Tennis anyone? (Wimbledon thread)

Just looked up the five-set finals, Noles, and found an interesting stat:

Since Edberg-Becker in '90, there have been only three 5-set finals...all involving Ivanesevic.
Lost to Agassi in '92; Lost to Sampras in '98; Beat Rafter in '01

 

It certainly was. That was five years ago. Sampras-Ivanesevic in 1998 went 5 sets too. There haven't been many 5-setters at Wimbledon in recent memory. Tennis kinda moved from the Pete's dominance on grass on Federer's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimbledon_champions_(Men's_Singles)

EDIT: Well dammit, spnited. You beat me.

 

I may be old but I'm still quick


(Not BYH quick, however)

 

I'll see your JHH and raise you Ivan Lendl -- to say nothing of Stefan Edberg.

 

Lendl is a good choice but Edberg was one of the most popular guys on the tour, he was voted like the most likeable or most gentlemanly guy on the tour or whatever.

Edberg was like Federer and Borg in terms of personality. Quiet and subdued, but likeable and polite. Rafter was another one of those guys, although I hate him because I'm convinced he grabbed my girlfriend's ass at the U.S. Open or better yet she put his hand on her ass...probably the latter. Althought I don't think JHH is even remotely likeable. Edberg also had an excellent five-set win over Becker a couple decades ago.

I'm an Edberg fan, shoot me

 

And those were probably the last three good men's finals...Sadly the Rafter-Ivanesevic match was played at like 7:30 a.m. Monday morning so most of the world missed it.

The first Sampras title, when he defeated Courier was a pretty good four set match too. What would you guys consider the last great grand slam men's final. At least in the last 5-10 years. There have been some really good semifinals (the two Agassi-Rafter semifinal 5-setters at Wimbledon were two of the best matches I've seen there) but the finals haven't the same.

If I remember Agassi and Todd Martin had a very good U.S. Open men's final a few years back.

 

Nothing wrong with that. Great player. I just thought we were discussing great ability+zero public charisma. (That story about Rafter's an SportsJournalists.com instant classic, btw.) I always thought Edberg's talent was way beyond his public persona.

 

Last great Grand Slam men's final?

Would have to be, of all things, Gaston Gaudio beating a choking and cramping Guillermo Coria to win the French Open in five sets.

 

Mauresmo won, huh? No surprise. That's what happens when you let a dude into the women's draw.

[/hingis]

 

;D

Mmm, I loves me some Hingis. 8)

 

Mauresmo's a great story. Someone on today's broadcast said something like "You have to be happy for her," and that's right. (Maybe it was Bud Collins in the post-match interview.) I would have bet large sums of money on JHH, just because she's so ruthless while Mauresmo is so fragile mentally. Even during the third set, I was pretty confident she would manage to give the match away. But she didn't. Instead, she's won two of the three majors this year and is now pretty clearly the best player in the world.

S.L. Price had a couple of good pieces earlier this week on si.com about this weekend's principals:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/sl_price/07/03/henin.hardenne/index.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/sl_price/07/05/showdown/index.html

I agree that Federer has to win tomorrow. When the tournament began, he was considered by far the best player in the world, because he was supposed to be the best by far on every surface except clay, where he was a respectable second to Nadal. Despite the seedings, Nadal was not considered a threat to win at Wimbledon; getting to the second week would have been a good result for him. Now, if Nadal beats Federer in the Wimbledon final a month after beating him in the French final, and does something that no one's done since Borg did it 26 years ago, and goes to 7-1 against Federer lifetime, and 5-0 this season, where does that leave Federer? All that "best ever" talk — which seemed perfectly legit — will seem premature and just plain wrong. Nadal didn't even play the Australian this year, did he? If he did, he might be one match away from going to the Open with a chance at a Grand Slam. He's clearly in Federer's head now. If Federer can get past that and play a smarter match than he did at the French, he should win in three or four sets tomorrow.

 

Nadal beats Federer because he's the only player on the tour who's not afraid of him, intimidated by him. That alone is worth 2-3 games a set to Fed against everyone else.
I don't think Nadal is scared of much, except perhaps the back of his mama's hand or maybe his uncle Toni.

If he does beat Federer, it finally sets up the rivalry that all of the greatest of the greats need to legitimize their greatness. In the modern era, I'm not sure it has ever happened. Borg and McEnroe had each other, but for far too brief a period. Sampras never really had anyone. Agassi tried. But his ultimate problem was that he knew, deep in his heart, that if he was at his best and Sampras was only near his best, Sampras was a better player than he was. He never truly believed. And Sampras, with that confidence/arrogance that only the greats have, knew it too.

Becker and Edberg had possibilities because of the contrasts of their personalities, but they really only rivaled on grass. And neither was American. Other rivalries also had possibilities, but too often one protagonist was at the end of his career and the other at the beginning.

The only true rivalry was Chris and Martina, to this day.

Federer and Nadal could be one of the great ones. If only one of them were American, it could bring a focus back to tennis in a major way. Too bad.

The only thing I have to say to Nadal is "WILL YOU HURRY UP AND SERVE, ALREADY?" Gutless umpires should be nipping this one on the bud, just like they should be squashing the Sharapova shriek.


Edberg, by the way, is exactly as he seems. A really, really nice guy, a gentleman, who has absolutely nothing to say. I think the "thought balloon" above his head, if he had one, would be blank, or perhaps just a smilie. He did, however, steal Mats Wilander's girlfriend away from him back in the day, and married her. So he may have more in there than we think. And he still looks absolutely drop-dead.

But he was nothing like either Federer or Borg. Borg seemed ice-cool on the surface, but he was holding so many emotions inside of him that it's no wonder he tapped out early and blew up later. Federer is a friendly, have-a-beer-with guy who's cooperative with the media, gets it, never seems overly bothered by all the stuff that comes with his success. A model No. 1. Keeps it nice and simple. He's also a ruthless competitor with a nice, healthy ego who knows exactly how good he is, and has trouble sometimes staying modest about it. That's not a criticism; I think he rules.