Running Wimbledon thread

I tivoed the match because I had to head to a baseball game when it was 5-4 in the third. I just watched it and my DVR ended at 2-2 in the fifth. While I'm disappointed I didn't get to see what sounds like an amazing finish, I'm glad I got to see so much of the match, especially the fourth set tiebreak.

Congratulations to Nadal, and to Federer for a great comeback.

I can't wait for the U.S. Open, but if Nadal becomes dominant there, things could get very boring at the majors with the constant Federer vs. Nadal final. Oh, it's also ridiculous that Federer is still number one. Nadal has clearly earned that honor this year.

 

This year's results don't prove a decline on Federer's part so much as they mark all the progress that has been made by Nadal.

Sure, Nadal has won all four meetings between the two this year. But before that, Federer had won five of the previous seven times they'd met, and Federer actually beat Nadal on clay once last year in a Masters Series event.

Although Nadal now has a 12-6 career record against Federer -- he is, I believe, the only tour player who has posted a winning record against him -- nine of those victories, including three of four this season, have all come on clay.

Moreover, these two usually play each other so closely -- they've played four five-set matches against each other, and nearly a quarter of their 62 sets have gone into a tie-breaker -- that I'm not sure you can say Federer's close loss necessarily proves that he's going downhill fast. It took everything Nadal had to hold him off.

And the Wimbledon final turned into a barn-burner precisely because Federer was able to lift his game so much from where it was at the start, and then play so well in the stretch, before finally falling by the slightest margin.

I'd contend that this was the stuff of someone with an amazing ability to respond, climb uphill and rebound -- something not just anyone would have been able to do -- and not the result of someone who is necessarily on a downward slide.

All this match proved was that these two bring out the best in each other, because that's what it takes for either one to win against the other.

 

I think any winner of the French AND Wimbledon is ahead of those with more majors who did not pull off the near-impossible feat.

 

I meant ... the results from throughout the entire year.

It's not just Nadal who has started catching up.

 

So there was a thread on this board recently where people were appalled that Lupica showed up at Wimbledon unannounced to write on the tournament. But if I read this -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/sports/tennis/07rhoden.html?ref=sports -- correctly this morning, William Rhoden left the Nadal-Federer match after two sets to go see "Hancock." Because he just knew it wouldn't live up to what Venus and Serena did on Saturday? Really? Really?

 

Rhoden: "From Wimbledon to the streets of London, this was a great moment, a moment of transition in men’s tennis and transformation in one player’s life."

And he bagged it to go see a movie instead. Well done, sir.

 

Points for admitting it.... I guess.

But what hubris, with so many people clinging for dear life to jobs in this biz, to disrespect the job to that degree to take it so for granted. And, for that matter, having the family along in the first place to so obviously distract you.

I never had a big problem with his Mad Libs-styled racial bleatings.... but this is a deal-breaker for me.

Putz.

 

And to see a crappy movie at that.

 

I can't buy into Rhoden's premise that no one believed the men's final was capable of having more drama than the women's final between the Williams sisters. Says who?

 

The Fresh Prince.

 

I've been thinking about this since the end of yesterday's match: Is it time to criticize Federer for all his off-the-court interests the same way we have the Williams sisters and Sharapova, among others, when their play appears to have suffered, or when others have gained ground or surpassed them?

For a long time, Fed was simply the best player in the world, but not really a celebrity. That has obviously changed in the past two years or so, now that he's buddies with Tiger and Gwen Stefani and Gavin Whatshisname are his box, and he's now into fashion and perfect hair and showing up at Euro 2008 and doing possibly the only TV commercial ever for a private jet charter company.

Is it fair to say that at least some of this stuff has taken away from his tennis? It seems so, especially when Nadal, meanwhile, just hangs out at home with his family, training, practicing, fishing, and then training some more.

Federer is still a helluva player and clearly fit -- neither player looked the least bit tired late in the fifth set -- but it doesn't seem like a coincidence that the top challengers have gained ground on him at the same time that he's exploring so many other opportunities and interests away from tennis.

Oh, and Rhoden's piece was crap.

 

Dare I say Whitlock?