing other guys battling it out, you know, where I think, you know, I have the game to obviously play there, be there as well."
Federer, 11-4 on the season, will take a 670-point lead in the South African Airways ATP Rankings over Nadal into the upcoming European clay court circuit, which the Spaniard has dominated over the past three years. Although Federer leads Djokovic by 1,815 points, the Serbian drops 975 points on clay compared to Nadal (2,650) and Federer (1,650) through Roland Garros.
See Full South African Airways ATP Rankings
Federer will be the first to step foot in an ATP clay court tournament next week at the Estoril Open in Portugal where he looks to capture his first title of the year. All three will be together for Masters Series Monte Carlo, which begins Apr. 21. Nadal has beaten Federer in that final the last two years and is three-time defending champion.
Davydenko said after his title in Miami, "Yeah, just to say -- Federer didn't win Australian Open, didn't win Indian Wells, didn't win here. Every different player winning tournaments. Yeah, but it's like season just begun. We have three more Grand Slams, and Federer is -- he's Federer. (laughter). Wimbledon I think he's favorite. Roland Garros, Nadal is favorite for Roland Garros, but physically in tennis just for the clay court. I mean, we'll see in a year."
ATP Profiles: Roger Federer Rafael Nadal
Source: ATP tennis website
-tmsh-
ATP World No. 1 Federer, No. 2-Ranked Nadal Look for First Title in 2008 Entering Clay Court Circuit
The first quarter of the season is completed and No. 1 Roger Federer and No. 2 Rafael Nadal are still in pursuit of their first ATP title in 2008.
It is the first time since 1999 on the ATP circuit the top two players going into the European clay court circuit have gone the first three months of the season without winning a title. That year No. 1 Pete Sampras and No. 2 Carlos Moya were winless going into April.
While Federer has gone the first three months without an ATP title for the first time since 2000, Nadal has been without a title since July last year. No. 3 Novak Djokovic has gained ground with titles at the Australian Open in January and ATP Masters Series Indian Wells last month. The 20-year-old Serb is the ATP 2008 Race leader with 331 points and Nadal follows with 249 points. Federer is 6th with 160 points.
See Full ATP 2008 Race
Nadal compiled a 21-6 match record (most wins) on hard courts with runner-up efforts in Chennai (l. to Youzhny) in January and at the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami (l. to Davydenko) on Sunday, falling to Russian opponents each time.
After his runner-up performance in Miami, Nadal was asked about the start of the year. "You know, we have only three months already on the season. Roger has lost more than usually, but it wasn't due to bad results. He's not far away about his level. Djokovic is unbelievable, but at the same time, I am not so far away than Djokovic, too. (I) Play very good start of the season. My goal was to have 1,000 points (200 race points) after Miami. I say before the season my goal is to have 1,000 points in Miami and I will have, I don't know, 1,200, 1,250, something like this. I improve my goal. Last year I have in this moment, this tournament, when I finish winning the Indian Wells I have 1,025 points. I improve. It's a lot of points in three months, so happy for that."
Federer's four tournament span without reaching a final marks the first time since he's been No. 1 going back to Feb. 2, 2004. It is also his longest final drought since the end of 2002 and first month of 2003 when he he went seven tournaments without a final.
"I am disappointed not to see my name, playing in the finals," said Federer after his quarterfinal loss to Roddick. " I mean, it's just disappointing seeing other guys battling it out, you know, where I think, you know, I have the game to obviously play there, be there as well."
Federer, 11-4 on the season, will take a 670-point lead in the South African Airways ATP Rankings over Nadal into the upcoming European clay court circuit, which the Spaniard has dominated over the past three years. Although Federer leads Djokovic by 1,815 points, the Serbian drops 975 points on clay compared to Nadal (2,650) and Federer (1,650) through Roland Garros.
See Full South African Airways ATP Rankings
Federer will be the first to step foot in an ATP clay court tournament next week at the Estoril Open in Portugal where he looks to capture his first title of the year. All three will be together for Masters Series Monte Carlo, which begins Apr. 21. Nadal has beaten Federer in that final the last two years and is three-time defending champion.
Davydenko said after his title in Miami, "Yeah, just to say -- Federer didn't win Australian Open, didn't win Indian Wells, didn't win here. Every different player winning tournaments. Yeah, but it's like season just begun. We have three more Grand Slams, and Federer is -- he's Federer. (laughter). Wimbledon I think he's favorite. Roland Garros, Nadal is favorite for Roland Garros, but physically in tennis just for the clay court. I mean, we'll see in a year."
ATP Profiles: Roger Federer Rafael Nadal
Source: ATP tennis website
-tmsh-
Thursday, April 3, 2008
[Miami] QF Nadal def. Blake
Blake and Nadal Clash in Quarters, Bryan Brothers swing into Semis
What a difference a set makes. Facing James Blake in the quarterfinals of the Sony Ericsson Open Wednesday, Rafael Nadal found his switch at the beginning of the second set and turned it on to finish off the ninth-ranked Blake and punch his ticket to the semifinals.
Nadal, who lost his first three career matches against the American, made it two straight against Blake, also topping him in the quarterfinals of Indian Wells last week.
“I think we play very tough matches, both at Indian Wells and here. He started playing so aggressive, and I didn’t have many chances in the beginning.” Nadal said. “So later I won a very important point. One 15-30 with one long volley (I won) with a backhand. That changed the match a little. And later I had the break in the 4-3. That was the turn of the match.”
With the point came a lion’s roar from Nadal, and a 3-6 first set characterized by sluggish play gave way to a second and third set in which the Spaniard allowed Blake only one more game. Nadal finished out the final two sets 6-3, 6-1.
“I felt like I wasn’t volleying very well, and I wasn’t attacking that much. I got a little too passive and let him dictate play,” Blake said. “Today I felt like towards the end of the match I was playing much, much too passive, and that’s frustrating.”
Nadal will face the winner of the Nikolay Davydenko and Janko Tipsarevic quarterfinal matchup, which will take place Thursday at 1 p.m. Other intriguing quarterfinal matchups Thursday include 2004 Sony Ericsson Open men’s singles champion Andy Roddick taking on the 2005 winner Roger Federer at 7 p.m. and last year’s women’s champion Serena Williams facing Svetlana Kuznetsova, who bested sister Venus Williams in the fourth round Monday.
Source: Official website of 2008 Sony Ericsson Open
---
PS: I think there's a bit of misinformation there... Isn't Roger the one that's supposed to face Nico/Tipsy in the semis? Can the official website make such an obvious mistake in its news report?
PPS: Apparently it can. Oh well...
What a difference a set makes. Facing James Blake in the quarterfinals of the Sony Ericsson Open Wednesday, Rafael Nadal found his switch at the beginning of the second set and turned it on to finish off the ninth-ranked Blake and punch his ticket to the semifinals.Nadal, who lost his first three career matches against the American, made it two straight against Blake, also topping him in the quarterfinals of Indian Wells last week.
“I think we play very tough matches, both at Indian Wells and here. He started playing so aggressive, and I didn’t have many chances in the beginning.” Nadal said. “So later I won a very important point. One 15-30 with one long volley (I won) with a backhand. That changed the match a little. And later I had the break in the 4-3. That was the turn of the match.”
With the point came a lion’s roar from Nadal, and a 3-6 first set characterized by sluggish play gave way to a second and third set in which the Spaniard allowed Blake only one more game. Nadal finished out the final two sets 6-3, 6-1.
“I felt like I wasn’t volleying very well, and I wasn’t attacking that much. I got a little too passive and let him dictate play,” Blake said. “Today I felt like towards the end of the match I was playing much, much too passive, and that’s frustrating.”
Nadal will face the winner of the Nikolay Davydenko and Janko Tipsarevic quarterfinal matchup, which will take place Thursday at 1 p.m. Other intriguing quarterfinal matchups Thursday include 2004 Sony Ericsson Open men’s singles champion Andy Roddick taking on the 2005 winner Roger Federer at 7 p.m. and last year’s women’s champion Serena Williams facing Svetlana Kuznetsova, who bested sister Venus Williams in the fourth round Monday.
Source: Official website of 2008 Sony Ericsson Open
---
PS: I think there's a bit of misinformation there... Isn't Roger the one that's supposed to face Nico/Tipsy in the semis? Can the official website make such an obvious mistake in its news report?
PPS: Apparently it can. Oh well...
-tmsh-
[Miami] pre-QF Andy vs Roger
Can Roddick Conquer Federer?
By: Sandra Harwitt
If there is one special thing that fans should admire about Andy Roddick it’s that he doesn’t give up.
Some players might take a look at the fact that he's lost 15 of 16 matches against a player and assume their chances of winning another match are slim to none. That reaction would leave a player feeling defeated before they even walk on the court.
But not the case when Roddick thinks about another shot at world No. 1 Roger Federer.
Roddick is an optimist, a guy who thinks the glass is half-full and not half-empty. So when he looks at the possibility of playing Federer for a 17th time and maybe winning, he revels in the challenge.
After Roddick came back from one set down to beat Julien Benneteau in the fourth round, he had a lot to say about his quarterfinal encounter against Federer today.
“I always look forward to it (playing Federer) and I do believe that I’ll beat him one of these times. Hopefully that will be this time around.”
Now Roddick didn’t stop there with his thoughts on playing Federer again. He gave quite a dissertation about the upcoming battle, and because it shows Andy’s personality so well it’s worth putting down all the words.
“You know, he's one of the few guys that I've probably played three or four really, really good matches against him and came up short. I think I have brought out the best in him a couple of times. Sometimes I've walked off the court shaking my head and wondering, but then a couple of times he hasn't played that great and I've matched him.”
“You know, it's just ‑‑ all I can do is put my best foot forward, and hopefully right now he's thinking about it a little bit. You know, obviously I think I have to serve well. Just goes down to the basics: You serve well, you return well, you're going to give yourself looks against anybody.”
All that said, Roddick didn’t hesitate to admit that all those losses are not easy to stomach saying, “If I'm being frank, it is hard. But at the same time, I feel like, I'm out here because I feel like I can still win a Slam. You know, if I'm 1 and 26 against Roger and that one win leads me to a Slam, or leads me (to) something that can get that, then I'm okay with that. Good thing about tennis is you pretty much start over at the beginning of every day. Even after some of my tough losses, I think I've always been pretty clear that I would get up the next morning and keep going. You know, I've had a pretty good career doing that so far.”
And what does Roger have to say about Andy you might say? Well, Roger as expected was ever the gentleman and very complimentary of his colleague, “He’s beaten me before, but I have a definitely very, very good record against him. Toughest places to play against him is always in America. I’ve had some close ones here with him over the years. (He’s) a guy I always enjoy playing against, we have a lot of respect for each other. I think it will be a great matchup for this tournament.”
So now that we’ve heard how the players feel let’s look at the math.
Federer has won 37 sets, while Roddick has won six sets in their 16 clashes. And it’s been quite a while since Roddick scored his one victory at the 2003 Master Series Montreal tournament with a 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (3) win.
However, the score line doesn’t really indicate how close some of those encounters have been, such as their four-set final thriller at Wimbledon 2004.
If Roddick was going to have a shot at Federer, this might be the place considering the Swiss is just off a bout with mononucleosis. But as Federer’s exceptional showing against Jose Acasuso in the fourth round indicated, he is feeling just fine these days.
I’m feeling the possibility of another good battle here, but when all is said and done, I fear for Roddick that Federer will be standing tall in the semifinals.
Excerpted from: Official website of 2008 Sony Ericsson Open
---
Sorry, Andy.. gotta go with the stats... 15-1 is pretty overwhelming... ^^;
Best of luck to you both, though!
-tmsh-
By: Sandra Harwitt
If there is one special thing that fans should admire about Andy Roddick it’s that he doesn’t give up.Some players might take a look at the fact that he's lost 15 of 16 matches against a player and assume their chances of winning another match are slim to none. That reaction would leave a player feeling defeated before they even walk on the court.
But not the case when Roddick thinks about another shot at world No. 1 Roger Federer.
Roddick is an optimist, a guy who thinks the glass is half-full and not half-empty. So when he looks at the possibility of playing Federer for a 17th time and maybe winning, he revels in the challenge.
After Roddick came back from one set down to beat Julien Benneteau in the fourth round, he had a lot to say about his quarterfinal encounter against Federer today.
“I always look forward to it (playing Federer) and I do believe that I’ll beat him one of these times. Hopefully that will be this time around.”
Now Roddick didn’t stop there with his thoughts on playing Federer again. He gave quite a dissertation about the upcoming battle, and because it shows Andy’s personality so well it’s worth putting down all the words.
“You know, he's one of the few guys that I've probably played three or four really, really good matches against him and came up short. I think I have brought out the best in him a couple of times. Sometimes I've walked off the court shaking my head and wondering, but then a couple of times he hasn't played that great and I've matched him.”
“You know, it's just ‑‑ all I can do is put my best foot forward, and hopefully right now he's thinking about it a little bit. You know, obviously I think I have to serve well. Just goes down to the basics: You serve well, you return well, you're going to give yourself looks against anybody.”
All that said, Roddick didn’t hesitate to admit that all those losses are not easy to stomach saying, “If I'm being frank, it is hard. But at the same time, I feel like, I'm out here because I feel like I can still win a Slam. You know, if I'm 1 and 26 against Roger and that one win leads me to a Slam, or leads me (to) something that can get that, then I'm okay with that. Good thing about tennis is you pretty much start over at the beginning of every day. Even after some of my tough losses, I think I've always been pretty clear that I would get up the next morning and keep going. You know, I've had a pretty good career doing that so far.”
And what does Roger have to say about Andy you might say? Well, Roger as expected was ever the gentleman and very complimentary of his colleague, “He’s beaten me before, but I have a definitely very, very good record against him. Toughest places to play against him is always in America. I’ve had some close ones here with him over the years. (He’s) a guy I always enjoy playing against, we have a lot of respect for each other. I think it will be a great matchup for this tournament.”
So now that we’ve heard how the players feel let’s look at the math.
Federer has won 37 sets, while Roddick has won six sets in their 16 clashes. And it’s been quite a while since Roddick scored his one victory at the 2003 Master Series Montreal tournament with a 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (3) win.
However, the score line doesn’t really indicate how close some of those encounters have been, such as their four-set final thriller at Wimbledon 2004.
If Roddick was going to have a shot at Federer, this might be the place considering the Swiss is just off a bout with mononucleosis. But as Federer’s exceptional showing against Jose Acasuso in the fourth round indicated, he is feeling just fine these days.
I’m feeling the possibility of another good battle here, but when all is said and done, I fear for Roddick that Federer will be standing tall in the semifinals.
Excerpted from: Official website of 2008 Sony Ericsson Open
---
Sorry, Andy.. gotta go with the stats... 15-1 is pretty overwhelming... ^^;
Best of luck to you both, though!
-tmsh-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
