Running Wimbledon thread

Another amazing aspect of the match was its length, 4 hours and 45 min +. We've seen long matches before, those Wilander-Lendl matches at the US Open were endless, but what sets this apart was how Fed and Rafa were trying to hit winners at the first opportunity, that's what makes the length of the match unbelievable.

 

I don't recall Sharapova being the subject of criticism of this nature. Yes, she is involved in all kinds of things, but I have heard nothing about a lessened commitment to tennis. With the Williams sisters, the criticism is somewhat justified when they barely play the minimum number of tournaments required.

And I just don't see that much dropoff in Federer's game. He would have crushed anyone else on planet Earth yesterday. He just happened to be playing the one player he can't crush. He is a semifinalist, finalist and finalist at three Grand Slams this year. Only one player --- Nadal --- has a more complete resume in 2008.

 

First, I actually liked Hancock.

Anyway, the idea that the women's final would have more drama is fairly ridiculous considering the history of the Williams's matches. How many of them have had any drama? Usually neither plays their best, for obvious reasons. I long ago gave up expecting dynamic matches when those two were matched up.

As for Federer, no, I don't think it's time to wonder about his off-court stuff affecting him. When Tiger went majorless in 03 and 04, I don't think it had anything to do with the fact he was in more commercials than Peyton Manning. He's still been in, what, 12 of the last 13 Grand Slam Finals? I think it's just Nadal's natural progression. I see them battling it out for at least the next three years or so.

EDIT: What BT Express said.

 

I completely agree but thought this year's match was the exception. I think they've both grown up and actually played each other to win. Rhoden should recall their lax play against each other.

Not only that, but if he didn't know the history that was on the line in the Federer-Nadal match -- Federer chasing Borg, Nadal going for his first Wimbledon win, Nadal coming off a huge win over Federer in the French, the two going five sets at Wimbledon last year, etc., -- then he just hasn't been paying attention, which is kind of sad for a NYT sports columnist.

Maybe it would have been dull, maybe history would have been made, maybe it would have been the greatest match of all time. Isn't that why we (should) enjoy covering sports? Because we never know what we're going to see? Rhoden decided that it wasn't worth it to go to the men's final -- or at least it wasn't worth as much as going to a movie he could just as easily go to when he got home from London.

 

Sharapova has definitely become the jet-setter.

 

The only thing that kept Nadal-Federer from being the greatest match ever is the fact that Nadal had fewer than 10 aces, and simply cannot serve and volley. More athletic than smart, he made a stupid decision to come in very late in the match and Federer passed him on the return, a move that could have cost him dearly. Even Borg knew when and how to execute the serve-and-volley.

 

Honestly, I thought Federer outplayed him on that point, dropped in a short baseline return to force Nadal in, and then passed him perfectly.

 

Just wondering if yesterday's match gave professional test a big shot in the arm, at least among the casual sports fans here in the States. (And actually, you could extend that to the entire weekend with the Williams sisters' match-up). I'm guessing there are a good number of folks who had but a passing interest in tennis and name-only familiarity with Nadal and Federer who got caught up in the compelling, can't turn the channel, action that was taking place.

And it certainly didn't hurt that the match was long and delayed by rain, so that a sizable number of folks who might otherwise have normally been at church services and missed it completely was able to catch the match live.

With Federer and Nadal, you have a couple likable, almost iconic, type players. If somehow an American could emerge, you might have a tennis trinity along the lines of Borg, McEnroe and Connors again.

And Federer's reputation and legacy only grows from yesterday's events. Time and time again, he was backed in a hole, and akin to a great, great boxing champion, he simply refused to go down: getting a forehand winner here, an ace there, to somehow avoid defeat again and again and again.

 

The match is on ESPN Classic right now, but, oddly, it's not the same play by play. It sounds like Endberg and Patrick McEnroe. When would they have been working the booth. Did they record it today? Did they do it live for ESPN for just-in-case-its-an-instant-Classic purposes? This makes no sense. Actually, I'm disappointed; I wanted to hear John McEnroe do the color again. He was wonderful to listen to.

 

ESPN is ABC. The original PBP was NBC. Not sure how much they cooperate.

Would have loved to contribute to this thread but I was out on Centre Court watching every point of this epic. So busy throughout with print stuff and online stuff, never had a chance to check in.

I've seen a lot of stuff. Didn't think anything would stick as long as the Red Sox coming back from 0-3 against the Yankees and winning the WS.

But I'm a tennis babe. This was scary good, although it was Federer who impressed more.

Nadal played well, nicely within himself. It was on Fed's racquet all along.

I saw a few things that were similar to how he loses on clay to Nadal, and says a lot about how his game is devolving - mostly because it's been on cruise control for 4 years. He can fix it; he's young enough. But I'm not sure he isn't too stubborn.

TV could not show how dark it was by the end. You literally could not follow the ball on the court, and I wasn't too far from courtside.

The biggest travesty, unreported, was that the men's match ended, the ceremonies had ended, I had time to get back into the press centre and all the way out to Court 1 - and the mixed doubles was still going on.

Seriously, pitch black. I realize it's not singles but that's a joke.

And Roger was pissed (although not so much in English press, more in French and Swiss-German) that a Grand Slam title came down to lack of light. Nadal was stunned about it too, but could be more cavalier since he won.


But you know, I'm still in London today (I almost looked like a genius as all the tennis geniuses began to fret about their Monday flights). And they could not even have gotten on court today until after 7 p.m., and even then, not for long.

It was raining so hard this afternoon, the rain was going sideways. Almost hailing. Umbrellas being turned inside out.

So knowing that, it likely factored into their decision making.

But still.

 

REBOOT!


Is Venus off the juice? She's super lean now.

 

And down goes Serena. Alize Cornet takes her out in three sets in the third round.

Just like Paris, I guess this makes Sharapova the favorite now, right?