Mikey D

"This is the greatest match I have ever seen." ~John McEnroe

Always one for the dramatic, McEnroe's words stuck with me yesterday as I watched the entire (yes, all seven hours of TV coverage) Wimbledon final between Nadal and Federer. It's been awhile since I've been glued to my television to watch a tennis match (the French Open lost my interest after the second game I do believe), and these guys made the longest match in Wimbledon finals history worth watching.

The greatest match ever? The greatest Wimbledon final? Perhaps. All the tennis commentators ESPN and NBC paraded out after the match agreed that it was, so who am I to argue and disagree with them? Extraordinary level of tennis played on the world's grandest stage by the world's two best players.

But not the greatest match ever. Not the greatest Wimbledon final ever.

First and foremost, let me preface my reasoning by stating a known fact: I am a sports traditionalist. I don't like change, I like history. If I ever go to see a Wimbledon in my lifetime, you better believe I'm enjoying my strawberries and cream as I sit on Henman Hill to watch the final (lord knows I'll never be able to afford a seat inside at court one). It's part of the history! It would be blasphemous if I went and enjoyed a Denny's Grandslam (perhaps appropriately named for the occasion, though) and then watched the match on a big screen in a pub. There are certain things you do at certain places that are just tradition.

Before I get to my point, let's talk surfaces. The French is played on clay, Wimbledon on grass, and the Australian and U.S. are played on hard courts. A clay surface slows the ball down- allowing for long, drawn-out points that last forever. Hard servers are somewhat neutralized by clay. This is why guys like Sampras, Federer and company have such a hard time winning on clay. It allows those scrappy, ultra-athletes whose game might not be the prettiest achieve greatness for their attrition and all-around play. On grass the ball moves fast- real fast. This is where the serve and volley tactic is used to perfection by guys like Sampras. Monster serve that gets to the oppenent in a hurry, weak returns, and finishing volleys. Bing-bang-boom- point over. The hardcourt surface is a combination of the two. Servers can use their serve to their advantage, but clay court athletes aren't overwhelmed by it. That is why you hardly see repeat U.S. open or Australian champions. It's a wide open competition every year.

Right, my point. I was getting to it. Because I am a traditionalist, I expect a certain brand of tennis- and I didn't get it yesterday with Federer and Nadal. I expected serve and volley, because that's the best way to win on grass. If I was colorblind, I would have sworn they were playing on a hardcourt surface, or even clay. Yes Federer attacked the net more than Nadal, but that's the case in every match they play. I was baffled at how little both men served and volleyed...and neither man was serving poorly! I found it really interesting that Nadal at the end of the match started to serve and volley and won points easily. Bing-bang-boom. I watched returns from both men on serves go straight to the middle of the court, no angles and no spin. Right down the middle. Perfect for a serve and volley player. Yes, Nadal and Federer played some great points together, but they should have never happened. I sat and told Grace, "Sampras, in his prime, would smoke both of these guys," not because he was more skilled, but because he knew how to play on grass.

This is what it should look like. This is Sampras versus Agassi at Wimbledon in 99'.



I chose this video because Agassi reminds me most of Nadal and Federer. He doesn't have the serve that those two have, but he plays like them...meaning he's not much of a net player. Do you see how much Sampras dominates him??? Every point on his serve he gets to the net if possible. There are no long rallies. Now he could have stayed at the baseline and rallied with Agassi, and perhaps they would have ended up playing the "greatest Wimbledon final ever", full of crazy shots and emotions. Instead Sampras decided to just steamroll him.

Like I said, great tennis between Nadal and Federer yesterday, but not the type of play I expected from a Wimbledon final. I can't concede that it's the best Wimbledon final when it wasn't played the way it should have been. The traditionalist in me can't admit that. Think of it this way: A horse race that ends in a photo-finish, but instead of both horses running the shortest and straightest path to the finish line, they decide to swerve and zig-zag all over the track. Greatest race ever? You had a photo-finish, but you know deep down better races had been run. Nadal and Federer had a great race with a great finish, but how they got there...I know there's been better.

But like I said, who am I to argue? I am not nearly the tennis expert others claim to be. Just one man's opinion. I still say Ivanisevich/Rafter in 2001 was the greatest (another five set classic), with McEnroe/Borg in 1981 a close second. Ivanisevich, winning the tournament he dreamed about winning as a little boy, as a wild-card entrant, by knocking off top-ranked player after top-ranked player in five-set match after five-set match was remarkable.

Wimbledon 2008: A great tennis match between two great players, but not the greatest match ever, and not the greatest Wimbledon ever. If anything it was a statement on the state of men's tennis and how, outside of Nadal and Federer, there are few good to great players.

~Mikey D