I don't really follow tennis and wouldn't claim that it's an especially thrilling sport to watch, but there really is something appealingly epic about yet another Nadal-Federer matchup and the rivalry between these two. There's really nothing else like it in sports right now.
Nadal-Federer
04 Jul 2008 02:47 pm
Comments (23)
Yawn. Nadal and Federer beat everyone else, then Nadal beats Federer on clay, and Federer beats Nadal on all other surfaces. The dominance of those two has simply made the men's game too predictable.
The women's tournament has been much more interesting, with a bunch of upsets and unknown qualifiers* making it all the way to the semis. We haven't had a Williams-Williams final in a major since 203.
*Technically Safin was a qualifier, but he used to be world #1 and has only dropped so far because of a succession of injuries.
It is an extraordinary rivalry.
The two young men have catlike speed and incredible power and shot-making skills but have a tremendously different style. Federer is calm and you swear he glides on air as he plays. And his play is beautiful - smooth, unruffled, artistry and an inbuilt natural ballet grace taken into tennis. Nadal is a bull, crushing the ball, so fast that he gets to nearly every shot and it just doesn't seem possible a human could.
Yet they have much in common. They both were soccer prodigies that still scrimmage with their national teams. Nadal's uncle was a soccer superstar. Both are humble champions and called the nicest and most considerate two on the pro circuit. No one has been close to them, and their rivalry is all that has stood from either man taking it all since early 2004.
Nadal would have been #1 in any other era, but hasn't yet been one for a single day despite his greatness because Federer has set a mark of 4+ straight years of number #1, 230 weeks, a record that some believe will be as tough to break as Joe Dimaggio's 56 straight games getting a hit.
Federer would have 3, possibly 4 Grand Slams if Nadal did not exist to be "Federer Kyptonite" at the French Open - 4 times in a row.
Nadal is still improving but beginning to show wear on a body he runs at 120%, developing tendonitis on hard court. He keeps getting better and better on grass and after last year, when Federer barely escaped Nadal, Rafael may end his record at 5 straight Wimbletons and take away Federers #1 spot.
It is aa rivalry that has gone on 3 years and may only have a few more years until Roger Federer slows down or knee problems end Rafael's ascendency.
They play Sunday afternoon. Even non-tennis fans may wish to see the best ever go at it in the venue of the highest stakes in the Tennis Game.
much in common, but
I don't really follow tennis, but I do love it when the Williams sisters face off.
I don't know if it's me or the state of the big professional sport, but I would be more interested if I was totally sure Nadal was only training with water.
Sorry to rain on the parade, but I can't help when I see him play.
I didn't follow tennis (excepting Wimbledon) until a few husbands in my social circle, sidelined while our wives played in a USTA team, took lessons together and formed our own team. We made it to the State sectionals for 3.0 men three or four years back. Granted, HI doesn't have a lot of depth.
Now that I can play well enough to give my wife a run for her money, I find the run up to the majors much more interesting.
In my defense, I still don't watch golf.
Maybe you're all too young to remember, but Borg-Connors, McEnroe-Connors, and McEnroe-Borg were epic battles as well. Maybe the rivalries didn't last as long as Nadal-Federer has, but the matches were incredibly tense, the stuff of legend, and the rallies lasted longer than one or two hits, even at Wimbledon!
Nadal reminds me a little of Ivan Lendl's failure to win Wimbledon during the late 1980s. By the close of his career, the British fans (i.e. the people who care about tennis two weeks a year) had gone from cheering his opponents to treating him as an underdog who deserved a victory. (The same happened with Ivanisevic, though Goran actually got his unlikely wildcard victory in 2001.)
Nadal is obviously a clay-court specialist, but Federer's not built for grass courts either. Like Justine Henin, he has a grace that fits the genteel aesthetic model of how tennis 'ought' to be played. Wimbledon's funny that way, because there's that on-off love affair with finesse baseline players vs. boom-bang serve-volleyers.
So, if Nadal's to win, let's hope he does so by playing grass-court tennis.
I do love it when the Williams sisters face off.
Really? It may be conventional wisdom, but I can't think of any of their head-to-head matches that were in any way memorable.
I agree with mgentile. Today men's tennis is pretty much all about power. The good old days of serve-and-volley was much more exciting to watch.
How about these great matchups -
Affirmed - Alydar
Ali - Frazier
Nicklaus - Palmer
Sampras-Agassi was a pretty f---ing awesome rivalry.
Lendl vs. The West in the '80s was also a pretty sweet Rocky-Drago type of rivalry. According to wikipedia, Lendl won 6 grand slam finals vs. players from western countries, and lost 11.
I agree, since I like both guys, that the rivalry has a certain epic quality. But I also see tennisfan's point - one of the cool things about tennis is that you can pick a marginal player you like and he might eventually do something cool. Nowadays, nobody wins much of anything except Federer and Nadal (although that will not be true for much longer, presumably.)
To my eye, Federer appears to be born to play tennis while Nadal is a spectacular athlete with good tennis skills. For that reason, his best bet is to extend the points, so the old farts who are always complaining that the rallies in the modern game don't last long enough should tune in and cheer for Rafa on Sunday.
At the very least, it's the most interesting thing about tennis since Andre retired.
APS
Sampras/Agassi was good, but it wasn't Federer/Nadal. Sampras and Agassi's meetings in major finals were very spread out - the US Open in 1990 (Sampras), the Australian in 1995 (Agassi) Wimbledon 1999 (Sampras) and the US Open again in 2002.
They never had a run like this, meeting in the finals of Roland Garros and Wimbledpn for three straight years.
APS
I'm an occasional contributor here, but a frequent poster on Pete Bodo's TennisWorld blog at Tennis.com. Nice to see some recognition of the astonishing Federer-Nadal rivalry on a mainly politics-themed blog.
ApeMan is right: no two players in the Mens' game have ever elevated themselves above the competition in the way that Federer and Nadal have done in the last three years. Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert had an even more storied rivalry in the 1980s, but this is unique in the Men's game.
And chris ford also makes a very telling point - in a sporting era that tends to reward brashness and chest beating, the two men are self confident but humble and show genuine respect and even affection for one another. Anyone who saw the "low five" between the two players after the 2006 Wimbledon Final will have taken away the message that high stakes competition and good sportsmanship aren't mutually exclusive.
Agassi pretty much never had the chance against Sampras that Nadal has on Sunday. It's a rare legit tossup.
Agassi-Sampras was always considered a disappointment at the time it was supposed to be happening, but it has been much enhanced by the fog of history. Just like the Williams sisters. In ten years' time Federer-Nadal will be universally recognized as the more storied rivalry in the sport's history.
If those old farts played today, they would get slaughtered by these two.
Also, I don't think I've ever seen chris ford post anything that wonderful.
Also, my prediction FWIW: Nadal in 4, though I'm rooting for Rog. Let him get the record, he deserves it.
I kind of disagree with jayhawk, as I think there's a fair deal of revisionism already at work in the framing of Nadal-Federer. One reason I am hesitant to really characterize Nadal-Federer as epic is the fact that I don't think any of their Grand Slam matches have really been classics. Federer has never pushed Nadal past four sets at Roland Garros and while last year's contest at Wimbledon did go five, I don't think it compares favorably to matches like the 1980 and 2001 finals (or even Federer-Safin at the Australian Open a few years ago). Sunday may be the best chance for the kind of barnburner we have often expected when these two meet on the biggest stage but I could just as easily see it being over within four sets.
Ape Man 8:56 pm - you forgot the 1995 US Open final (also won by Pete)
I think we remember Sampras and Agassi more fondly because they were American (in a decade when Americans including Chang, Courier, Martin were dominant) and now the top American guys can't do crap against the top Europeans.
How great to see my fave sport mentioned here -- I did a double-take and thought I was reading the wrong blog.
This will be the first time in the history of the sport that the same two guys will be in six consecutive French-Wimbledon finals. They are both currently so much better than everyone else, it's unreal. And it's so true -- they are both outstanding sportsmen and models for all sports.
Federer's my guy, and I hope he breaks Borg's record on Sunday. But if he loses, I'm glad it will be to Rafa. There isn't a more deserving player. (btw, he is much more than a clay-court specialist and does not use drugs -- his trick is not what's in the water bottles, but how they are strategically placed next to his chair throughout a match. Critical component to success.)
One reason I am hesitant to really characterize Nadal-Federer as epic is the fact that I don't think any of their Grand Slam matches have really been classics.
We've got one now.
Final is playing live now. For the first time in my life I called my parents that I want to come live with them again. This is way to nerve wrecking for a woman living alone.
Well that was the best tennis match I've ever watched. Huge class acts and competitors, the both of them.
Comments closed July 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It might be the greatest rivalry ever. I think it is. "Epic" really is the only way to describe it.
And it's not that the field is weak. The current men's field is very strong. Those two are just that good.
Posted by 55 | July 4, 2008 3:28 PM