Wimbledon 2008

[The_Idler]

You guys actually like watching Tennis on TV? cmon what else do you watch Golf? or maybe some exciting Bowling8)

 

[mcwally]

fark I cant help thinking that federer had the game to beat nadal but just didnt get to the net enough or quickly enough. It looks like now Nadal cannot be beaten from the baseline on any surface anymore.

epic match though, but hm cant really call roger the best ever now imo unless he wins the french at some stage and gets wimbledon back. And if Nadal keeps improving like shit he will be dam hard to stop now.

 

[The_Idler]

yerse.

was so crazy how:
first nadal went almost ALL the way, straight sets,
then federer pulled back, almost ALL the way to winning,
then nadal JUST took it, at the last point.

 

[PinholeStar]

Absolutely fucking awe-inspiring.

There just aren't enough superlatives to describe that final. I was sat in slack-jawed wonderment at what I was seeing unfold before me throughout. I knew that it would be a classic, but could anyone have predicted that we'd see something as incredible as that?

Despite the fine margins up to that point, at two sets up you began to wonder whether Nadal was going to storm it in the third, but the way that Federer took it to five sets was just a testament to his genius, & drama on a grand scale.

How the hell did they keep up that immaculate standard for over six hours & with the rain delays? The consistency of the standard of the rallies was like nothing I've ever seen. They're quite simply on another planet to everyone else & to see them push each other to the very limits of their mental endurance & ability was a true sight to behold.

I would've liked to have seen Federer break Borg's record but don't begrudge Nadal his victory one iota. You got the sense that Federer was keeping pace with Nadal - and producing unbelievable serves on crucial points - but never looked like putting him to the sword. The way that Nadal just refuses to give in & keeps himself in rallies that should be long finished is remarkable. And that fifth set? Nothing between them until that one crucial break.

I've been watching tennis avidly for 20 years but I've never seen anything to compare to that. What a privilege it was to watch.

Make the most of these two while they're still around, because I don't think we're going to see such a sublimely skillful & thoroughly likeable sporting rivalry to compare to them for decades.

There's no doubt that at this point in time Nadal is the world's no.1 player, despite the rankings. The big question is how much this defeat will affect Federer in the months to come. I always thought that talk of the end of an era prior to this tournament was a little premature - & let's not forget that this match could just as easily have gone the other way & I still think that Federer wasn't quite 100% - but you do wonder, looking at Nadal's continuing improvement in all areas of his game, just how many Grand Slams he himself is going to win. The next couple of years are going to be absolutely fascinating.

I still rate Federer as the greatest ever, the one who has taken the sport to new heights, but the real test of that greatness will be in seeing if he can bounce back from this match. The guy looked truly devastated afterwards.

But yeah, that was the single greatest sporting contest that I've ever seen & the perfect example of why, for me, nothing can compare to tennis for sheer tension & epic gladiatorial spirit. %)

 

[The_Idler]

yes man, epic is the word.

 

[alasdairm]

agreed - a truly great wimbledon final. the 4th set tie-breaker was simply sublime.

for me, there's pretty much one statistic which explains the result: the number of times federer broke nadal (against the number of chances federer had to break him).

alasdair

 

[Chaos Butterfly]

Didn't get a chance to watch the game, but have read about it and am glad that it was as epic as it was. If Nadal was going to eclipse Federer at Wimbledon, this was how it had to play.

Congratulations to Nadal, and comiserations to Federer.

Is this a changing of the guard? Can Nadal take out the US and Australian Opens before Federer takes the French and complete a career Grand Slam? That would be... well I can't find the words to describe it...

I don't think this is the end of Federer, but I do think it is the continued rise of Nadal.

Oh, and congrats to Sam Stosur who, coming back from 8 months of injury made both the Women's Doubles final (losing to the Williamses) and the Mixed doubles final - a win!!

CB

 

[eggman]

I hope Hewitt suffers and fails badly... Come ON!!!

Federer and Nadal for the final with Nadal to finish it in a comprehensive fashion.

QFT

 

[duck_racer]

It was a great final but I don't think I'll ever get on with Nadals gamesmanship.

Federer is a true sportsman. Gutted he didn't get 6 in a row because he has been the best ever at Wimbledon in the modern era..

 

[duck_racer]

And well done to the 14 year old English girl who won the U18 title. Prepare for massive over-hyped young English starlet who fails to realise her potential and gets crushed under the weight of expectation!

Predictably enough, The Daily Mail this morning wet their collective chinos over New Tennis Sensation Laura Robson.

And they're making sure that we don't all get too over the top and giddy with the headline 'Laura is bound for the top but let's give her space'.

Which they do admirably. With a full-page spread in the sports section. And a full-page fawning column by Annbel Croft on page 13. And by piously comparing her to two other tennis rapscallions who hit the pop during Wimbledon in a seperate news story. And in the leader. And by Jeff Powell leading with Robson in his weekly column. And by featuring her appearance at the Champions Ball on page three.

What's that phrase about 'building them up' again?

You've got to love the British way...

 

[mcwally]

It was a great final but I don't think I'll ever get on with Nadals gamesmanship.

Federer is a true sportsman. Gutted he didn't get 6 in a row because he has been the best ever at Wimbledon in the modern era..

people forget pretty quickly, imo Sampras hasnt been surpassed by Federer yet at Wimbledon. He won 3 in a row, then 4 in a row separated by a QF exit(so 7 titles).

Plus the field was stronger, now there are 2 guys basically who will win grand slams back then you had 6 or so grand slam winning champs going at it like Edberg, Agassi, Lendl, Courier, Becker, Ivanisovic, Krajicek. I reckon Fed and Nadal are riding high at a time when the mens field isnt as strong as in the 90s when Sampras dominated.

 

[duck_racer]

people forget pretty quickly, imo Sampras hasnt been surpassed by Federer yet at Wimbledon. He won 3 in a row, then 4 in a row separated by a QF exit(so 7 titles).

Plus the field was stronger, now there are 2 guys basically who will win grand slams back then you had 6 or so grand slam winning champs going at it like Edberg, Agassi, Lendl, Courier, Becker, Ivanisovic, Krajicek. I reckon Fed and Nadal are riding high at a time when the mens field isnt as strong as in the 90s when Sampras dominated.

I'm ot sure it's necessarily weaker now than it was then. If anything the professionalism of tennis players has increased since the 90s (relative prize money certainly has) and with this almost always comes an increase in ability across the whole field..

The period where Sampras dominated Wimbledon was also fairly weak IMO. Of the players you mentioned Edberg, Lendl, Becker and Courier were on their way out. Krajicek and Ivanisevic only won two slams between them..

If you go back through the Mens game there are long periods where there are one or two, sometimes three players who are above all the others and clean up 75% of the slams.. Tennis players seem to be able to stay right at the top of their games for 7-8 years max which was why, IMO, Agassi was a far greater player than Sampras because he was able to maintain his standard and ranking over a longer period (excluding his dip in the middle). That and he won all four of the slams.

 

[Chaos Butterfly]

And well done to the 14 year old English girl who won the U18 title. Prepare for massive over-hyped young English starlet who fails to realise her potential and gets crushed under the weight of expectation!



You've got to love the British way...

massive over hyped british sensation...




























































































born in australia.

 

[mcwally]

I'm ot sure it's necessarily weaker now than it was then. If anything the professionalism of tennis players has increased since the 90s (relative prize money certainly has) and with this almost always comes an increase in ability across the whole field...

That would be conventional wisdom naturally, but the reason why I pointed it out is because I dont believe it to be so in this case. It is possible that for whatever reason by chance there is a weaker field of mens players who have a real chance of winning slams.

The period where Sampras dominated Wimbledon was also fairly weak IMO. Of the players you mentioned Edberg, Lendl, Becker and Courier were on their way out. Krajicek and Ivanisevic only won two slams between them.. .

Courier retired in 2000 so he wasnt on the way out, but Krajicek yeh not amazing but at wimbledon he was good winning once. Ivanisovic was insane at wimbledon, 4 finals only to win one though.

If you go back through the Mens game there are long periods where there are one or two, sometimes three players who are above all the others and clean up 75% of the slams.. Tennis players seem to be able to stay right at the top of their games for 7-8 years max which was why, IMO, Agassi was a far greater player than Sampras because he was able to maintain his standard and ranking over a longer period (excluding his dip in the middle). That and he won all four of the slams.

Yeh agree on the first point, but Agassi only won 1 wimbledon and 1 french thats not many compared to Sampras' imposing record at wimbledon. 14 grand slams speaks for itself against agassis 8 eventhough agassi played for longer. One french open win doesnt make him better than Sampras imo

 

[PinholeStar]

It was a great final but I don't think I'll ever get on with Nadals gamesmanship.

Yet you like Murray... Bah, I just don't understand you! I really don't! :D

And well done to the 14 year old English girl who won the U18 title. Prepare for massive over-hyped young English starlet who fails to realise her potential and gets crushed under the weight of expectation!

You've got to love the British way...

Oh God, tell me about it. 8) I really feel for that poor girl because she is probably going to have a nightmare with all the attention over the next few years.

people forget pretty quickly, imo Sampras hasnt been surpassed by Federer yet at Wimbledon. He won 3 in a row, then 4 in a row separated by a QF exit(so 7 titles).

Plus the field was stronger, now there are 2 guys basically who will win grand slams back then you had 6 or so grand slam winning champs going at it like Edberg, Agassi, Lendl, Courier, Becker, Ivanisovic, Krajicek. I reckon Fed and Nadal are riding high at a time when the mens field isnt as strong as in the 90s when Sampras dominated.

That would be conventional wisdom naturally, but the reason why I pointed it out is because I dont believe it to be so in this case. It is possible that for whatever reason by chance there is a weaker field of mens players who have a real chance of winning slams.

Courier retired in 2000 so he wasnt on the way out, but Krajicek yeh not amazing but at wimbledon he was good winning once. Ivanisovic was insane at wimbledon, 4 finals only to win one though.

Not to take anything away from Sampras, because he was undoubtedly one of the all-time greats, but I really think that you're doing a huge disservice to Federer's achievements by suggesting that they're solely down to a weak field of men's players.

Hailing someone like Krajicek as a reliable indicator of the relative strength of the men's game in Sampras' era is laughable. Yes, he won Wimbledon once, but something that you're forgetting is just how fast the grass courts played back then. It meant that a one-note player such as Krajicek with an enormous booming serve could feasibly win it, & indeed he did. You were lucky back then if you saw a rally on grass that lasted longer than 3 or 4 shots. Serve, return, volley. Boom, boom, boom. It's the very reason that they've slowed the courts down (although a little too much in my opinion) & it has allowed a player like Nadal to have a shot at the title.

Ivanisevic was a superb grass-court player, but again this was almost entirely dependant on the strength of his serve. His best result outside of SW19 was one US Open semi-final. No doubt you would say that that proves the strength in depth that the men's game had back then, but I'd counter that all it proves is that the grass-courts in that era were amenable to huge servers & so that skewed the results.

Here's the thing: the reason that Federer has been so dominant over the past 4 or 5 years is not, I believe, due to a lack of decent competition but because his mastery of the art is so complete that he makes the rest look average. The same goes for Nadal on clay: he's virtually unbeatable on the surface, & arguably the greatest to have ever played on it. I've been watching & following tennis with an almost religious fervour for over 20 years & I'm sorry, but I think that the game today is of a higher quality than it's ever been, with the possible exception of the Borg/McEnroe/Connors era. I'm no expert, but those guys most definitely are & to hear them so enthused about today's game says an awful lot.

Yeh agree on the first point, but Agassi only won 1 wimbledon and 1 french thats not many compared to Sampras' imposing record at wimbledon. 14 grand slams speaks for itself against agassis 8 even though agassi played for longer. One french open win doesnt make him better than Sampras imo

This is a debate that will run & run & there's no real definitive answer. Sampras was a grass-court master, of that there's no doubt, but I would argue that Agassi's ability to win on any surface meant that he could rightly lay claim to be the more complete player. He had the best return of serve that I've ever seen & such a unique playing style - standing on the baseline rather than behind it, & taking the ball insanely early - that one thing's for certain: I enjoyed watching him far more than I did Sampras. And to come back near the end of his career & compete in the way that he did? An absolutely phenomenal athletic achievement.

What's of real interest now is to see whether Federer can bounce back from a defeat that has left him floored & shell-shocked. There are worrying parallels with Borg's defeat to McEnroe in 1981 & although he isn't going to walk away from the game like he did, it's going to take an immense effort to reclaim the crown of world's best player.

Nadal still has some way to go to fine tune his game for Flushing Meadows & Melbourne Park, as the insane topspin that he generates is not nearly as effective at those venues & there are so many more players who can play through him there. Also, as an aside, the hard courts are far more punishing on his joints which is a big worry that I have for him long-term. If his knees hold out & he can learn to flatten out some of his shots though, then the rest of the men's game should be absolutely terrified, but it could take a while.

For Federer the French is looking near impossible as long as Nadal is fit & Wimbledon is now, of course, no longer the banker that it has been for the last 5 years. Djokovic though is arguably as big a threat now to Federer on the hard courts as Nadal is on grass. In a way though I think that no longer being regarded as unequivocally the world's best player may actually help him. It was interesting to note how when he came out after the first rain break he'd lost his fear & inhibition, really unleashed his forehand & suddenly we had a classic on our hands. Too many times against Nadal, Federer has been tentative & indecisive, but now it could be argued that he's got nothing to lose & you may see him go for it a little more. It's going to be a truly fascinating couple of years.

Comparing Federer/Nadal with Borg/McEnroe or Agassi/Sampras: in a way it's kind of redundant due to the changes in surface, racket technology & sheer power of today's game. Who can say who would've beaten who from each era? We can only speculate, but what's of more importance is to just acknowledge what a sheer privilege it is that we're alive to witness such highly competitive & inspirational players at the very top of their respective sport. As I said before, it's simply awe-inspiring.

 

[mcwally]

agassi was awesome no doubt but not as dominant as Sampras, he played for longer and didnt win nearly as many slams. his comback was remarkable but he is not really mentioned as one of the possible all time greats like Sampras. 7Wimbledons pwns Agassi. Argue all you want about Agassi being more complete because he won one french open. How is it more complete when he has a small serve and not a world class volleyer and no good slice backhand.

and trying to derail my valid points by pointing out one name mentioned Krajicek, is laughable. And yeh thats right he won Wimbledon the same number of times as Agassi Yes I agree much of Ivanisovics success was because of a wicked serve particularly at Wimbledon due to the pace of the court.

If Federer played to his potential he would have nailed Nadal just like a matchup between Agassi and Sampras, ie Sampras would nail Agassi if they both play to potential because there is more depth to his game like serve and his ability to dominate at the net, slice backhand etc. Sure the result may be different on clay but thats 1/3 surfaces and a boring surface to boot.

 

[duck_racer]

massive over hyped british sensation...
born in australia.

Aussie mum iirc. She only lived there until she was 1 then moved to Singapore! Hardly counts as an Aussie, thank fuck.

PinholeStar - Agree with nearly everything you've said.

McWally - Disagree with nearly everything you've said!

It's impossible to draw comparisons between eras but as far as Sampras and Agassi goes I think the overall ability is demonstrated far better by Agassi's ability to win on clay, grass and hardcourt over Sampras knocking everyone over at Wimbledon but having a similar record to Agassi at the other slams (excluding French). I guess you can argue over what 'ability' is. The ability to keep on winning as Sampras did or the ability to adapt your game and win on all surfaces, as Agassi did. Not that it matters, they were both great in their own ways.

As far as Wimbeldon goes PS is spot on regarding courts and balls. Even 8 years ago you could turn up with a mega serve and be fairly assured of reaching the quarters. The slowing of the games extends the rallies and has brought the skill factor higher, even though it has nearly killed off the serve and volley. I don't think Sampras at his peak would win wimbledon nowadays however I think Agassi might have a chance..

 

[mcwally]

so is Nadal a more complete player and better than Federer because he has won the french and wimbledon by the same logic?

no imo lol, though with these guys history is still being written

Say Lendl vs Agassi, here both baseliners both 8 grand slams, but Ivan could never get wimbledon or really penetrate on grass Agassi adapted and won wimbledon once which in the tennis world means he will be remembered as perhaps superior. Here most would probably agree yeh?

However Sampras won the most grand slam titles in the history of the sport, and owned wimbledon while he was around and just quietly had a record of beating agassi 20 times and losing 14. What of what im saying do you disagree about so much. Neither of you guys have actually said you think agassi was greater than Sampras just pointed out the weak argument one could make for it, namely one French open win.

Imo Sampras was better, I liked watching his play style more he won more slams, owned the coveted wimbledon 7 times beat agassi alot more than he lost to him etc. However I think agassi is one of the modern greats and obviously his natural talent is amazing his return of serve exquisite but I gues im just not sitting on the fence....Sampras ftw lol.