Is Safin on the RUS olympic team?

I watched Borg beat McEnroe in 1980 and I think the overall quality of yesterday's match was higher (and not in the way that the quality of tennis in general is higher these days, but in a way that transcends that difference).

And I think Nadal is the best player in the world now in a much more meaningful way than, say, Djokovic was back in the pre-RG spring. Djokovic was playing the best tennis for a span. Nadal has accomplished something much more historic and significant.

(Strange though it will be if he doesn't end the year #1, in 1978 Borg won RG, Wimbledon, and the USO and Connors finished the year #1, if I am correct)

Answer to if questions:
(1) No disagreement on Roger/Rafael being the best match ever.
(2) Even though Rafael is the best player in 2008 with super results, I will still say Roger Federer is the best at the moment but if Rafael does well during the USO season and make the finals of the USO, this answer may change.

Nadal is good but i always thought tennis is more than power. Nadal's game has made tennis all about power. So therefore its less fun to watch. I like to watch player like Roger or Safin. They are true artist. Nadal jumps around, never gets tired...not very human like. Hey thats just me :)

Andrea Jaeger is a loser. Oops--did I just call a nun a loser? Oh well. Loser.

headless, there's nothing abt Safin in this post. Please stick to the topic.

Soooo, THE MATCH...Unfortunately I haven't even sat down to watch this. I started but cudn't continue. So I left the DVR to do the bizness. And seeing as I didn't set it to record past the event time, I probably missed the ending. *sigh*.

But anyway, best match of all time?? Hmm, I dunno. That's elevating it pretty high even though I'm a Rafa KAD. And I've only been really watching tennis intently for the past couple of years so I'm not fit to say.

But Rafa is DEF DEF DEF the best player in the world right now. Emphasis on right now. Who else can come close to his level of play? All he has to do is sustain this level of play onto the hardcourt season thru the end of the year then we can start talking about him being the best tennis player all year long.

When speaking of the greatest tennis matches we often forget the 1996 ATP final between Sampras and Becker. Some actually say this was even better than the 1980 Borg-McEnroe Wimby final, and the scores do seem to confirm that: 3-6, 7-6(5), 7-6(4), 6-7(11), 6-4. I never saw the match in full and so can't say whether this merits comparison with yesterday's classic, but it's a fair and interesting topic for discussion.

The rain break helped federer fwin set no 3; nadal’s nervousness and tie breaker double fault helped federer win set no 4 ; but then , the next rain break helped nadal to regroup and win the fifth set ; federer was lucky last year with nadal’s knee injury ; not this year,

Great Job as usual VAMOS NADAL!
Congrats to Nadal amazing match and coulndt have been played by two better tennis players or people. Emotional Roller Coaster, but I was glad to see Nadal come out on top. Did anyone else think of Nadal as a gladiator leaving the bull ring climbing the stands to share the moment with his family. Also greatest match I have ever seen, but I wasnt alive to see Borg McEnroe either

Christopher- Borg never one the U.S. Open if I am correct, which I checked with Wikipedia and no U.S. Open titles

To me this is for sure one of the greatest matches ever. I don't know for sure if it is indeed THE greatest but it is ranked up there alongside Borg vs McEnroe in 1980 and Sampras vs Agassi in 2000 when they went 4 sets without a break of serve.

Nadal is today, monday July 7th the best player in the world game level and cosistency-wise but he hasn't stablished a supremacy in the same way Federer has the las 4 years. I'd put it this way: Nadal is CURRENTLY the best of the top 3.

To be honest I don't think there will ever be a No.1 as dominating as Federer has been in the same way there will never be another Michael Jordan. I also think Federer will break Pete Sampras' Grand Slams record but it does not necesarily has to be as a dominating number 1, Sampras did not do that either. Federer played great yesterday but he surely is not the Federer of 2006, age (as in everything) plays a great role in the winding down of his cycle.

It is a shame Nadal was born in the time of Federer. The Spaniard will get to be no.1 inevitably but in my view, he will not be able to sustain it for as long. Djokovic pushes just as hard, he is younger and learns and adjusts just as fast (if not faster) than Nadal. Add to that 10 more years for Federer peaking at key moments and that should make it threatening enough for the young Mallorcan. But last but not least: Nadal's knees will not be capable of keeping up with his demanding style of play, something we all know.

Maya-- I think Rafa is more about topspin than power, but it's pretty clear that he's about more than that. He may not have the range of shots that Roger possesses (who does?), but he has shown a deft touch with volleys and slices, spectacular movement, and mental reserves second to none. I'm curious, if you don't like the more pure power game, why does Safin appeal to you more than Rafa? Does he not pretty much epitomize the "hit it as hard as you possibly can on every shot" approach?

Rafa is the best player in the world at the moment. He is hard to beat, he has the two last slams.

Jeff-- Sorry, I meant finalist at the USO. As a Borg fan, I could never forget that he didn't win the USO, but my brain and typing fingers don't always work together!

Borg never won the USO in 4 finals played.

Sampras ended being ranked no.1 6 straight years but some of those years he just snatched the no.1 ranking in the finals stages of the year, winning the US Open and the TMC. My point being Federer's rent on the no.1 ranking has been son high he really does not need to win all these slams to keep the ranking. He can surely pull it off.

"E...arthquake victims in the Sichuan province of China will receive all of Jie Zheng's prize money, after the Wimbledon semifinalist announced that she will donate her earnings from the fortnight."

Wow, that's awesome.

"If..."

I do think it was the best match I've ever watched.

I think Nadal is the best player in 2008 (as you can see in the race points), while Roger Federer is the #1 over the past 52 weeks. What's your question?

Sometime on the next few days, after watching back the recording of yesterday's final, I will watch the official DVD of the 1980 Borg-McEnroe final. How can I not? Like Christopher, I saw it live (on TV, not in person like yesterday). I still get excited when I think about that match - Borg walking out coolly after losing that incredible fourth-set tiebreaker, 16-18, to take the final set decisively. It was, and always will be, a defining match, for both its participants.

Nadal is the number one in the race, therefore he is the best player of 2008. But still the atp entry rankings is a system and to achieve the goal that he is seeking Rafa needs to get into a couple of finals during the hard court season, or do well during the two last maters series events to achieve his goal.

If he keeps healthy he might achieve that goal but who knows ...As we saw Roger is also ready to fight for what he already has achieved which is that number one ranking spot.

ed,

i concur with master ace's response to your "if" questions at 16.22.

although my heart says rafa is the best, my head sees and knows that roger is still number one. rafa, however, has shown the BEST improvement among all the top players in the atp race. and i hope he doesn't stop.

If this was the best match I saw I think that yes because it involved the two best players and in one of the world´s most important tennis scenarios ... with a lot on stake. So yes it was the best final I ever saw.

ed

what jaeger did. sounds like a half-as* attempt to explain the drubbing she received from a woman who was going to become a living legend at wimbledon.

that article just didn't sit well with me -- and i'm not even a navratilova fan. not by a mile.

Federer will be a tougher customer for Nadal on hard courts than he was on grass.

Federer will play: Toronto (final), Cincinnati (Championship), US Open (Championship), Stockholm (nothing), Madrid (final), Basel (Championship), Paris Bercy (3rd. Round) and the YEC (Championship).

That is A LOT of points to defend so Nadal definitely has a chance to overtake him in the rankings. Federer going through that transition period of his career where he going from the guy that wins everything to the guy that wins the Slams, very Sampras-like. But unlike Pistol Pete, Federer is far younger than Sampras was at this stage on his career thus meaning his potential success window is wider.

In terms of a grand slam final, I think this one takes the cake as the best that I have seen. It had it all: great shotmaking at the most crucial times, bad errors at the most crucial times, unrelenting tension, and superb sportsmanship by both players and their camps. It's hard to top that.

I'm not sure it was the most entertaining match ever, however. That one might fall to the Connors/Krickstein battle at the 1991 US Open. No, it wasn't a grand slam final (I think it may have only been a fourth round match), adn the level of tennis might not have been as high, but the build-up and entertainment value were off the charts. I will still never forget laughing as Connors, the near 40-year old warhorse, worked the crowd relentlessly, spoke directly to the cameras and leaned on the umpire's chair for a breather while arguing with vulgarity. It was awesome. And I will never forget the absolutely doomed look of Dr. Herb Krickstein, sitting by the court as the crowd willed Connmors on. In fact, I think the image of Dr. Krickstein sitting next to the court and leaning forward, his face almost the symbol of the physical pain of watching your son be ganged up on by un unruly mob and powerless to stop it, is etched as permanently into my memories as Connors one-legged, whirling salute to the crod after he knocked off the final volley. Sure, we all knew Connors would lose as soon as he faced an elite player (which he did in Courier), but man, that was an unbforgettable ride.

ryan

i think you put it better: Loser! LOL

swiss maestro

like you, i don't think rafa's knees will hold up for long, esp on hardcourts. i'm perfectly content to seeing him as the 21st century borg, ruling the natural surfaces and to hail with the rest. but rafa doesn't care about my opinion, only my love. heee.

Ha svelte--she is a literal and figurative loser.

Why is this in the press right now? She'd have a lot more traction with her asinine comments if Martina didn't go ahead and win like 6 more Wimbledons at that point.

The ATP Race is, for obvious reasons, front end loaded as far as the clay court season is concerned. So if the calendar year started on Aug 1st, other things being equal, you'd have HC specialists building up a huge lead, then the clay courters catching up. So the Race is less useful, I think, than the Rankings.

However, the Rankings equally weight what happened two weeks ago and 51 weeks ago. So you really have to ask "what do we mean by the term current?" If you mean "last two months," then no question it's Nadal today, and at the end of March I think we'd have said "Djokovic." The heterogeneity of the tennis season comes into play - if you go to six months, you pick up all of the clay, grass and some HC, but not the second half HC. But at the end of the year, you pick up none of clay and grass.

So I believe there's a degree of subjectivity to the answer. I would entertain arguments for both Nadal and Federer. I think if I had to pick one player to fight for my life against the champion of planet Zog, I'd ask "which surface?" first, and pick Nadal for clay and Federer for grass and HC.

who is alexander stevenson? i'm sorry, am not american so i fail to see the significance of maria refusing to play an exo with her.

was she some bright star a la donald young/laura robson back in the day?

i have read that she is the daughter of dr j...

svelterogue,

Sure. Rafa is in fine form and I am content Federer being my favorite player ever has this challenge, Rafa only brings out the best in him. I hope Roger puts this bad year behind him and bounces back strong. Winning in Beijing, the US Open and the TMC but it still is a long way, he won't fade away like Borg did because his toughness -his stubborness- is one of his greatest assets when playing the majors.

Too bad for Rafa though, being so young and having some much trouble with injuries, hard courts are a killer to his knees (whether they are fast or slow). He can't benefit from the bounce of the ball because the bounce is more regular. His movement is a liability for him when playing on this surface I think as he rarely wins without putting in a ton of work.

Even McEnroe was in awe...that was his kind of GAME!

andrew

i'd pick nole for HC :) i go along with your rafa roger picks.

how are you today, andrew? the day after? i hope you're feeling better.

I second Sher's 4:39 post. I didn't see the 1980 Borg-McEnroe final live (it was before my tennis watching days), but like yesterday's final, the guy I wanted to win did not.

People hate power in tennis - go figure! If tennis wants to be respected as a sport, then people better get used to power, unless they want tennis to be viewed on the level of figure skating.

if...

Yes, it was the greatest tennis match ever imo.

Yes, as of 9:26 London time yesterday Rafael Nadal is the best tennis player in the world. Federer is probably still the better "tennis player" overall and he may well storm through winning the US Open and Masters Cup, but for the moment Nadal is the best. And as one of his biggest fans I just want to enjoy this moment and if he stays healthy...who knows?

Did not post here all of yesterday, but huge commiserations to Federer fans. I've always respected him but even more so now. He epitomizes the triumph/disaster quote by Kipling. Him and his family are pure class. Very lucky to be alive to watch this rivalry, this match, these two legendary individuals.

Andrea Jaeger recounted that story years ago when she was talking about the crazy times she was going through before she quit tennis. Beats me why some writer is dredging it up again as if it has some special significance now.

Although it was an epic marathon, my opinion is that it was a very long gruelling match, but didn't match some other classic matches in tennis history, as I thought it didn't have the shot making quality of some of the classic matches like borg vs mcenroe from wimbledon, or some sampras vs agassi matches. In my opinion, the greatest match i've seen is Safin vs Federer from Australian Open 2005. in terms of the variety of different shots and intelligent tennis, and physicality, this match has no equal.

As for Nadal.....

Far from the best player. Nadal is the best athlete in tennis today. he can run and hit, run and hit, run and hit. thats essentially all he has. don't get me wrong. thats a huge asset capable of toppling any player and he works very hard too. but ultimately nothing beyond that. the reason for Nadal's sucess on grass is because it has been slowed enormously to the point that it is slower than the US hardcourts. If you look at Nadal's history, he hasn't got past the quarters of US Open and this year was the first year he got to the semifinals of Australian Open and got dominated by a player whose tennis knowledge and skill are superior to his (i'm dead serious). any time he steps on to a surface where he can't just run and hit, he doesn't do much. If Nadal had played on the grass 6 years back when it was very fast he would have got dominated by Sampras or Ivanisevic.

If I had to pick the best 5 players for each surface (based not only in titles won but also in styles of play and winning percentages on the surface) of all time, I'd go as follows:

Grass:

1. Sampras (until surpassed)
1. Federer
3. Borg
4. McEnroe
5. Becker

Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Federer

Hard court:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Agassi
4. McEnroe
5. Connors

how would you guys go?

Ah, this is the first forum where I can read about Rafa's knees... but not the role they might have played in yesterday's match.

Am I the only to have seen Rafa's right knee (or left, I don't remember) twist half-way through the match? That point sort of marked the 'resurgence' of Roger (I am not forgetting all those break point opportunities in the first 2 sets, but still).

And now Rafa pulls out of Stuttgart with an 'unspecified' knee condition. Makes you wonder how he was really feeling on the court.

No name poster-

Unfortunately that is a right to see Nadal's game. You are right in my view...

I wish we had a big tourney for the WTA in Sweden so people could see the beauty of my homeland, the people are the most beautiful, very friendly, and the food is the best particularly if you like sweet foods. The WTA wouldn't have to worry about attendance like they do in the states because just look at the Davis cup matches, we fill the stadium. In listening to both P-mac and his brother, I think they like to feed into the myth that McEnroe's defeat of Borg was the reason he retired. Most people in Sweden know this isn't the case. Borg retired because of burnout, drugs and personal problems. McEnroe had nothing to do with it, eventually Borg would have defeated McEnroe because he was simply the better player. But let McEnroe stroke his ego with the belief he drove Borg out of the game. Bank of the west should be a win for Serena, just checked out the draw. Go Caroline, Scandinavia's#1!

Well, after yesterday, I can honestly say I have given up on the thought of rooting for Nadal anytime soon. *weak smile* Just because I say "That's enough, buddy!" :))

But I'm tired of hearing about how he can't play on hard courts. Get ready for some surprises, folks. I can only hope that Roger is still just a bit better, there. :)

Swiss Maestro,

When did Borg fade away? If I remember correctly, he burnt out and quit after making it to the finals of the 81 Open. Fading away is what McEnroe did, losing in the early rounds of Grand Slam tournies. Borg quit on top, which is one of the reasons his mystique carries on to this day.

And everyone arguing about points to defend, and ATP rankings, you are all missing the point. Federer's mystique has been shattered. Him being ranked No. 1 is a matter of statistics now, not fact. Everyone in tennis knows Rafa is the man now. Even if he gets beat in the first round of the US Open, he'll still have 2 GS titles this year, which trump anything Fed will be able to do in the next 4 months.

Fed losing to Rafa at the French is OK, but to lose to him on his favorite surface and tournament, he'll never be the same again. He'll still win GS titles, but his aura of invincibility doesn't exist anymore, and never will again. Credit Fed that he held on to it this long, but it's over now, just like I predicted after last years Wimbledon win by Fed. Nadal pierced him in 07, and now the guy is mortally wounded.

SwissMaestro,

You make a number of (mostly legit) points and comments I encounter fairly often, so let me try to address some of 'em.

1) Nadal is currently the best player of the YEAR, but we'll have to wait and see if he can transfer his prowess onto hard courts. He did reach the Aussie SF this year but then he got thrashed by Tsonga. On the other hand, he's on an impressive winning streak, so perhaps his playing for the rest of this year will get a boost from the ongoing psychodrama.

And I agree with you that the No. 1 ranking Nadal may or may not achieve will be short-lived, but this, I think, will be due more to the rising Djokovic than to a resurgent Federer. I'm not saying Fed's run is over, but the gap between Fed and Nadal/Djokovic is by now too small (except on clay) for anyone to really dominate. This may have to do with Fed's bout with mono earlier this year, but I say that Rafa's and Djoker's improvements are a bigger factor. It's a plus for us tennis fans, IMO.

2) You're right that Borg never won the USO, and this may well have to do with his less stellar game on hard courts (except for the 1976 USO, which was then played on clay). But here's what many people forget about the Borg-USO connection. First, he never felt comfortable in the rowdy, rock-'n'-roll surroundings of Flushing Meadows. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, all the opponents who beat Borg at the USO were AMERICANS, and since Borg, Connors and McEnroe were virtually neck and neck on any surface other than clay, this gave the latter two a big advantage going into the matches. (Remember: Connors, even with his baseline game, was never able to reach the final at the FRENCH Open.) And this isn't even counting the number of Aussies Borg could've won had he played them more often before his retirement, or the number of additional Slams he could've won had he retired at a "normal" age. Just something to think about before writing off Borg in any GOAT discussion.

3) Finally, I gotta say, as a huge Pistol Pete fan, that the 2001 (not 2000, as you apparently mistyped) Sampras-Agassi USO QF is a tad overrated. I'll just quote TENNIS magazine's own assessment of the best matches of the Open era: It was "all tension and no release," no breaks of serve and nothing terribly special. The TENNIS staff are also right when they say the 2000 AO SF was better, and its 4th-set tiebreaker, which is actually one of the most popular videos on YouTube, seems to confirm that. And like I said above I've read some connoisseurs say that the 1996 Sampras-Becker ATP final was superior to the 1980 Borg-McEnroe classic.

Wimbledon might be Roger's favorite place but I think his game is better suited for HCs. I think this because of a couple reasons. The uneven bounce of clay and grass courts put Roger (or all one handed backhand players) at a disadvantage compared to players with two handed backhands. It is alot harder to adjust to a bad bounce with one hand than it is with two hands. Second reason is the fact that the grass has gotten slower than most HC surfaces where the rest of season is going to play out.

You might say that Federer has won 5 in a row so it can't put it as too much of a hindrance but I think this speaks of Roger's incredible skill and hand-eye coordination (not to mention he uses probably the hardest racket to play with).

Now, I don't want to take anything away from Rafa and I don't want to sound like I'm making excuses because I'm not. Nadal was incredible and my hat goes off to him. But I think Roger will dominate the hard court season, win the US Open and secure the No. 1 ranking for another year.

omar: Some believe this is a natural arc for top athlete who has dominated for quite a while. Nothing really earth-shattering here, in other words. Roger was bound to come back to earth. :)
It obviously floats your boat to put it more crudely and, I would say, in a demeaning fashion toward the guy, but his fans are not going to wilt from it. :)

It's been an unforgettable, thrilling ride as a Federer fan. And just because you say it is over doesn't really make it so, but if it is...I say well done to the man. I'm forever grateful for the hours and hours of tennis viewing joy he's gifted me. :)

This was placed on the other "Your Call", but the Monday Net Post will always be the home for this:

"The Real Rankings."

"Where the PC sometimes doesn't equal reality."
If you saw it before on the other, please ignore for sure.

The ATP Tour
Note:This was written before Nadal decided to intelligently pull out of Stuttgart.

1.Rafael Nadal (2) – No one in the media asked him the most important question: “Why are you playing in Stuttgart?” http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=http://www.atptennis.com/1/posting/2008/321/mds.pdf

2.Roger Federer (1)- I don’t know who the journalist was yesterday (he had a heavy accent), but there was one idiot that had to ask Federer if he was “saying thanks to the rains coming down” in the third set. He also displayed stupidity by asking Nadal if he “choked” away his earlier match points.

3.Novak Djokovic (3) - Out of the three top players, you would think he and not Nadal would be scheduled to play this week. But he’s had enough of clay this year.

4.Andy Murray (9) - It still will always be a more touching moment if Tim Henman had won Wimbledon. But with the way Murray matured over the last two weeks, it would now rock all of England (and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too) if the Scot wins here in the future.

5.Marat Safin (40) - He won’t get as much credit for this as his unlikely revival, but the original Mr. Unpredictable (because David Nalbandian has taken his title) did pick Nadal to win in the final.

6.David Ferrer (4) - As the three more talented, flashier lefties got all the attention, it was another commendable effort from the premiere overachiever in the men’s game.

7.Andy Roddick (6) - The optimist will continue to say “He’s beat Federer, Nadal and Djokovic this year.” But the pessimist will say, “He’s lost to Kohlschreiber, Soderling, and now Tipsarevic as well.” And the realist may lean a little to the side of the doubter.

8.Stanislas Wawrinka (10) - Gstaad fans used to be sad when Federer started skipping the tourney a few years ago since it always comes after the big W. With Wawrinka now in the Top 10, they should be happy though this week, with him being the number one seed there.

9.Nikolay Davydenko (5) – Thanks to Nadal, Davydenko can understand how Federer feels. Because if it wasn’t for the new Wimbledon titlist, Davydenko would have won another “Are you serious?” scheduling title of the week. Because he’s actually not playing in Stuttgart, Gstaad, or Bastad. Wait, let’s see if he’s playing in Newport? He must be playing somewhere!

10.Rainer Schuettler (39)- It’s a little weird to call Schuettler, a former Top five player just 4 years ago , a ex-German number one, and a Grand Slam runner-up to Andre Agassi (though he was blown out bad in that match) a journeyman like some did. And he showed he still has something left not only in his great run to the semis, but also almost taking a set off the eventual champion.

The five wild cards:

11. Richard Gasquet- Wimbledon somehow makes us remember how talented he is despite his mental ailments.

12. Arnaud Clement -If it wasn’t for that little match on Sunday, it can be argued he was part of the match of the tournament.

13. Mario Ancic- Serve and volley tennis can still work here.

14. Lleyton Hewitt- He really wanted Federer, but after that first set, he realized again that this isn’t 2003 anymore),

15. Feliciano Lopez- Seriously, if this guy had 70% of his buddy Nadal’s heart and desire to be the best, he would be in the Top 5).

Omar,

The mystique is only shattered if your name if Rafa Nadal. I'm pretty sure the mystique is still pretty well entrenched if you're everyone else. Ask Roddick and Safin about the mystique. I couldn't disagree with you more when you say that Federer will never be the same after this. I don't understand people that feel that just because a run has ended that it means he's done forever. Give the guy a break. Can he win one major (or none at all) in one year and not be written off immediately? How many past champions have dominated their entire careers? Let me know when someone wins 3 majors a year, 3 years in a row. He's still the favorite going into the US Open IMO.

first!!! And Federer is #1!!! nadal will never be as good as fed

I'm sticking to my prediction that this will be the Greatest Year of All Time.

That was the greatest match ever, because no other match ever had such a perfect storm of factors adding to the mix.
+ An intimidated world #1 against a frustrated world #2
+ The 6th Wimbledon against the 1st channel slam
+ A 27 year old master against a 22 year-old entering the prime of his maturity
+ An insurmountable lead surmounted by a desparate and yet precise climb back from the brink of death - over and over and over
+ Nerves imposing themselves and disposed of repeatedly
+ 9-7 in the 5th?!
+ And the most gracious winner and loser imaginable.

And yes. Nadal is the better player now, and will never relinquish that strength. And with a 4-slam head start on Roger, there's no way to know where he might stop.

Djoko best go home and hide.

I only hope the Olympics don't do anything to mess up the drama the USO promises! And the YEC!

The GREATEST YEAR EVER!

Ed - in answer to the questions
yesterday was the most exciting , best played tennis match I can ever recall having seen
it was a thrilling ride from beginning to end
and - as of yesterday - I think Nadal is the best player in tennis
but - until he has the points and the official number 1 ranking - it is just my opinion
I hope he achieves that number one ranking officially - I think he deserves it

Not to be negative, or take anything away from Rafa. But one thing we must all guard against is the tendency to anoint the "next one" prematurely. Shortly after following up the AO with a Master's shield, it was Djoko's time and many were picking him to win the slam, and get to #1 before Rafa. Djokovic was the man.

Then the man-boy-bull we affectionately call Rafa returned and steamrolled absolutely everyone. Today, he is the man.

And Federer, despite being very close, and arguably playing more consistently than Djokovic, is all of a sudden an also-ran. Let's not forget that hard courts are upon us, and Roger just might not be dead yet. Rafa is yet to prove himself there. Who will be the man?

I think the proper perspective that both Djoko and Rafa have excellent chances to usurp Federer over the next 5 months. But they haven't done so yet. Federer is the best player in the world today, just as he was on July 6th.

1. one of the best finals yeah.But not the best.Federer played incredible,but Nadal almost choke away the match.

2. becker-agassi 1988, davis cup,mcenroe-becker davis cup,..there a fmore that ranks up there.

3. sampras / agassi 1999 wimbledon final-the only match I tape over because sampras played so well that agassi should not be on the court wiyh him,becker 1988 v. sweden davis cup team ...just what it sounds like because becker played insanely good tennis,mcenroe v lendl 1985 stratton mountain ....o's the most talented player to pick up a racket???there others...

CTJam - I am interpreting Rafa's pull out from Stuttgart as injury prevention, rather than as a sign of something more serious. I am sure he does not want to have a July and August like he had last year, and neither do his fans - watching him in the USO last year was just miserable. I am really, really glad he is taking some time off.

Rather than describe yesterday's match as the "best", I think I would describe it as completely and utterly unforgettable. No one who saw the match will ever forget it or think of tennis the same way again.

And honestly and really and truly, I don't care if Rafa is #1 now or never - he won Wimbledon, what he always wanted. To me nothing else matters - except that he stays healthy and we get to keep watching him play incredible tennis for many years to come.

Forget to explain, the number in parenthesis for the top 10 is their actual 52-week ranking. Same with what you will see with the women.

WTA Tour

1.Venus Williams (7)- In the latest episode of that tired series called “Bash the Rankings” because the casual fan won’t care about my lazy talk, Ted Robinson once again pointed out how the five-time champion will slip down one spot in the rankings after the final. Well, if Robinson cared to inform the fan why so, Venus had only one semifinal going… oh forget it.

2.Serena Williams (5)- The 962th reason why Oracene Price is a great woman: Just read the bottom of this article, if you haven’t already somewhere else: http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=139014

3.Ana Ivanovic (1) - Thankfully this time, neither Robinson nor anyone else on NBC (or ESPN for that matter) continued sullying the WTA for the fact that Ivanovic remained number one at this tournament. And they would have looked real stupid doing that actually.

4.Maria Sharapova (3) - The agent and PR person can only do so much at IMG. Between the distasteful response to Alexander Stevenson (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3451754&name=stevenson_alexandra) and then her asking to carry the Russian flag at the Olympics (were she was easily dismissed), no one is beating this woman as “public enemy number one” right now. But she does get to move one spot higher in the rankings despite going out in the second round….

5.Elena Dementieva (6) - …. As she goes down one spot despite making her first semifinal at Wimbledon. And maybe the only person that didn’t get the memo on Dementieva not implying a Williams’ fix like originally speculated was Mr. “I only care for tennis four week a year” Flip Bondy of New York Daily News. Seriously, the NY Daily News, one of the premiere sports newspapers in the country, doesn’t have a specialized tennis writer. But they do have a specialized golf writer!

6.Jelena Jankovic (2) - Amazing how a year changes. You couldn’t even find her on the tabloid rumors. Neither could you find Jaime Murray.

7.Agnieszka Radwanska (11) - Only a mindless fool wouldn’t be happy to see the newest entrant into the Top 10 being this girl. There was nothing she could do against Serena in that second set in that quarterfinal, but that couldn’t dampen the reward for not only hard work, but being one of the smarter, original thinkers out there. And boy were those Drew Barrymore look a like comparisons coming in or what?

8.Jie Zheng (40) - If that same person wasn’t happy about Aggie’s run, then they would be a complete and utter sicko if they disapproved of the magical journey of this diminutive oriental. But there was nothing fluky about this Cinderella run. Zheng proved once again that being small in the women’s game can have its advantages along with its disadvantages. She out maneuvered and out thought Ivanovic, Agnes Szavay, and Nicole Vaidisova , and gave Serena Willaims all she could handle in that second set of their match. Plus, it gave NBC another home country star to market for the Olympics.

9.Svetlana Kuznetsova (4) – The questions literally have to be asked about the Kuzzie one right now. Coming on four years of her winning her only Grand Slam to date, Kuznetsova had another meltdown in her Round of 16 lost to the aforementioned Polish teen. So talented, let so deeply mental fragile. And if she is that, what can you say about Nadia Petrova

10.Tamarine Tanasugarn (37) – Great to see the re-emergence of this always delightful player. The 31 year old showed that if grass was the dominant surface on the tour, she would certainly indeed be a top player. With her coming back to semi-prominence, can we get a status report on Paradorn Srichaphan? I mean, we know he’s doing well with his marrage to his lovely wife, but what about the tennis?

The five Wild Cards:

11. Vaidisova- A needed kick start to right her sinking ship.
12. Petrova- who knows about the head of this woman, but she did ware Venus “Eleven” controlling line
13. Anna Chadvetadze- See Vadisova, though you could understand why she’s struggle if you know, which you should by now because even Bondy wrote about it.
14.Szavay
15. Alisa Kleybanova/Alla Kudryavtseva- Talented pair of Russians who showed both their impressive skills and their holes in their games that needs improvement.

Two sepcial enteries:
Bethanie Mattek: The only American into the second round in the singles disclipine besides the Williams sisters. And she is getting better by the day

Laura Robson: The only thing sad about this wonderful 14 year old sudden rise is all the pressure and attention she will now get to finally give Britain a prominent women’s tennis player. But between the moxy she showed in winning the girls’ title, and her decorum after the match (from her hopes of having Marat Safin be her date at the Wimbledon ball or saying “I’m going to take her down” in response to her question on what she would do against Venus Williams, was a wonderful joy to behold. Definitely wish her well in the future. She has star potential for sure.

"The thriller on the Centre Court Villa": http://thedeftvolleys.blogspot.com

Nadal runs..runs..he just runs too much for me. Gives me headache:) I guess To beat Nadal you have to jump like rabbit :)

I dont care too much for running, same i dont care too much for 20-30 aces in two sets. BORING!!

:)

With all due respect, codepoke...I beg to differ on the greatest year ever. :)) Umm...no. Not for me. But it is certainly a year for some thrilling tennis. :)

Frankly, I'm not sure Roger's recent grass run which ended yesterday is going to give much hope for the other challangers.

They've seen Roger tearing through the draw without losing a single set, and yeah - losing to Rafa 9-7 in the fifth, and they've seen what Rafa had to do to him (no UFE, those passing shots, the returns of serve) in order to win, again - 9-7 in the fifth.

Who exactly in that going to inspire? Djoko, maybe - but he was inspired enough as it is, and he isn't Rafa on grass by a long shot.

A new challanger? No one is that good. Gulbis had a nice run, but he'll take a few years to mature, and he doesn't have Rafa's mentality, which is, at the end - what beat Roger.

Old challangers? Roddick? Right, that's going to happen.

Nope, I predict it would be Roger and Rafa again next year, looking at each other from across the net.

'L...aura Robson, the Junior Girl's champion at Wimbledon, could be looking at a huge payday (unbelievably, 50M projected) for her efforts (by the way, she's British).'

I find this exceedingly premature and the reason a lot of players wig out or fail to meet expectation as the vultures are already circling at such a young age.

Winning the Wimbledon girls tournament can, but does not necessarily portend future suceees. More often than not it means nothing to the future or some level of sucess but not what is projected for this girl. Most of the names are unrecognizable.

In looking at the list of girls singles honor roles, the losers are just as, if not more significant than the winner. See for yourself.

Year Champion Runner-Up
2007 U. Radwanska M. Brengle
2006 C. Wozniacki M. Rybarikova
2005 A. Radwanska T. Paszek
2004 K. Bondarenko A. Ivanovic
2003 K. Flipkens A. Tchakvetadze
2002 V. Douchevina M. Sharapova
2001 A. Widjaja D. Safina
2000 M.E. Salerni T. Perebiynis
1999 I. Tulyaganova L. Krasnoroutskaya
1998 K. Srebotnik K. Clijsters
1997 C. Black A. Rippner
1996 A. Mauresmo M. L. Serna
1995 A. Olsza T. Tanasugarn
1994 M. Hingis M-R Jeon
1993 N. Feber R. Grande
1992 C.R. Rubin L. Courtois
1991 B. Rittner E. Makarova
1990 A. Strnadova K. Sharpe
1989 A. Strnadova M.J. McGrath
1988 B.A.M. Schultz E. Derly
1987 N.M. Zvereva J. Halard
1986 N.M. Zvereva L. Meskhi
1985 A. Holikova J.M. Byrne
1984 A.N. Croft E. Reinach
1983 P. Paradis P. Hy
1982 C. Tanvier H. Sukova
1981 Z.L. Garrison R.R. Uys
1980 D. Freeman S.J. Leo
1979 M.L. Piatek A.A. Moulton
1978 T.A. Austin H. Mandlikova
1977 L. Antonoplis Mareen Louie
1976 N.Y. Chmyreva M. Kruger
1975 N.Y. Chmyreva R. Marsikova
1974 M. Jausovec M. Simionescu
1973 A.K. Kiyomura M. Navratilova

Winners who won Wimbledon – 2 Hingis, Mauresmo
Losers who won Wimbledon – 2 Sharapova, Navratilova

Winners who got to Wimbledon final – 1 – Garrison
Losers who got Wimbledon final – 1 – Manlikova

Winners who went on to win GSs - – 3 Hingis, Mauresmo, Austin
Losers who went on to win GSs – 5 Sharapova, Navratilova, Ivanovic, Clijsters, Mandlikova

The one with the greatest sucess out of all the names was a loser.

While in the past three years the winners (2 Radwanskas and Wozniacki have faired better than losers they are all still unproven)

However, most of the greats of the game are conspicuously absent.

I think putting this much pressure on this young girl at 14 is just another Capriati or worse in the making.

Of course she is probably going to be a pretty girl and that probably has more to do with it.

However, she made a statement about bringing Venus down if they every meet at Wimbledon. While I like confidence, she better hope that Venus does not read that quote because that could mean the loss of at least 20M, projected of course.

1. Federer- despite losing to nadal he is still number one and always will be.
2. Nadal- as much as I dislike him, he is for sure number two because of his heart and the last match.

svelterogue: In addition to the Dr. J connection, Alexandra Stevenson is, I think, "famous" for being one of the only 2 players (JMac is the other) who went from the qualies to the semis of Wimbledon. Partly becuase she has been plagued by serious injuries, she hasn't lived up to either her talent or the hype about her.

Hi,
I agree with the first paragraph of anonymous's post of 5:18 p.m.
Probably due to the conditions, it was not of the highest quality(although the match was incredibly riveting!). That Australian Open semifinal for pure shotmaking was PHENOMENAL! Best I have EVER seen!
As far as Rafa's skill set; He HAS got GAME! He is NOT just an athlete! The hand-eye coordination he possesses just to hit the way he does is off the charts! We obviously haven't even seen his peak yet. People forget his incredible precocity as a tennis player. He is not going to fade like Hewitt; he's still building his game and still learning. The sky is the limit for this kid. To equate his game purely with power is hard for me to fathom.
Anyway.... Just my two cents.....Lol!
Aloha,
Jim

The eternal debate goes on and on...as it should.
Just one note from me.As much as I saw this happening...Rafa taking Fed in 5 close sets...I think,these are difficult days for TMF.He definitely won't be the same.But,only Time will show how will this affect him.

There's a word for people like Nadal, it's inhuman. That's what I saw yesterday, an insurmountable mountain of speed and brute strength. I was annoyed to say the least as I say Nadal slowly throw TMF down from his pedestal.

It would be borderline impossible for Federer to beat Nadal on clay which blunts the swiss' game. Nadal is just too physical, and too damn stubborn. Grass hurts Federer in a different way. The speed of the court is a double edge sword for Federer; it may play into his hands better than clay, but the nature of the court allows Nadal to do the most damage from a losing position. The low skidding bounce of the court actually seems to help Nadal while he's on the run. He can use that superhuman athleticism to retrieve the ball and make federer hit shots that are more uncomfortable for him to hit than on other surfaces. More than once Federer looked like he was coming to net only to be beaten backward by Nadal. Roger was being beaten not only by his opponent, but by the speed of the court which was not giving Roger enough time to properly plant himself and whose tricky bounce was keeping the passing shots low.

That being said Roger is the much better Hardcourt player. The extra footing and speed of the court make coming to net trivial because he can finally hit through Nadal from the baseline a la Blake or Youzhny. Nadal hasn't had the same success on the concrete because athleticism and his bludgeoning groundstrokes don't count for as much on this surface. Moose is absolutley right in saying that for all of Roger's love for the grass his game is better suited for the more mundane north american hardcourts, which allow him to be the most penetrating with his groundies. I suspect that we'll see Roger at his true best in the coming months. Unfourtanetly he has allot of points to defend and will be fighting a mostly uphill battle. He might be served by playing a couple more events like Indianapolis to cushion himself for any potential letdowns.

What Russ said at 6:04, and Or at 6:10.

It's only one day after, and now we have a lot of Brad Gilbert-like posters. Nadal will win 18 slams!!! :)

Interpretations of sporting events are always fascinating to me. If you talked to a casual NFL fan who watches ESPN, they'd think the Patriots dominated every Super Bowl run they've made. Well, not really. You had the famous tuck rule call to beat the Raiders, a last second drive and field goal to beat the Rams, etc.

I wonder what would be said today if a couple points had gone differently yesterday and Roger had won? Yet now Nadal is unstoppable, even on hard courts, and Roger might never win another slam.

Nadal took Roger to the brink last year at Wimbledon, so to me, this wasn't the seismic shift it's being made out to be. Nadal got run over by a truck in the Australian semis and hasn't been to a USO semi yet.

I like Nadal as much as anyone, but the hype is killing me already.

I don't think, with five slams including one outside of clay, that any superlatives regarding Nadal as not only the true World #1 but the dominant tennis player, is hyperbole.

Before, it was all about how Nadal needed another surface slam win to be considered anything close to a great player. So not only does he become Wimbledon champ by dethroning the arguably best grass courter ever, he does so with flair, completing the channel slam.

How can a guy with the clay-grass double, something the currently ranked #1 player has yet to achieve, be considered as anything but the best in the game? Federer had better hope that Nadal's game is still second best on hard courts. If not, we might have the 'Rafael' slam early next year. I sense domination, at the very least on the natural surfaces, in Nadal's future.

Hello everyone
I hope all have recovered, I still get kinda misty eyed when I read something or see something about "the match". That was an incredible experience. Sometimes with all the hype we forget what it is really all about.I feel so great for Rafa he worked so hard and did the impossible. I give all credit to Roger he did not let go, or 'squeeze too tight' ,but I can't feel too sorry for him, he has 5 titles there and is still the top dog.
I think the drumbeats by the media of his demise has had an effect on Roger physically. we have seen it all year with the funky body language and the curt answers in the pressers all this talk starts to manifest. He's had to fight that ,so much more this last year or 2 of his reign.Roger will hurt for a while after this.I hope the media backs off...I mean hell, there's always Djocker to kick around.

Ed -

I thought the match yesterday was fantastic, but best match ever? I can't think in those terms without at least a few days to reflect. But matches I've loved, for different reasons, over the years include:

Borg d. McEnroe, Wimbledon final, 1980
Agassi d. Sampras, Aus Open semifinal, 2000
Safin d. Federer, Aus Open semifinal, 2005
Federer d. Nadal, Wimbledon final, 2007

And there's a very, very special place in my heart for Sampras d. Coretja (sp?), US Open 1996 - I thought it was superlative drama, and I didn't even mind the double fault on match point - it actually seemed the perfect counterpoint to the second-serve ace that Pete dished up moments earlier.

When I think back on yesterday's match, there's something about Nadal not closing the deal from 5-2 in the fourth-set breaker that I think will trouble me in time.

Tennis Fan,

that's a great list that you came up with for the junior championships

where did you get that from?

I would say Nadal is the best for 2008, and if the ranking system was tweaked (to include "quality" points for Head to Heads) you could argue that he's been the best over the past 52 weeks as well.

In my opinion, this was the best match I've ever seen. The Sampras - Agassi - Becker thrillers had a bit too much big bang 90's style play for my taste. Going inter-gender for a moment, I think the graf-seles 1992 French Open was equally as compelling though... a close second.

I think yesterday's match was ONE of the best I've seen. It's hard for me to pick a favorite match, that's like trying to pick a favorite song.

And yes, Rafa is the best player in the world right now. If Novak wons the US Open, then they can share the crown. But to me, a player who wins two slams in a year is the best. Hands down.

Kenneth, good post.

I don't have a problem saying Nadal is great now. 4 slams of any kind in a row is something. And now 3 straight grass finals, and a win over, as you say, arguably the best grasser ever. The Borg combo is indeed flat out amazing.

But fairly or unfairly, as Rosangel has asked appropriately several times lately to make us all think, hard courts make up half the slams. I don't fully understand how winning two slams this year that he also almost won last year improves his chances in the hard slams. Djokovic could destroy Rafa at the USO this year, and unless something drastically changes, he's still not touching him at next year's French. I don't see why the reverse is any different.

Sherlock - I agree that Jeelbair's predictions may be too much
but , I think in accomplishing the clay / grass slam wins - Rafa has earned a little bit of
the talk . He did something that has not been done in almost 30 years.
so I don't mind that they are talking him up
I just think they are writing off Federer way too early
I don't think "the Federer" is done by any means

Very well said Sherlock, at 6:51pm!

SwissMaestro,

And your rankings are mostly fair. One thing before I start nit-picking: Laver should be in any GOAT discussion regarding any surface. Who knows what he could've accomplished with today's tech or had he participated in those Slams he missed prior to 1968? That said, I never had the pleasure of seeing Laver play (well, except for the few YouTube clips), so let's focus on the players of the post-Laver era.

Now here are my nitpicks:

1) I still say Sampras is a notch above Federer on grass. Not just for the differential in Wimby titles, mind you, but 'cause I can't imagine Fed even at his best beating Sampras in his 1999 Wimby final form. If they each at their best had a ten-match tussle Sampras would prevail 7-3 over Fed (IMO). Another small note: If we were strictly talking realized talent, McEnroe would be a notch above Borg on grass.

2) I still think Nadal and Borg are pretty much even on clay for now. If Nadal wins the FO again next year then I'll be ready to give the title to Rafa. I also think Wilander deserves a comparable rank with Lendl, though the Czech native perhaps should get extra points for daring to push Borg to five sets at the 1981 FO. Vilas should be somewhere in the top 5 as well. And until Fed gets his 1st FO title I just can't give him a slot in the clay top 10, let alone top 5.

3) When discussing hard-court tennis we need to distinguish between DecoTurf and Rebound Ace. I'd say Agassi is actually the best player on RA because of his record four Aussie titles. (Remember, Sampras never won against Agassi Down Under.)

But we know RA isn't used anymore, so who's the all-time best on "regular" hard courts? I actually think it's a very close call between Fed and Sampras. No doubt Fed will eventually win more HC titles, but let's not forget that Sampras either blew or missed a couple of USOs due to injury. And remember Pete's stupendous performance during the 1997 Davis Cup? His SF against Rafter was arguably even more impressive than his 1999 Wimby final, and I have yet to be persuaded that Fed would've beat Pete in his 1997 DC form if they played each other at their peak. (Incidentally, Pete retired later in his 1st DC final match due to injury, and Sweden went on to rout the U.S. that year.) Finally, Lendl should be ranked somewhere behind Agassi; maybe he couldn't have beat McEnroe and Connors at their best, but accomplishments should count in any GOAT ranking.

I think having that match finish in the dark was stupid. Matches during the two weeks were held over till the next day. But the one that means the most in Wimbledon history is treated like a high school tennis match. Both players said it was hard to see, to me this means it should have been stopped.

I barely remember the Borg/McEnroe '80 final - but I do remember the '81 final. I was 9. So, I can't compare the emotions I felt as a 9 year old to what I felt yesterday as a 35-year-old. I would say that this match is at least equal to that Borg/McEnroe match.
I was so devastated last year when Nadal lost (and I thought he should have won) in the WF. This year I still can't believe it is real. I am so happy for him. And for me? I don't know why so much for me - but just that I knew how badly Rafa wanted to win Wimby - and the fact that he did it actually puts me at peace. I feel like I can start rooting for some other upstart - like I did Rafa in '05. Maybe Ernie Gulbis? Or maybe I'll root for Mario Ancic's return to form? Because now my tennis "secret" is out. The world knows and loves Rafa now... And what a wonderful world to be a part of that is!

nadal has good shots. he has improved his serve but most of his game is based purely on running and hitting. and plus, one drawback is, he doesn't use his power to end points quickly. he does long rallies. his game isn't sustainable as he gets older. already his knees are starting to break down. by 25, I predict he'll fade away and not be as dominant. he may win titles, but he won't be dominant.

Daryl - Well, you're in good company. Roger Federer couldn't agree with you more!

french open fanatic - good to see you back here !
How have you been ?

It's nice to watch the match on ESPN Classic right now to see what the ESPN commentators have to say but, when they left to commercial it was 3-1 Nadal first set and they came back to 4-3 Nadal first set. So they are skipping around.

I've said this before, but just wanted to raise the point that rankings are just that-- rankings. By definition, a ranking sorts members of a peer group, and therefore an individual's ranking is relative to the others in that group. Rafa is #2 because, relative the #1, he has not been as good in the last 12 month period.

However, we also have the "race", which some believe to be more indicative of "current" performance. But these also take into account the previous 6 months, and not what this person might do in the future.

So, if you win Wimbledon, you get 1000 points.
But, you can also get 1000 points if you lose in the first round of Wimbledon, but win the French; or lose in both the first round of the French and Wimbledon, yet win 2 MS shields. So I guess this is one way to credit players for being good at many different tournaments.

There is no easy answer, and no perfect solution, because I'm sure each of us weights different tennis accomplishments in our own way. Perhaps, the rankings at least consider what one might do in the future, by answering the question "What did this player do the last time he played this upcoming tournament?"

Of course, this is not foolproof, but the way the game of tennis is structured, and the way draws are arranged, it might be the only way. I don't think we'll have an answer to the subjective question of "who's the best tennis player in the world?". The rankings come close.

Perhaps one of the greatest things to come out of this match, at least in the US, is that when I turned on the tv this afternoon and flipped over to the ESPN stations--EVERYONE was talking about Wimbledon. And I mean ALL of those talking heads sports shows that proliferate on the 25 ESPN channels like rabbits. And not only that, the Wimbledon final talk took up the entire first segment--the prime segment--all 8 minutes of it. When was the last time that happened in the US?? So the talking heads were either overly dramatic or plain wrong (Nadal has 3 French Opens, Mr Mariotti? Really? Nadal will be #1 in the computer rankings today, Mr Blackistone? Really?) I can't help but think this type of excited talk--and, yes, hype, because we Americans like nothing more than overinflated and unrealistic hype--will do some good for the sport.

Great article, Ed!

Rolo: Great choices for some of the best matches ever. Was so please that last year's final made your list! Woohoo! :)

Beth,

I definitely agree with you on all that. The Borg combo deserves all the talk it gets. Just wish they'd stay away from predicting hard court success until he actually wins a slam, gets to a final, etc.

And as for Fed, yes, loooooong ways to go in that there career. :)

"Nadal took Roger to the brink last year at Wimbledon, so to me, this wasn't the seismic shift it's being made out to be."

Nor to me, Sherlock. Bang on.

A friend of mine who never watches tennis called me just now to tell me that he happened to flip through channels yesterday and caught the match. He called it "unbelievable", and said that he was completely bowled over, and could not tear himself away. He said to me "I knew you were a huge tennis fan, and I never understood why. But now I understand. How can you not be when you get to witness something like this?". He said he's going to start watching from now on, especially whenever Roger and Rafa play each other. He also said that this type of match was exactly what was needed to spark interest in the sport in the States.

So, tennis is the big winner out of all this, besides Rafael Nadal of course !

Really? I think Ivan Lendl might have a little to say about seismic shifts and finalist appearances.

In fact, why don't we ask Federer how seismic it would be in his world to add that elusive French title?

In fact 2, how many times has it been stated that to win that single, last lone slam that Federer has been soooooooooo close to winning for three years now, would propel Federer from 'one' of the greatest to GOAT???

Give me a break, how quickly standards change around this joint!

Vamos Nadal, World #1!

I just watched the end of the match again...the tears are flowing all over again

Jerell,

It's on the Wimbledon website.

I agree 100% w/Or @ 6:10; to my mind, what The Match proved more than anything else is the vast gulf that exists between nos. 1 and 2, and everyone else. (Yes, yes--Djokovic, I know. I'll consider amending after seeing how he does in the USO.) Federer's aura damaged? When *that match* is what Nadal had to produce to take the crown? Who else could play so doggedly, with such consistency, energy and aplomb for so long in the face of a five-times-proven champion? Only Nadal's indefatigable determination and ruthless power can truly challenge Federer, and only Federer's sublime shot-making and effortless grace can truly challenge Nadal.

Cross-era comparisons are ultimately fatuous; let's be thankful we have these two here, now, bringing out the very best in each other before our eyes.

>I don't fully understand how winning two slams this year that he also almost won last year improves his chances in the hard slams

Sherlock, maybe he hasn't figured hardcourts out completely but this spring it sure looked like he made great strides in figuring them out. His matches were excellent, remember Tsonga & Blake? I'd say that Nadal on hardcourts is about 2006 going on 2007 Nadal on grass -- lots more to go, but the guy is improving fast. His only questions in the second half of this year will be fitness & motivation.

I have tickets to Rogers Cup (Toronto) quarterfinals. After this weekend I'm considering getting the tickets to the final as well.

ah, nevermind everything sold out :)

It is interesting that people are saying this is one of the best matches ever, if not the best. And when you think about it, that has a lot to do with the fact that it was Nadal who won.

But you can also think about it as being momentous because Federer lost, which is really a very high compliment to Federer.

I wonder how many public courts over the world are going to see young kids venturing out for the first time, maybe wearing sleeveless shirts and taking big cuts at the ball like Nadal. Kids like to swing that way anyway, so it won't be too much of a stretch.

I don't really understand how anyone can say that was not one of the best and high quality finals of all time. I have nothing really to say as the Tennis of that match said it all.

Just some comments from watching on TV:

The best person to have to interview Federer after such a loss was McEnroe on NBC. He is probably the only person on the planet who understood what Federer was feeling and he showed great compassion for him. Wonderful moment.

Did anyone see when Federer and Nadal came on court? Just as Nadal was exiting the door in front of Federer to come on court Nadal bent over from the waist to tie his shoe, giving Federer a magnificent view of his backside. Roger, had to take a couple of steps back. Was this done on purpose? Why would he pick that moment to bend over and tie his shoe? I think the match, while it went on for a long time after that, was lost by Federer at that point. Just kidding!

Kenneth,

I agree with you about how you're looking at the seismic shifts. We're just looking at the concept differently, I think. :)

Yes, a French would be seismic for Roger in the GOAT debate, his place in history, all of that, as a Wimbledon title would have been for Lendl. No doubt.

But I'm responding to the thoughts that Nadal is playing SO much better than last year, the tennis world better watch out. Nadal almost won the Borg combo last year as well. Just because he played a little bit better at Wimbledon this year doesn't signal a tremendous shift in his hard court chances, Fed's overall slam chances from here on out, etc. Entering the hard court season, things are certainly a bit different, but I'm not sure they are THAT much different.

If that makes any sense. :)

Not entirely but sort of random:

[Canada's Daniel Nestor moved to the top of the Stanford ATP Doubles Rankings for the first time in three years, after clinching the Wimbledon title with Nenad Zimonjic to complete a career Golden Slam]

Hee! *waves tiny canadian flag*

Back on topic of men's final:

Funny thing is Borg was so afraid they would eclipse this record or that...but they did eclipse another record of his. It's no longer clear that Borg-MacEnroe is the greatest final. Funny how this worked out.

Tari. :-)

I once said Nadal played an inefficient style that would send him careening out of the game in 2 years. I once said he was a one-dimensional bruiser whom Fed's razor would cut down to size. I once said he would not be able to think his way into the highest position in tennis.

I was wrong.

Even when I thought very little of Rafa, I said Roger had to best him to be the GOAT. A man cannot be the greatest of all time, if he's not the greatest of his own time. Well, guess what. I think that if you rub 4 years off Roger's age for one magical night, and let him play Nadal on July 6, 2008, you get the match we just saw - except Fed wins it by a sliver.

I have to believe, after what I've seen these last 4 years, that one day people will add Nadal to the Sampras/Laver/Federer pantheon. I still think his star will burn out a little quicker than Roger's, but I bet he runs the table some day very soon.

It's the best year of tennis, and the best year for tennis, ever (except in America where we rightfully love our American heroes a little too much to forget the '90's and the early '80's.)

obviously: McEnroe, oi!

Some speculation from the atp site:

[Last year, ATP Masters Series events in Canada and Cincinnati were played two weeks later in the season than they will be played this year. Because points earned by players count towards their rankings for 52 weeks, the 850 points Federer earned last year by reaching the Canada final and winning the Cincinnati title will continue to count towards his ranking during the same Masters Series tournaments this year. Normally the points would drop when a player competes at the same event the following year. (The Rogers Cup in Toronto, Canada, will this year be played July 21-27 and Cincinnati will be played July 28-August 3).

But come August 18, those 850 points will no longer count towards Federer's ranking. Should Federer and Nadal perform as well as each other this year in Toronto and Cincinnati (e.g. they each make the semifinals at both tournaments) then Federer's lead on August 18 will be cut to 150 points.

That razor-thin margin is the equivalent of the points difference between winning an ATP Masters Series title (500 points) and finishing runner-up (350). So the performances of Nadal and Federer at the ATP Masters Series tournaments in Toronto and Cincinnati will likely determine who holds No. 1 during the Olympics (which will award points) and heading into the US Open. ]

http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/no1battle.asp

Rolo,

It's good to see someone else mentioning the 2000 AO Agassi-Sampras SF. The unforunate (or fortunate, depending on your POV) thing about that match is that Pete was arguably superior in the 4th-set tiebreaker. Two SECOND-serve aces and a classic running forehand pass, and he still loses the TB and the match. It's almost criminal he didn't get to win the AO that year.

But I gotta disagree with you on the 2005 AO Safin-Fed SF. I've seen the entire match, and I don't think either player was at his absolute best. I recall detecting just a few traces of the Safin who dispatched Sampras with his stupendous returns in the 2000 USO final, and I also barely recall witnessing Fed's level of play in yesterday's SW19 final. But I'll admit that it was good to see Safin realizing his potential, if not necessarily to the fullest.

And like I said above, the 1996 Sampras-Becker ATP final should be in any discussion of the greatest tennis matches ever. Before yesterday's classic, the ATP final was one of the very few that were mentioned alongside, if not over, the 1980 Borg-McEnroe Wimby final.

hey beth - thanks for the shout out! good to be here basking in the glow of our boy's win. ;)

Thanks for keeping it real, Sherlock, and it does make sense. Unfortunately, only Federer will be able to provide the answer to that hypothesis. Look, we can say that things aren't too different, that Federer will bounce back, but I'm not so sure that he will this year. The French Open loss was one thing; but to be nudged out of his home court, the place where he won his first slam title...I'm not so sure how easily these things are forgotten. Of course, if anyone can...and really, what did we expect Federer's first loss at Wimbledon in 5 years to look like? The day he loses in straight sets there is the last day I watch pro tennis.

Borg's position in the tennis world is so unique it enhances watching these tournaments. He owns some part of nearly every record both Nadal and Federer are in the midst of tying and breaking, even though he doesn't own the 'most' slams or a calender. To be almost 30 years past glory and still in the midst of current competition is unrivaled in any sport.