This is a real NTU lecturer's feedback that he got over the years.
Too funny, I laughed my head off~
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
To be an A or to be a B, that is the question
Discovery Health Tools: About Type A and Type B Personality
According to scientific literature, Type A behavior is characterized by an intense and sustained drive to achieve goals and an eagerness to compete. Personalities categorized as Type A tend to have a persistent desire for external recognition and advancement. They are involved in various functions that bring about time restrictions. Such personalities have a tendency to speed up mental and physical tasks with extraordinary mental and physical alertness. These characteristics make for super-achievers and high-powered people.
Type A individuals can get a lot done and have the potential to really move ahead in the world. But there is a high price to pay. Certain components of such a personality can inhibit happiness and even threaten health. For example, the goals that Type A folks set are often poorly defined and therefore hard to achieve—a perfect recipe for misery.
Type A is also characterized by a general discontentedness and the impulse to be overly critical and demanding, even contemptuous of imperfection, in the self and others. This focus on negative aspects and the accompanying bursts of hostility and impatience result in guilt, remorse and anxiety.
Type A personalities are motivated by external sources (instead of by inner motivation), such as material reward and appreciation from others. Type A folks experience a constant sense of opposition, wariness, and apprehension--they are always ready for battle. And anyone can imagine how this constant (and very exhausting) existence would deplete reserves of contentment and happiness and disrupt personal equilibrium.
Although the literature is somewhat inconsistent because of problems with the conceptualization and definition of Type A behavior pattern, it has been linked to higher risks of cardiovascular diseases. The risks seemed to be reduced with intervention aimed at reducing Type A behavior. Indeed, those with a high Type A score would be happier and healthier if they were to file down the jagged edges of their personality. By learning how to control the negative behavior patterns while preserving their drive, Type A people can be successful without sacrificing their emotional well-being.
Type B behavior is usually defined as the absence of Type A behavior. Type B personalities are relaxed and have a laid-back attitude and posture. They are friendly, accepting, patient, at ease, and generally content. They are at peace with themselves and others. They show a general sense of harmony with people, events, and life circumstances. They tend to be trusting. They focus on the positive aspects of things, people and events. Type B folks are self-encouraging, have inner motivation, are stable and have a pleasant mood. They are interested in others and accept trivial mistakes. They have an accepting attitude about trivial mistakes and a problem-solving attitude about major mistakes. They are flexible and good team members. The Type B person is able to lead and be led.
Results of Your Type A/B Personality Test
What does your score mean?
You seem to be in the middle between the Type A and Type B personality. In this case, the middle ground is good. Your attitude to life is more of the "smell the roses" kind and you know how and when to relax. Nonetheless, you realize that picking up a challenge and competing a little bit for your place in the sun can add some spice to your life. The equilibrium is important, so don't let your hostile, aggressive, and competitive alter ego take over too often. Generally, you are easy to be around, and people tend to feel relaxed and comfortable in your presence. Yours is a very healthy attitude towards life.
Want to know what type you are? Take the test here.
According to scientific literature, Type A behavior is characterized by an intense and sustained drive to achieve goals and an eagerness to compete. Personalities categorized as Type A tend to have a persistent desire for external recognition and advancement. They are involved in various functions that bring about time restrictions. Such personalities have a tendency to speed up mental and physical tasks with extraordinary mental and physical alertness. These characteristics make for super-achievers and high-powered people.
Type A individuals can get a lot done and have the potential to really move ahead in the world. But there is a high price to pay. Certain components of such a personality can inhibit happiness and even threaten health. For example, the goals that Type A folks set are often poorly defined and therefore hard to achieve—a perfect recipe for misery.
Type A is also characterized by a general discontentedness and the impulse to be overly critical and demanding, even contemptuous of imperfection, in the self and others. This focus on negative aspects and the accompanying bursts of hostility and impatience result in guilt, remorse and anxiety.
Type A personalities are motivated by external sources (instead of by inner motivation), such as material reward and appreciation from others. Type A folks experience a constant sense of opposition, wariness, and apprehension--they are always ready for battle. And anyone can imagine how this constant (and very exhausting) existence would deplete reserves of contentment and happiness and disrupt personal equilibrium.
Although the literature is somewhat inconsistent because of problems with the conceptualization and definition of Type A behavior pattern, it has been linked to higher risks of cardiovascular diseases. The risks seemed to be reduced with intervention aimed at reducing Type A behavior. Indeed, those with a high Type A score would be happier and healthier if they were to file down the jagged edges of their personality. By learning how to control the negative behavior patterns while preserving their drive, Type A people can be successful without sacrificing their emotional well-being.
Type B behavior is usually defined as the absence of Type A behavior. Type B personalities are relaxed and have a laid-back attitude and posture. They are friendly, accepting, patient, at ease, and generally content. They are at peace with themselves and others. They show a general sense of harmony with people, events, and life circumstances. They tend to be trusting. They focus on the positive aspects of things, people and events. Type B folks are self-encouraging, have inner motivation, are stable and have a pleasant mood. They are interested in others and accept trivial mistakes. They have an accepting attitude about trivial mistakes and a problem-solving attitude about major mistakes. They are flexible and good team members. The Type B person is able to lead and be led.
Results of Your Type A/B Personality Test
What does your score mean?
You seem to be in the middle between the Type A and Type B personality. In this case, the middle ground is good. Your attitude to life is more of the "smell the roses" kind and you know how and when to relax. Nonetheless, you realize that picking up a challenge and competing a little bit for your place in the sun can add some spice to your life. The equilibrium is important, so don't let your hostile, aggressive, and competitive alter ego take over too often. Generally, you are easy to be around, and people tend to feel relaxed and comfortable in your presence. Yours is a very healthy attitude towards life.
Want to know what type you are? Take the test here.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Post-Wimbledon Woes and Wows
Woes: Roger
It's been a week and a day since that devastating final. Yet still no word, no picture of him or how he's been doing since. Zero. Nil. Nada. Zilch.
Sure there've been so-called articles (negative, mostly) flying around, but no one's even caught a glimpse of him post-Wimbledon... it's as if he's disappeared off the face of the tennis planet.
Roger, where are you? :-(
Wows: Rafa
- Has been enjoying himself at the beach. And golf course. And beach again. And - guess what? More beach. (That's girlfriend 'Xisca', btw.)
- Was apparently 'gifted' some bad PR by Bloomberg. Comes with the fame I guess. Read it here.
- Is a STAR. Literally. Astronomers have NAMED A STAR AFTER RAFAEL NADAL.
What more can this guy ask for, really?
---
STILL. A. BUNDLE. OF. MIXED. FEELINGS.
It's too late to apologize!
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
Friday, July 11, 2008
Tennis @ Olympics!
Finally, something to be excited about!
ITF announces direct acceptance list
The ITF has announced the direct acceptance list for the 2008 Olympic Tennis Event in singles and doubles. For both men and women, this is the strongest field ever to enter the Olympic Tennis Event since tennis returned as a full medal sport in Seoul 1988.
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
Always Something Sings
"Always Something Sings"
Music arranged by Linda Spevacek
Original lyrics by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Let me go where I will
I hear a sky-born music still
It sounds from all things old
It sounds from all things young
From all that’s fair
From all that’s foul
Peals out a cheerful song
It is not only in the rose
It is not only in the bird
Not only where the rainbow glows
Nor in the song of woman heard
But in the darkest, meanest things
There always, always something sings
Always something sings
Always, always something sings
'Tis not in the high stars alone
Nor in the cups of budding flowers
Nor in the redbreast's mellow tone
Nor in the bow that smiles in showers
But in the mud and scum of things
There always, always something sings
There always something sings
Something sings
mp3 source: http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/a/item.html?id=69435&item=7444641
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
Remembering Roger, 2006
When Roger Federer was still The Roger Federer, circa 2006.
I miss. :-(
Still have high hopes that the 'Roger Federer era' isn't over yet. (The 'Rafael Nadal era' already seems to be in the making, though.)
Will continue to support Rog, whatever happens!
*cheers him on for Toronto, Cincy, Beijing, and the US Open*
I miss. :-(
Still have high hopes that the 'Roger Federer era' isn't over yet. (The 'Rafael Nadal era' already seems to be in the making, though.)
Will continue to support Rog, whatever happens!
*cheers him on for Toronto, Cincy, Beijing, and the US Open*
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, July 7, 2008
Dedicated to the Champions
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!
Rudyard Kipling
---
Wimbledon 2008 Men's Singles Final
R. Nadal def. R. Federer, 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 9-7
Video of the above poem, read by both of them.
Both are true Champions, none a loser.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!
Rudyard Kipling
---
Wimbledon 2008 Men's Singles Final
R. Nadal def. R. Federer, 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 9-7
Video of the above poem, read by both of them.
Both are true Champions, none a loser.
Roger's post-match interview with John McEnroe: "It's tough, it's tough, it hurts."
Rafa's post-match interview with John McEnroe: "Very happy right now, I was crying like ten minutes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
