Wow.
Just wow.
Last year was great, but this year was even better. That's right, I said it- even better.
Ravi Ubha, an ESPN tennis columnist, has already put out his list of the greatest Wimbledon finals. He puts today's Federer-Roddick number three on the list, behind Borg-McEnroe at two (I'm too young to remember that one), and Nadal-Federer from last year at one. Now last year I wrote an entry about how last year's Wimbledon was not the greatest Wimbledon finals match ever (I liked number four on Ubha's list, Rafter-Ivanisevic). While both men played extremely well, I didn't like style of tennis they played. Wimbledon is about big serves and great net play...which we didn't see last year. I have no doubt in my mind Sampras would have eaten both men alive if he was playing in his prime. Last year was a testament to how weak the competition is on the men's side of tennis.
Today's final, however, was fantastic. I put it number two on my list of all-time great Wimbledon finals, ahead of last year's. Today was Wimbledon, grass court tennis at its finest.
Big serving? Roddick was broken once in five sets (the last game of the match) with a serve that topped 140+ miles per hour. Federer struggled returning it all day long. And Roddick struggled just as much. Federer came up with a career-high fifty aces. Fifty! It's what saved him today, and it's what guys like Sampras and Ivanisevic used to use as a weapon to win matches. When you only have three service games broken total in a combined 77 games...that's just amazing focus and great serving.
What made last year's finals so great was that both men were playing their best- which is why the match lasted as long as it did (that and they both refused to come to the net to end fucking points...thank you, Roddick, for doing that today). Today, the match, for a Wimbledon record 77 games, went very quickly. You'd think playing thirty games into the fifth set would have taken them into the darkness like last year's final. But when you play great grass-court tennis at its highest level, this is the result you get. Points don't last because they're already won- either off serves or winners (107 winners for Federer, 74 for Roddick). Last year's tennis was at a high-level, this year's was at the highest of levels. Both men had to be perfect and dominate on their service games, and they both were.
16-14 in the 5th set? To me, that says it all. What more could you say? What more could you want out of a tennis match?
Second best Wimbledon finals of all-time. I wish Andy could have won this one; it would have meant a lot to him. I used to not like him at all, but he's grown on me, now that he's curbed his attitude and is shutting up and playing tennis.
I'll be rooting for him in the U.S. Open.
~Mikey D
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This year's final might have been better quality tennis, but I was more entertained by last year's Nadal/Federer match.
Of course, that might be because I was rooting against Federer in both matches, and he lost last year and won this year....
The more I think about yesterday's match, the more I wish Andy came to the net even more than he did. Towards the end of that 5th set you could tell he was getting tired (hell, I would be too) from all the miss-hits he had. But he was still serving very well, and Federer still struggled getting it back. I don't know if anyone else noticed, but when Federer did return the serve, it went right up the middle to Roddick...
...which would have been a net players dream come true! You serve, get to the net, and BAM! Take that return and put that shit away. I'm going to guess Roddick just wasn't confident enough (never been a great net player) and didn't have the energy (doing a short sprint after every serve sucks) to serve and volley at that juncture of the match.
Oh well, I guess I will just have to wonder if he did...He still turned in a near-flawless performance.
And I suppose to a casual tennis guy last year's final would have been more entertaining. Well, even the hardcore tennis fans appeared to have been more entertained! I am the only one who apparently wasn't, haha.
Let's pretend the U.S. beat Brazil 1-0 in soccer in a perfect defensive battle (I know, far from it). Just beautiful soccer played throughout on both sides, with the U.S. capitalizing on one of its few scoring opportunities on an amazing bicycle kick around the 120th minute.
And let's say the U.S./Spain game went to the 120th minute with the U.S. winning by the way they scored their second goal, 2-1. The game was back and forth with plenty of scoring chances and missed opportunities on both sides. Very exciting and very entertaining. Lots of great one-on-one moves and the such.
Which game is better? I guess that's how I'd compare the two Wimbledon finals. Federer-Roddick was Brazil-U.S., and Federer-Nadal was Spain-U.S. Both great, one more exciting (although both have to be classified as that, and one more perfectly played. Both great matches, and both memorable.
A bicycle kick to win 1-0 against Brazil is automatically more exciting than a 2-1 game against Spain, no matter how well or how poorly the games were played.
Change Brazil to Germany or England, and the analogy works better.
But honestly, I would be more entertained by the 2-1 Spain game, even if the Brazil (Germany/England) was better quality soccer. I love to watch players go one-on-one, mainly because that's what I love to do most when I play. (Of course, there would be a lot of one-on-one in the Brazil game because that's the way the Brazilians play, so maybe I would like that game more...I guess I would have to watch them both to know which I would enjoy more...)
Haha, well if you stick with your original liking of the 2-1 game, then it makes sense you like Nadal-Federer!
Perhaps my attempt to make an analogy that you could relate to failed...again...boy, I suck at analogies.
McEnroe was on Mike and Mike this morning, and he made a baseball analogy that was much simpler. He said Nadal-Federer was the 6-5 game that was back and forth, with lead changes and home runs, while the Roddick-Federer was the 1-0 game where it was dominance from both sides for the most part.
Anyway, McEnroe also said he missed some of the serving and volleying that used to go on! That made me happy. He said there was more strategy involved (instead of just getting serves back like they do now, you had to really think where you wanted to hit the ball), but nowadays the court is much "firmer" and "faster" so players have more of a luxury to stay back.
He also said Samprass would beat Federer, Nadal, Roddick, etc., because he was the greatest grass-court player he'd seen.
I like McEnroe; we are on the same wave-length. Is that good or bad?
Yeah, I saw that McEnroe interview. And that's a fine analogy, I got the point, I just liked the Nadal/Federer match more. (and for the record, McEnroe said he liked Nadal/Federer better too...)
But I think I would have liked the Roddick/Federer match best if Roddick had won...
Post a Comment