Showing posts with label nadal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nadal. Show all posts
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
F&N - Is it love, hate or something else entirely?
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.
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.
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 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?
---
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
(someone elses) fantasy come true.. but i don't mind
This is my ex-colleague's blog.
He actually got to watch Nadal & Ivanovic LIVE at Roland Garros last week... In front-row box seats. For FREE. (Well, actually courtesy of Lacoste, the brand he's handling and a major sponsor for RG.)
How cool is that? :-)))
P.S. he even claimed to have smelt Rafa's undies saking deketnya dia duduk.. :-G
He actually got to watch Nadal & Ivanovic LIVE at Roland Garros last week... In front-row box seats. For FREE. (Well, actually courtesy of Lacoste, the brand he's handling and a major sponsor for RG.)
How cool is that? :-)))
P.S. he even claimed to have smelt Rafa's undies saking deketnya dia duduk.. :-G
Ray-fa Hutapea-dal, Feliz Cumpleanos!
Ray,
Rafa Nadal is here to wish you "HAPPY BIRTHDAY!"... he even brought a big cake:
God bless you! Keep doing your best and let God keep doing the rest :-}
Monday, June 9, 2008
Rafa's press conference
"I feel like... No. 2... because I am No. 2...."
Rafa, you're just so... squishy! :-)
*squishes him*
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Paris ended with "love"...
Finale: Simple Messieurs
R. Nadal def. R. Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0 (i.e. a full-blown beatdown)
"I wish I had one of those..."
In any case, Roger couldn't have lost (thrice) to a better opponent. Rafa is now only the third man in the history of the open era to have won four consecutive RG titles. That itself deserves a standing ovation. Vamos Rafa.
"Marquer L'histoire!"
Now, onwards to Wimbledon...
Thursday, May 29, 2008
RG Day 5: Triumphant against De Vil
Round of 64
R. Nadal def. N. Devilder 64 60 61
R. Nadal def. N. Devilder 64 60 61
Rafa easily disposed of Nicolas Devilder (who played worthy of his namesake in the first set, but ran out of gas in the 2nd & 3rd) in straights. The famous *ss triumphs against the De Vil.
It vaguely amuses me that Rafa's scoreline exactly mirrors Raja's (excluding that insignificantly broken first set of course).
Then again, I'm easily amused. :-D
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
RG Day 4: After three days of rain delays...
Round of 128
R. Nadal def. T. Bellucci 75 63 61
...Vamosss, at last!
(I think he was vamos-ing for three days worth of play)
RG Day 3.5: Now it's raining cats and rats...
Ladies and gentlemen, the match we've all been waiting for...
...has been officially suspended, yet again.
What a tease this day was. Just when we were getting into rhythm... not only does it rain but it pours. Tough luck.
Can someone just go do the raindance at centre-court? Or call a 'pawang hujan', they're usually more effective than reading weather forecasts.
(-_-)
In any case, here's a little something stupid that I found during today's prolonged rain delays. Hey, that sort of rhymed.
(Btw, I hated this ad. Super-aneh, ngeri, & tasteless. In what way would seeing this make anyone more interested in buying a Kia?)
Weirdness-ness continues tomorrow.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Predictions for Roland Garros: Men's Draw
My crystal ball predictions (a.k.a. personal judgment with no solid basis whatsoever) :-)
But, hey, at least it's based on the real draw. Which is better than the rolandgarros.com 'live-draw' screw-up earlier today, hehe.
Thoughts:
Overall, the draw looks like fun. Some of my favorite players (who've sort of disappeared this dirt-ball season?) are showing up: Baggy, Nababan, Tsongo. Pretty interesting matches in the early rounds as well -- see those outlined in the table, I think those are must-watches
Rog got a pretty good half. As long as MonoFed doesn't show up on court, he should (hopefully) have an easy run to the final.
Raf, OTOH, has some potentially tough match-ups. Doesn't help that Nole's on his side of the fence, either. Well, better his than Rog's :-p
Here's hoping for another R&R final. Hattrick!
-tmsh-
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, April 28, 2008
The king of clay is back!
The Monte-Carlo "King"
[2] R. Nadal d. [1] R. Federer, 7-5 7-5
Congratz, Rafa, for a well-deserved win (after 10-months of being trophy-deprived) :-)
To Fed, too, for losing graciously, as he always does when he loses to Rafa on clay (7 of 8 matches so far). Errr... that made it sound like a routine thing, didn't it? Well, it sort of is... argh
Personal peeve: This year, Raf can sweep home MC, Rome, and Hamburg - but here's to hoping (against hope) that RG is Rog's for the taking! *pleaseletthisnotbeajinx*
-tmsh-
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Monte-Carlo Marquee Match-up
Tonight's top-dogs semifinal showdown
Not Before 1:30 PM (=7.30 PM Singapore time)
[2] R Nadal (ESP) vs [4] N Davydenko (RUS)
[1] R Federer (SUI) vs [3] N Djokovic (SRB)
---Nadal-Donkey should be a no-brainer. On the other hand, am sort of half-anticipating, half-dreading the Fed-Djoker match.
Nevertheless, it's gonna be a star-studded showdown!
PS: Rog's/Raf's QFs last night were top-notch, watch-worthy tennis. Recaps to come later.
-tmsh-
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Nadal & Djoko glam up in Monte-Carlo
#2 and #3 pose as penguins
Rafa & Djoker, clad in tuxes + bow-ties, visit the Casino before the start of Monte-Carlo:
Original source (higher quality streaming): ATP Masters Series Monte-Carlo
---
It amuses me that Rafa managed to look either (1) bored, (2) indifferent, (3) annoyed at Djoker, and (4) did I mention bored?, throughout the whole ordeal :-)
PS: lack of presence of a certain #1 might have had something to do with it
-tmsh-
Rafa & Djoker, clad in tuxes + bow-ties, visit the Casino before the start of Monte-Carlo:
Original source (higher quality streaming): ATP Masters Series Monte-Carlo
---
It amuses me that Rafa managed to look either (1) bored, (2) indifferent, (3) annoyed at Djoker, and (4) did I mention bored?, throughout the whole ordeal :-)
PS: lack of presence of a certain #1 might have had something to do with it
-tmsh-
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-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
