Well, the old Tari emerged for a bit, but deleted much of her post. Nice article on Nadal though, Pete. :)

Outstanding, Pete! I was really worried about your analysis :) Simply outstanding, though, especially the way you noticed his attempts to hit forehands, the change in strategy, and the last paragraph about the defiance in his posture through out the match -- I saw that too.

>He would hit a winning inside-out forehand, or ace at 15-40, and just turn away, his body language saying: There, you see that? I can do that. What more do you want from me?

You captured perfectly what I felt was radiating from him on at least a couple of points.

My only beef is with the sweeping generalization of Federer fans. Believe me, no critical blows were struck for this fan. The match came close to ripping my heart out but I just checked, it's still beating :)

Come on out, old Tari! ;-)

I suppose what I enjoyed most is that you didn't spend the entire article exhalting the moment, but actually got down to what happened with those forehands and backhands and those serves -- did you see those serves?? I was missing that sort of analysis in the press after the match.

There's not much difference between "exhalting" and "exhaling", is there? A valuable type and the difference between writing a post Sunday night and Tuesday afternoon . . . thanks for the kind words.

Excellent post Pete, spot on. There was some discussion during the first rain delay as to whether or not it would help one or the other player, and given that Roger became a much more effective player after the match resumed, it was obvious who had profited. But I was unable to put my finger on it, but you seem to have nailed it.

Thanks.

Federer’s forehand was undefendable, he was hitting plain winners past Nadal many times, making it look like Nadal wasn’t moving well enough; but the shot was just too good.

But at the end of the match, something happened that reflects so accurately the nature of these two guys. Federer is supposed to be the attacking player and Nadal the defending grinder, but Nadal suddenly became more aggressive, even serving and volleying and rushing the net, while Federer went passive.

The dwindling light added to the urgency of the moment. And it was Nadal who stepped up and played a grass court game at the end, and Federer showed that despite his stinging serve and forehand, he is essentially a defensive player, and prefers to rally passively, and that is how Nadal beat him at the end.

Anyway, now maybe we can look forward to a year of “what does Federer have to change to beat Nadal on grass?” But he will never change, that has been his great strength and his one flaw.

Pete, there has been some discussion about how Roger can improve his game to meet the new challenges by Rafa and Novak. Do you think 1)his game can be improved at this stage in his career and 2) he would be so inclined to try and improve? From your analysis it appears that it took the threat of a cataclysmic event (losing Wimbledon) for him to accept that he needed to change tactics in a match; if that is the case, how difficult will it be for him to accept that he needs to improve?

Excellent article. The US Open should be interesting.

I appreciate most pieces that treat athletes as human beings and this one did that. And while I wouldn't sweepingly agree with everything -- if you saw me around the site recently, you saw me vigorously defend the darkness commentary, and if you know from back with Tipsarevic I don't go for warior moment adage -- I thought that you approached Federer's situation from many angles, refusing to paint him as a saint nor as a wilting wreck, nor other easy outs, for the sake of driving the post. This was good writing and worth thinking about, similar to the way the match was -- good and worth thinking about.

Hey, Pete, welcome back.

You'd be surprised at the number of people across my company (a large maultinational) who have phoned or eMailed me with a mixture of "condolences, how are you feeling, what a match though!" It seems to have been a sporting event that transcended itself, and will enter the collective memory.

I think you're absolutely right when you say "first, he must be willing to go three, four, five majors without winning, and still retain the drive and confidence needed to bag his next one. Second, he has to be prepared to face a relentless barrage of questions about these issues."

I have asserted for a long time that Federer is, first and foremost, a competitor. I don't believe he's going to solely focus on winning Slams, or beating a record - records are nice, but he simply enjoys playing tennis matches to win. And I believe he has now come to the recognition that what got him here - the "here" of the last 3 years or so - just isn't good enough to go further.

When asked why he took on Higueras, he answered that it was to improve as a tennis player, not just to win a particular tournament. He now sees, I think, just how much improvement will be necessary. Djokovic isn't going to get worse in the next two years, and Nadal is already quite accomplished. He's been nearly alone on the mountain top, but the tectonic plates have shifted.

But I think he is motivated to improve. One adjustment that he hasn't made is in his choice of tactical patterns. Time and again, Federer has attacked Nadal head on in moving to the net, a tactic as effective as the Light Brigade's run at the Russian guns at Balaclava. Federer needs to take a leaf from Hewitt's and Davydenko's book, and attack with width from just inside the baseline, half volleying if necessary.

I hoped that the fourth set comeback from 5-2 down, and particularly the MP saved, would end forever the talk that Federer isn't ready for a scrap. You're right to say someone had to win the match, and I don't begrudge victory to Nadal or his fans. He earned a victory. It's possible, taking the very long view, that Federer may have taken away more from defeat than he might have done from a similarly tight victory. I doubt it - I think Federer has been gearing up for the task for a few months.

His bitter disappointment at the result, and that of his fans, won't ever entirely recede. But time will put it into some of the perspective John McEnroe was able to bring 28 years on, remembering a similar defeat and what followed.

"...pundits were jumping on the Nadal bandwagon. They turned out to be right, but came about as close to being wrong as is possible."

Pete -
This contrasts to the last line of your post yesterday (which I took issue with).

"Somehow, we all knew it was destined to come down to this: Rafael Nadal over Roger Federer, in the Wimbledon final, 6-4,6-4,6-7,6-7,9-7."

Why the change?

I've heard Federer getting some criticism for, in his post-match com ments, dwelling on the low-light conditions. I think that is being somewhat harsh. Altho true that the lack of optimal lighting affected both players (altho perhaps not equally), I can understand why Federer--who had just experienced a tremendously disappointing defeat--would openly rue having to play in conditions that may usually call for artificial lighting.

In any case, strongly hoping that Rafa is able to play the rest of the year without any serious physical problems, so that he can have a fair shot at getting that numero uno.

Also hoping that the docs can come up with a cure for JC Ferrero's leg problems. I love watching him playing well.

Wow Pete. This is why I defer to you when looking for analysis. Awesome write up. All points concise and brilliant.

"...Largely, though, that inside-out forehand of Federer's was a thing of deadly beauty. One of the enduring images in this final is that of Federer, well inside the baseline, teeing up that forehand to Nadal's forehand corner and hitting it with such precision and force that as he struck the ball he seemed to be traveling backwards - as if he were applying some strange (or perhaps not so strange, from a pure physics point of view) form of counter-rotation, or body english, to get a little extra ooompf on a shot that already had plenty of it. But you know how it is when the other guy is Nadal; there's no such thing as too much oompf..."

Pete -

Also, Roger generally blamed his loss on not taking advantages of opportunities and on Rafa's incredible play.

Although he did say the lack of adequate light made it tough to play, it was only as an answer to a direct question. I don't think this qualifies as making excuses for the loss.

Tari -

Yeah, I had the same thought toward the middle of the article.

"WTF, I thought this was an article about Fed..."

:-)

Manuelsantanafan,

well you said it yourself, there are two players on the court playing under the exact same conditions. I've watched that final game about 10 times now and I'm hard pressed to find where either player's game was negatively affected by the light. Great serving, great returns (Federer's return winner to save the first Championship point in particular) and some great points. I think Roger netted the last shot because of physical and mental fatigue, not because of the light.

Anyhow, I also hope the Juan Carlos can finally get back on track. I've always felt like he was destined to do more with his career.

I think it is ludicrous for anyone to assume anything regarding the light and who it affected and how. Just silly. All we know is that they both had the same playing conditions. Period.

Nice piece Pete. I also recently posted that I think our (fedfans)Man will come back roaring! My reasoning is that this is the biggest hurt of his career and possibly the most warrior like demonstration he has exhibited. Yet he "just missed" that trophy by an inch. And I think this defeat is going to awaken a sleeping giant. I say watch out Nadal, it ain't over, not by a long shot.

nice post!

don't you think nadal has earned the right to be referred to as nadal and not be lumped together with someone who has barely proved himself

nadjoko? really? come on...

manuelsantanafan, Rafa Nadal had much stronger words about it, he said he plain and simple couldn't see anything in the last game and thought they should definetly stop. Somehow I don't see honesty as interfering with graciousness in any way, and Federer offered his opinion as the softest suggestion possible, phrasing "might".

And I think this will be the last time I'll bite on this particular subject. :)

Tari-I think it is ridiculous to NOT factor in lighting conditions? The game of tennis is all about seeing the ball. Some can't actually see it as well as others, tennis is not to be played in dim light. Of course it affected them both. But you can not criticize either player for stating the light affected one or the other more.
Besides, Roger rarely complains about things. Which BTW, is being quite respectful of Nadal who has his "time quirks." (which can be called ludicrous) Agassi complained about him (Nadal)many times. Roger doesn't,.. but I think he should in the future.

1FedFan -

One of Roger's best traits is that he rarely complains, so I don't agree that he should complain about Rafa's "time quirks". I like it that he tried to take the high road recently when asked if it bothers him.

You go, Sher. :)

1FedFan: I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is that all we know is the playing conditions were the same. We don't know who saw the ball better. So yes, it definitely could have affected one more than the other, and it is a shame if it did.
We'll never know, though.

insightful - perceptive .... and somethin new I learnt, as it is always in here

but the light things was hardly significant., what could he say, like he said

its over - no point anymore

nadal said he couldn't see either, but since he is the victor, i guess that doesn't count.

i want to read tari's self deleted post.

Great post Pete, thank you.

The first two sets were shocking, for lack of a better word, and Roger's loss of a 4-2 lead...omg, just bewildering, though gawd knows we've seen it on clay before.

I think you're dead on right when you talk about Roger's passivity. He knows it and has talked about it. And when pressured, reverts to it. He was also rubbing his serving shoulder at one point, and he may have an issue in this regard. God, I hope not. But why did it seem that this was Roger's match to lose? I got that distinct impression. He would raise his game to unimaginable heights, and then fall back.

He needs a pass on the low light conundrum though. He was asked that question directly, he did not bring it up as an issue. Not to have lights for these situations, at arguably the greatest tennis tournament on earth, is simply criminal.

fedfan - is it not same fr both of them, + when you do tht after you lost it looks bad isnt it

am not saying he did anything worth criticizing - he hardly raised an issue, but

just a counter point

YES syd

cant agree more with him - rodge was asked tht ques, he did not bring it up

This article was a good read, so also the Death one. I think what won Federer Five W titles is what cost him the sixth one, meaning baseline play. Baseline rallying against Nadal for five sets is a losing proposition for Fed on any surface, any court simply because of his backhand. Its just that Nadal was uber-confident this year than the previous years to take advantage. One thing that fuelled Nadal's confidence was the final set bagel at the French and the short duration of that match. In the previous years Nadal was a little more exhausted after the French and did not go beyond quarters at Queens, this year he was prepared to put that extra fight at Queens and it paid him dividends at Queens and Wimbledon. Nadal is such a confidence player and does not often lose matches if he is confident. That extra confidence defintely helped him in the fifth.
On other note, Federer's record at serving out sets in recent matches has not been good. He has won only three sets against Nadal this year and all have been tie-breaks.

Vince Lombardi said: "Fatigue makes cowards of us all."

This statement may be SOMEWHAT applicable to the Wimbledon finals.

I believe that Rafa was physically stronger than Federer at the end of the match. Rafa increased his level of aggression (serving and volleying for the first time in the match in the last game, also charging the net on his own initiative to win another point). Federer's level of aggression may have declined slightly, on the other hand. (To be absolutely clear, I am not equating Federer's play with cowardly play, in any way.)

One thing i've noticed about Djokovic is that, on clay, against Rafa, Djokovic, towards end of matches, goes to the drop shot way too often. I believe that this phenomenom is a product of fatigue.

Rafa has stated firmly that, he is not just a better grass court player, but a better player, in general. I believe that he is correct and that some of the Rafa improvements we've seen on clay and grass are going to also make him much more dangerous on the hard courts later this year.

There were so many great shots by both players in the Wimby final that singling out only one not fair to either. However, I will bring up the cross court backhand winner Rafa ripped past Federer in the penultimate game of the match, while Federer was digging himself out of his forehand corner after returning the previous shot by Rafa. The kind of Rafa rocket that we'll see more of in the hard court season.

Federer's initial reaction to the light question was a shrug and a "what do you want me to say?"
I read it as - "Please don't make me come up with excuses".

Thanks Ptenis !

ptenisnet: absolutely right.

lets not make him a pantomime villian, because he had to respond honestly to an honest question -

thats all there was to it - we all know him well ....

"but Nadal suddenly became more aggressive, even serving and volleying "
Pierre - Nadal served & volleyed only ONCE, in the last game of the match.

But both men knew that they weren't just playing a match, they knew that they were playing in front of 24,000 playing spectators and a worldwide audience. They knew the disruption that stopping would cause.

They also knew that there's an umpire and a tournament referee. Federer took it on the chin, absurdly I thought, by some commentators on this site for not protesting that the Williams sisters should have been placed on the Centre or No 1 Court during one of his press conferences. Neither Federer nor Nadal are umpires, referees or tournament directors. They're players. Neither man said "please stop the match." Neither man said afterwards "they should have stopped the match." Both men said "it was getting hard to see."

Pete:

Achingly beautiful and searingly powerful writing. Even better than "The Death of Wanting," and that was outstanding in its own right.

I'll repeat what I've said about the media/pundits ever since the Roland Garros final ended: Rafa is in a state/period of ascendancy, but Fed is hardly in a period of decline.

I banged that drum... early and often, and not always slowly.

The problem that got me with the pundits was the extent to which they harped on the Roland Garros final, which is on Rafa's home soil. To think that Roger Federer, Lord of Wimbledon for five years straight, would feel the slightest bit out of his element on grass was and is (and has been proven to be, forever and ever) ludicrous in the extreme. For seasoned commentators to speak to frail or brittle psychological indicators for Roger was a grave insult to his credentials, his legacy, and his personhood, all wrapped into one.

To laud Rafa loudly and lavishly? Fine--and moreover, entirely deserved. Rafa played at the very top of his game in Paris, and it was obvious just how comfortable Rafa was on the crushed red brick. But to then glean from that a Federer decline, especially on the grass he's called home since 2003, is absolutely outrageous, and everyone who made that Paris-Wimbledon linkage should be personally and professionally ashamed of themselves today, after seeing how well Roger played throughout Wimbledon, including against Rafa.

Any lingering thoughts of the French final being in Fed's head were authoritatively dismissed on Sunday.

Moving on yet still focusing on the psychological realm, something has to be cleared up here: the expression "being in one's head."

I've always taken that term to mean that the presence/reality of another person causes an individual to shrivel, to perform or behave erratically and/or aberrationally, far outside the norm in a pejorative manner.

In the 2006 and 2007 French finals, and also in the latter stages of the four sets they played in Monte Carlo and Hamburg (when Rafa made those 0-4 and 1-5 fightbacks), Rafa was in Roger's head. Absolutely fair analysis and criticism.

But in Paris, that was just a case of one guy smacking around another guy and having a great day at the office. Rafa is hitting so many more winners now than he did in previous years against Fed. Nadal is now wielding that stick with ever more artistry and power, to go along with his defense; as a result, he no longer tries to merely outlast Roger. He's now going for the kill, because his skills have ripened and his talents are now spilling out in full flower.

The notion of "Rafa being in Fed's head" was briefly exhibited on Sunday... enough, perhaps, for Nadal to win in retrospect, but not so much that it defines the nature of this rivalry on an overall level.

These are two great players, and Nadal's ascendancy has brought this rivalry to the point where it's basically even-steven on grass, with Nadal being just a hair better. Therefore, if either player makes a mistake in a money situation, it can be partly chalked up to the pressure, and partly to the fact that both of these men are looking at their most formidable opponent (and on clay or grass, their ONLY formidable opponent, with Djokovic entering the fray on hard courts) across the net. They both know how wildly skilled and terrifically tough they both are, so it's unavoidable that each will press just a bit when the temperature rises (that they played so well for so long is truly remarkable, the enduring testament to the greatness of the match).

But back to the notion of Rafa being in Fed's head.

It did emerge in the second set. Fed was CRANKY and DISTRACTED in that 4-2 service game. The wind bothered him, but he allowed it to bother him, and then at 4-4, Fed couldn't get back on the beam. Two straight service breaks in a match where they came very rarely and with the utmost difficulty did represent a case of Rafa being in Fed's head. But it was only in that sequence of the second set, from 4-2 Fed to 5-4 Rafa. Otherwise, every set was a cliffhanger, with each player pushing the other to the limit.

So, I'd say that 3 games out of 62 does not justify a "Rafa's in Fed's head" line of analysis. You can say that it decided the second set, but you can't say it defines the rivalry on a larger scale. No way.

If Rafa starts playing--and beating--Fed in hard court finals, then we can revisit this and be open to a revision. But not now. No, siree.

The extent to which this past Wimbledon was defined by talk of a Fed decline, and not Rafa's ascendancy (alone), is what irritated me as a Fed fan. Praise Rafa to the highest heaven, you pundits.

Just don't equate Rafa's rise with any kind of dip from Federer, because that dip has never materialized... not, at least, in connection with anything other than health issues.

loved the last three lines of your last post Andrew -cheers Mate

Lleytsie: "It's getting dark, too dark to see, I feel I'm knocking on Heaven's door."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcWTTs8QVRc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTt7eCq02hM

popular song it seems.

ha ha Andrew

- outside the rain fell dark and slow ... as we pondered on this dangerous but irresistible past time'

'Coming Back To Life' Mate

This redemption song is a cover by Pearl Jam - sounds lovely in the evening, in a chem lab

Tari: I sometimes think that the assumption that bad conditions are the same for both players, so there, can be too glib. For example, if a player has a very high serving toss or (as Serena described Venus's) a "funky" toss, very windy condtions may affect him/her more than they do the opponent with a short, efficient toss.

Now, when it comes to darkness, I would agree that I don't see how that can be worse for one player than the other or worse for the server than for the receiver. And that is why some of us questioned the appropriatenss Roger's mentioning the lack of light as a possible cause of his losing. Such comments, even when they come as a result of a question from a reporter (and some of Roger's didn't) are better left unsaid in the sportsmanship game that everyone has to play.

Pete: The one reason why I cannot accept your premise that the predictors of a Nadal win (I was not one of them) were "as close to being wrong as is possible" is the way in which the 5 sets of the match were lost.

No, it wasn't a straight set win, but it could have been without the rain delay. It went 5 sets instead, and in any match that goes 5 sets, it always comes down, doesn't it?, to that last point lost in that 5th set. But look at the rest of the match: Nadal won his 3 sets woth 3 "traditional" breaks of his opponent while Roger won his two "fightback" sets with 2 minibreaks in two TB's and just could not garner that regular break in the no-TB 5th set that wimbledon demands.

Yea, a set won is a set won, but I am willing to bet $$$ that, when Roger looks at these facts in the cold light of day, he will NOT be very happy about the way the winning of the sets played out. In fact, knowing the kind of proud champion Roger is, I wouldn't be surprised if he has not already considered (and put in proper perspective) the circumstances under which he and Rafa won their respective sets.

I still think we were cheated, I wanted the end to be played with both at their best and in the dark that's not possible. And Fed had to return at 8/7 which means a court change which means more time has passed which means it's even darker (Rafa said as much, that he couldn't see anything). No excuse, it's simply that neither man could see and we did not get to see the great finish to a great match.

Ruth: I know that you think that Roger should have risen above these comments, but I honestly do not see much of a big deal, there. I think it is hypercritical.

I do see how lighting can affect players differently. Not everyone has the same set of eyes, after all. I have pretty good eyesight, but I have problems with low light. Beyond that, it may make a difference where the ball lands because of the uneven light. I'm not making an excuse for Roger. I did not find his comments offensive in the least. Though to be blunt, I find it very sad that this is such a big deal to some, but during the course of the day, I've gotten numb to it.

Some did not "see" a gracious former champ. So be it.

tari - yea, i think they are blowing it way out of proportion

deaf ears - deaf ears - deaf ears -

Great post, Pete.

Is there any reason, other than tradition, why Wimbledon doesn't use lights the same way that they are used in the U.S. Open? If not for night sessions, they could at least be used for ending matches such as this final, and many others that go on late into the night due to the rain delays... Or am I missing some reason why this isn't possible?

Next feat for Nadal is winning a tie-break against Federer on grass...

"Stay tuned, and condolences to all the Federer fans out there."
Thanks Pete. Frankly after the heartbreak, at least I really needed it. Very nice post.

Would be very interested in seeing if Federer can indeed rebound from what must be by his own admission, the hardest loss (and perhaps the most gut wrenching one) of his career.

In the meantime, thanks for taking the time to write this piece

Pete, this piece on this amazing Wimbledon Final has a lot of substance and insightful reporting on your thoughts. I have been quite hungry for articles.

Great post, Pete.

I don't know if stats go back far enough to compare historic matches, but this was crazy close. Even though the general consensus is that Federer was off his game in the first two sets, in set one he won 33 points to Nadal's 34, and in set two he won 30, to Nadal's 32.

By the start of the fifth set, dramatics aside, each player was tied at 151 points total for the day!

At 7-7 in the Fifth, it appears that Nadal was up by ONE POINT. Because Nadal, obviously, won the last two games, he ended up with a 209-204 point lead.

Tennis really has an interesting scoring system. There can be no doubt that the subjectivity of "big points" -- while subjective, is nevertheless a valid consideration. I am hard pressed to think of another major sport in which the basic measure, points, is merely the first level of play, with another, more complicated level, to contend with.

Last year, Federer beat Nadal by 165 points to 158, so I guess over two years Federer is ahead 369-367. Ha!

Can you imagine playing with your regular partner on the weekend for more than seven hundred points and only having a difference of two points! Putting aside calling up the paramedics or whatever, that's close.

This business about Fed's comments on the light or lack thereof - given after several questions possed to him in his pressor - is nit picking to a ridiculous extreme.

All he said - was that the conditions were difficult - and the dimmness may have effected play a bit - then he immediately said it was NOT an excuse - and that Nadal played great and deserved the win.

As noted above - Rafa was very blunt in his reference - that he couldn't see nothin - so just because he won the silly match he is gracious in winning - but Roger is ungracious in loosing by having given a similar - and softer - reply?? PHOOHY

Enough already - one lousy little comment - honestly given - does NOT sour what had taken place on or off the court!

Everyone needs to get off this tired band wagon - move on people - go poke some other pony.

That said - here's a link to both players reading the "IF" poem - seems quite appropriate under the circumstances:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=is-JCJCUy18

"Some did not 'see' a gracious former champ."

Tari-- Maybe that's because of the bad light! :)

Dunlop: Every time I saw the overall point tally for each player, I thought of your many posts regarding tennis' scoring system. ;-)

Oh, Christopher...that did make me laugh. Thank you! :)

Sher: I am sure that if Rafa's "time quirks" annoyed/affected Roger enough, he would complain about them just as he did when he thought that Nadal's camp was coaching him from the stands and just as he did when he told the Nadal supporters to " keep quiet" when he was playing from their end of the court. It may be that those particular Nadal's quirks that you cited just don't bother Roger as they would me or some other players.

Whatever...we have seen that Roger has no problem -- and why should he? -- pointing out when something bothers him, and that includes Hawkeye! :)

LOL Christopher!!

" one of the outstanding features of the Wimbledon final is that it was, in all fairness, a Warrior Moment for both players. For this match was no mere case of a wonderful player digging himself out of a big hole to beat a fine opponent, but of two nonpareil combatants playing so well, with so little to choose between them, that the only reason Nadal won was because. . . someone must."

Beautifully said, Pete.

Look, I think we need to put this question of "But I was a little surprised by how often Federer, in his press conference, cited the poor light that dis-illuminated the end of the match." to bed.

Here are the times Federer was asked about the light, and his responses:

Q. Was it too dark to play?

ROGER FEDERER: What can I tell you?

Q. Should it have had a better finish than that in near darkness?

ROGER FEDERER: It's hard to tell. Look, it's over, so... What's the point arguing about it? It's the way it is.

***

Q. What was your thinking on the very last shot when it was getting so dark? Did you just think, I'll try to get it over and let him deal with trying to see it, try to get it back?

ROGER FEDERER: I don't know. I was thinking first should I go up the line or cross court, and then I chose cross court and missed it. So, yeah, I mean, look, by that time maybe it was all over anyway, you know. But, yeah, maybe shouldn't have missed the shot. Maybe wouldn't have missed that on some other occasion. Who knows.

Q. Did you make any question about the light to anybody or you just kept playing?

ROGER FEDERER: Kept on playing. I didn't argue. I think I guess I would have said something if I would have broken back to go, what was it, 8 All. Yeah, because, I mean, it wasn't possible to play anymore, so... It would have been brutal for fans, for media, for us, for everybody to come back tomorrow. But what are you gonna do? It's rough on me now, obviously, you know, to lose the biggest tournament in the world over maybe a bit of light, you know. It's not the first time anyway against Rafa. Lost to him in Paris as well in the semis. So it's not a whole lot of fun, but it's the way it is. I can only congratulate Rafa for a great effort.

*****

Q. We know how much you respect him. Especially after that tiebreaker, were there any points in there where you're thinking, This kid has to fold up now? He has to be a little bit mentally crazy? A couple times you were down, served your way out of some real holes. Did you think at any point that he's got to crack at some stage?

ROGER FEDERER: Not really. I was just hoping, you know, or I was seeing that he was getting very nervous, you know, in that, what was it, fourth set tiebreaker where, I mean, I think he should have never lost the breaker in the end, you know. But he was really nervous. He didn't make the returns he usually does. He couldn't play aggressive. I played some okay shots, and it was enough to come back. So, I mean, I really thought, you know, that he was feeling it really a lot, you know, maybe the first time in his life. So I was hoping, like I said, with the momentum going into the fifth set, that it was going to be enough just from my end that I would play a little bit better. But I couldn't really, you know, play maybe my best when I really had to. And towards the end, like we know, with the light, it was tough. But it's not an excuse. Like I said, Rafa served well and played well and deserved to win in the end.

Q. You have such a deep love of the game and respect for it. The match today had so many elements, such a high level. Leading commentators are already talking about it being the best match in the history of this game. Could you reflect on that. Can you sense people would put it in that strong context already?

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I mean, look, it's not up to us to judge if it was the best ever. I think it's up to fans and the media to debate. I'm happy we put in a great effort, Rafa and myself. You know, it was a fair battle, which was tough with the rain delays. You know, some great points. Really I just think we both played tough till the very end, you know. In tennis, unfortunately sometimes there has to be winners and losers. You know, there's no draws. But I really had to push hard to come back. And I wasn't able to break him, I guess, in the last three sets, but still I pushed him right to the edge, you know. I guess, you know, with the fading light even the victory became even more special, similar to, you know, when Pete won his, what was it, 14 again Rafter, you know, also in the fading light. That looked incredible. I wish obviously it was me with the trophy, but that's the way it is now.

****

OK. In four questions Federer is asked about the light. Twice he says "I don't want to talk about it." Once he says "On another occasion I might have made the shot," but doesn't attribute missing it to the light. Once he says "it's rough for me, it's happened before, but so what? Congratulations to Rafa."

Later on, unbidden, he brings up the light, but sets it in a wider context of not being able to play his best when he needed to. And finally, he acknowledges that the conditions made the experience special for those watching, and had a historical resonance.

Look, if you want to find someone whining there, have at it. Having turned the question aside several times, the man said it was tough, but clearly places the decision to play on in a greater context. That would be hard for me to do in his shoes.

Greenhopper: I believe you are right, Nadal only served and volleyed that one time. He picked a good time to do it. He also came to the net more in the last three games, and played more aggressively.

Regarding the light, it was a fair situation to both players. It is crazy to try to imagine what a player would be thinking at the time, but at 7-7, I imagine part of Federer's brain saying, OK, let's split the last two games and start this thing fresh in the morning. And I imagine part of Nadal's brain, or most of it, saying OK, let's turn it up a notch and get it over with now.

This is a post about Federer, so since Federer lost there is bound to be some questioning of why. Warrior moments were mentioned, and I think Nadal had a bona fide warrior moment at 6-7 in the last set. Don't forget, Nadal hurt his leg in the third set, after being up two sets. Not many people seem to be mentioning this, but it seemed huge to me.

With Nadal serving at 6-7, Federer has such an opportunity to end it. Why not chip and charge, really up the pressure? But he didn't. So Nadal faced his warrior moment and he defeated it. Everything that transpired in the first four sets reflected all the work these two have put in for years, and after four sets it came out even. So the fifth set was a whole new land, and Nadal took it by basically going loco on Federer at the end.

I guess Wimbledon has its own poem carved in the gate somewhere (what am I talking about, I have never been there, I don't even know anyone who has been there) but I think a fitting motto for Nadal would be:

"The Kingdom of Heaven is won by violence,
and the violent take it by force."

Thank you Andrew.

Whistels to little shaggy pony.....

Tari: Just so you know, like Rolo earlier today, I was referring only to the time when Roger RAISED the issue of the darness himself and tied it to his loss; at that point, he was not asked about it by anyone.

I am also a great believer in a player's politely using the phrase "no comment" when he/she can clearly see that a reporter is trying to prod him/her into saying something that, whether true or not, can be construed as inappropriate.

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, no?

Pete-- I hope (and think) that you're right about Fed taking this as a challenge. In fact, I think this is exactly the kind of challenge that could elevate him to "undisputed" GOAT status if he meets it successfully. Nadal is an interesting puzzle for Fed in a way that, say, Djokovic isn't. This isn't to say that Djokovic won't beat Fed in the future, but his particular style of play, which to me seems like a souped up Hewitt with a better serve, is not in itself a real problem. You're absolutely right that Nadal was punishing Fed's backhand for the first half of the match at least. But it's not like simply hitting to Fed's backhand is the way to beat him, or lots of other would have been doing so all along and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's hitting deep to the backhand with more topspin than any human being has ever put on a tennis ball that does it. No one else can do that and it means that the Nadal challenge really is unique at the moment.

I also think that, as Dunlop pointed out in an early thread, Fed's serve was a problem. Yes, he served himself out of trouble a lot with aces and yes his 1st serve % was in the mid-60s, not bad. But recall the statistician who drowned in the river that was an average of a foot deep. Fed had some truly awful service games when he didn't hit more than one 1st serve in and that, in the end, made the difference.

Watching Fed face the challenge of Nadal and watching Nadal adjust in turn could turn out to be the greatest thing the game has ever seen. Borg-McEnroe was too short. McEnroe-Connors and McEnroe-Lendl were too acrimonious and one-sided. Pete and Andre had it's moments but Andre was absent for some stretches. Fed and Rafa are fine people, spectacular players, and dedicated competitors. Just happy to be witnessing it.

I am a Federer fan. And his loss at the Wimbledon has sent me deep in thought for the past three days after the so-called "match of the generation." When Pete Sampras was defeated by Fed at Wimbledon, Pete knew that it was the beginning of a new generation. I don't know how long did he realize that but in the pre-wimbledon 2008 interviews, he acknowledged that fact. Same is true with Becker who realized the same after losing to Sampras (again) at Wimbledon. Last Sunday was a new beginning too. I do not know if it has already dawned on Federer that as he began a new generation when he beat Sampras, his loss to Nadal was a signal for him to move over too. Yesterday, I wrote that let's leave Roger alone so that he'd come to realize things on his own. It would take so much humility for him to admit his loss as the advent of Nadal's reign. He is the only person who knows the answer, and yet if he would come to admit that his superior game and magnificent reign is turning into a new chapter,this is the true test of the Spartan that he truly is. Afterall, a Spartan knows that his true honor lies not in winning alone, but also in a dignified acceptance of defeat and failure. Long live the Spartan!

Andrew-- Thanks. Quite perfect.

If Nadal reaches number one, it's going to be very interesting to see how he deals with it; especially if he had been measuring himself against Roger and that's what mainly has brought it to this level (which I believe is more of circumstantial issue, second to his mere desire of doing his very best). In any case, being number one will be a completely different thing. But I'm sure he'll make a great "king".

I also hope that Federer is going to stay up there. I hope so, even if it goes against the cyclic nature of leadership we've seen so often in tennis and other sports (and in life, for that matter).

Hi Ruth! Interesting thoughts. I completely agree. Part of the analysis of this match HAS to be that Rafa was within 2 points of winning the match in straights, shockingly, and that was after Fed had a break lead in the 3rd. The fact that he came back, and fought off 2 MPs in the 4th, was an epic feat, aided of course by a timely rain delay (the rain delay does not take away from the accomplishment, its just part of the story). I imagine Fed's internal analysis might be that the loss was a "disaster" (his term), but certainly good for the psyche that he fended off an even bigger disaster by losing in straight sets, where the "death knell" arguments would have been shouted from the rooftops rather than whispered a bit more quietly and reverently based on his ability to force an epic 5th. But the fact that it was so close to straights is part of the story of the match and the story of this rivalry and what will follow.

FWIW, I DID think this article was about Fed ... I thought this contrasted nicely with the Death of Wanting piece about Nadal.

I'm not going to get into any discussion on who mastered a, their, the other's - real or imaginary "warrior" moment better - or who "missed" grasping their "warrior" moment and thus is a warrior wanna be putz.

Ppffff - to try and raise one player at the detriment of the other - is so disrespectful - it demeans both of these great champions.

I am sick to death of this - what did Matt Z say - "Tit for Tat" - that people indulge in here - seems like playing in a very yellow and warm paddling pool with children crying "My Daddy is better and can beat your Daddy".

And please - don't go throwing in for a second year runnin that Nadal suffered from a knee injury that put him in any way a disadvantage - he ran like the wind all match - hit amazing shots - was aggressive - a true force to reckon with - in no way was his game adversely affected.

True appreciation and respect for both players is lacking when you ride down that road.

Come on me pony - time to chomp some other hay.

Federer was so miserable about losing Wimbledon that the low light conditions probably triggered in his mind some source or cause for his loss. That could be a defense mechanism or source of healing and comfort for him and was not necessarily ungraciousness. I do hope that this fierce battle for him will not detrimentally affect Fed mentally.

Just to give everybody a flavor, last year Federer served at 71% first serve percentage, hitting 111 out of 156.

This year, it ws 128 out of 197, or 68%.

Now, 68% vs. 71% does not sound like much, but that is 11 more first serves.

I think about six more in set two and its Federer's set.

You could, of course, say this about any point or shot, "what if?"

But I would be interested to see if the field, as in all 128 players, hits more aces at Wimbledon, the French, or the AO or USO.

I think Nadal's slightly improved speed on his serve while keeping his percentage high, while not really a "dramatic" improvement is nevertheless something he really needed to do to grab a Wimbledon title.

Andrew - I agree that Roger definitely was trying to avoid the "light" question. As a Rafa fan, when he won, I expected nothing but grace from Fed, because histrionics dictates it and thats what I feel we all got, graciousness under extreme pressure. I would have told everybody to f off!! However, a few of my friends brought up this subject to me yesterday and this is the exact line they have trouble with:"to lose the biggest tournament in the world over maybe a bit of light..."

Now, I think it's easy to pick one line out and make an inaccurate point, but that's the comments I've heard around the watercooler It annoys me, but at least tennis is the topic of discussion! :)

LL

"Time and again, Federer has attacked Nadal head on in moving to the net, a tactic as effective as the Light Brigade's run at the Russian guns at Balaclava. Federer needs to take a leaf from Hewitt's and Davydenko's book, and attack with width from just inside the baseline, half volleying if necessary."

Actually my only disappointment with Federer in this whole final match was that he tried to rush to the net without great approach shots one too many times. Cost him some break point chances, cost him some service points (I dont remember if it was a factor in his last service game). I do remember him doing this in the first 3 1/2 sets way too often and then in the last 1 1/2 sets, he did make the adjustment where he would hesitate to get to the net when sometime his instinct told him to do so on a bad approach shot.

He played aggressively enough, would have loved to see him hit a great approach shot before rushing to the net.

Wow!I did not see that coming. Is this article about Roger or Rafa? I'm confused....:)

All this talk of Nadal's reign or domination of Rogers just makes me laugh. I saw the match twice and didn't see that. I saw a match that could have easily went to either player and everyone would be singing a different tune. You can't look at one match this close and say it means that Nadal is the better player. Sorry, I would have to see this consistently happening over 3-4 matches on the hard courts or grass. I would have to also see a match in which Nadal took out Federer more easily on the faster surface, this was a long, hard fought match that Rafa won by just two points. Sorry that isn't enough for me to say this is domination or that the next match he will win, it could go either way just like this one. Changing of the guard, not so fast. Great blog Pete, I really enjoyed reading this.

Andres: Just saw your comment about the lights at Wimbledon. I wrote a comment a day or so ago wondering whether they were going to to have lights put in the covered Centre Court, but I don't think that anyone really knows. The current no-lights "tradition" makes about as much sense as some of the other Wimby traditions.

If lights aren't in the forecast - why don't they just start the final an hour earlier?

* The notion of "Rafa being in Fed's head" was briefly exhibited on Sunday... enough, perhaps, for Nadal to win in retrospect, but not so much that it defines the nature of this rivalry on an overall level. *

Matt Z: I think you're trying to have it both ways here. So, you think that a guy who has humiliated you in France and promised to rip your "home" championship from your hands is not "in his head." C'mon, Nadal has been giving Roger fits (and his fans, of which I am one) ever since Nadal first beat him on the hardcourts of Miami in 04; 6-3 6-3 by the way.

Ruth: Yes, I knew that. I am aware of Roger's comments you are referring to. Still think they are not a big deal, and that people are going out of their way to spot a lack of grace, considering the totality of his words and actions. And that's it from me on it. :)

I think they should have lights next year when the roof has completed. Otherwise, it is just a cover...lol

Flyer:

Why don't they indeed, those fossilized idiots.

Samantha Elin
that was perfect...thanks!
:)

I did not post much during Wimbledon because I was sick of Internet hype that drags me from one extreme to the other. And I must say that I enjoyed the tennis way more. I was out-of-town for the semis and final, so I did not see this 'epic' final. And I'm too heart-broken for Federer to watch it, not matter how good it was.

I did get occasional updates during the final and I did say to a friend at about 3-3 in the 5th that whoever lost this match would be devastated. This match (and last year) was truly THE THRILL OF VICTORY AND THE AGONY OF DEFEAT.

There were no losers on Sunday, just like last year.

As for Sports Illustrated. I guess it's good for tennis to make the cover and how ironic that it takes Federer losing to get there. It wasn't good enough when he won 5 straight Wimbledons last year in a 5-set epic to tie Borg. No, that was no fun because Federer winning is just taken for granted. But Federer losing in an epic final? Well...that's news isn't it? In four years of domination, Federer never warranted a cover? Not even one! And in 2006 when he was so clearly the best athlete on the planet, they gave their stupid award to DeWayne Wade? Yeah right. I lost all respect for that magazine then. This cover is just another slap-in-the-face to a great champion. Makes me sick.

Samantha Elin:

* I saw a match that could have easily went to either player and everyone would be singing a different tune. *

Yes!

High five to you samantha elin!

everything has to have a spin on it for the media. no magazines or papers sell without some shocking or maudlin headline or byline. if they reported that 'nadal barely eeked out a win over federer to take wimbledon' how many papers would they sell?

but 'end of an era' 'a new reign' and all that other gobbledeegook is what sells.

as many have noted in other posts, if the 5th set had gone to a tiebreak, the papers would likely be reporting 'the king is still alive' and all that other crap.

both played well - someone has to make the error in the 5th set and this time it was federer. last year it was nadal.

Samantha Elin: Well said. Thanks.

Allez Justine! :)

Here's a big shot in the dark (no pun intended) but maybe the spin of nadal's game is harder to track than federer's in the dark.

Thank you, Pete. I needed that...I was afraid to come here, afraid of what I'd read.

This post, to me, describes my outrage to a T:

**If Rafa starts playing--and beating--Fed in hard court finals, then we can revisit this and be open to a revision. But not now. No, siree.

The extent to which this past Wimbledon was defined by talk of a Fed decline, and not Rafa's ascendancy (alone), is what irritated me as a Fed fan. Praise Rafa to the highest heaven, you pundits.

Just don't equate Rafa's rise with any kind of dip from Federer, because that dip has never materialized... not, at least, in connection with anything other than health issues.**

No siree indeed.

Alexis -

Could you take that last paragraph and send it as a letter to SI? Just to see if they have the b@lls to print it. (Does SI have a mail section?)
You state everything very well, and I bet they will get a number of letters about this.

In fact...

HEY TWIBE!
Let's institute a letter writing campaign to SI with the exact same drumbeat. I myself will be writing one tonight.

Nice article Pete!

But some of us (like Stack) think that maybe Rafa was affected by an injury and couldn't hit strong FHs in turn (like we've seen him flattening them out recently)...Stack did a nice analysis, stating that maybe Rafa couldn't push in his leg stronly etc.

Rafa only did that (be more aggresive) mid 5th set, when it was all or out...

If you add to this that defense by Rafa, against a Roger who's been inconsistent (lack of training etc), can't be too bad of an idea to start with, then maybe you'd agree that we have more room for thought?

Cheers! And congratulations to both champions! We are indeed blessed to witness these two great guys and players!!!

Wow! The match was incredibly great, but the posts and comments that is originating are also so rich and interesting. I think we are going to talk about this final for years and years and years...

All this argument is getting to me a little. It is only natural that domination or monopoly cannot go on and on. Change happens.

Samantha and Alexis:

You two - too perfect!

"It is only natural that domination or monopoly cannot go on and on. Change happens."

Yes. It's natural. And Fed fans are hoping for some changes in January and May next year. Go, change! :)

"Just don't equate Rafa's rise with any kind of dip from Federer, because that dip has never materialized... not, at least, in connection with anything other than health issues."

i am die-hard fed fan, but i do think his play has dipped a bit. i thought his backhand looked shaky in patches, particularly on break chances. and while he served at over 60% first serves in, it was when he hit too many second serves in games that he dropped serve.

i think he really needs a coach. mirka isn't enough now that he is in crisis mode. darren cahill is so low key but knowledgable... he seems a perfect fit.

i am confident that fed will be back with a vengeance, but i do think he needs to make some changes. i sincerely believe he will be motivated to shut up all the critics.

Tari:

January

May

July

3 times the change!

Andrés, I believe the lack of floodlights might have something to do with dew. They don't stop at dusk just because of the light but also because of the dew - the courts can get very slippy, thus dangerous. [I would guess floodlights on the outside courts would be nigh on impossible to get planning permission for anyway]

- I believe they are incorporating lights into the new roof (obviously) as well as a state-of-the-art environmental system to stop it from getting too humid (transpiration, perspiration etc) and therefore slippy.

Forgive me, Flyer! Of course. :)

Tari: LOL. I know what you are trying to say....lol

Go Roger!

Andrew.

Thanks.

Pretty amazing how some people on this board will take little snippets from press conferences to raise nonissues.

This is tennis, not %&^%)&^&*)++ Emily Post.

A shame that Nastase can't revert to his youth and play on the men's tour. He wouldn't just provid grist, Nastase would provide the whole #(*^%$)%&$#&@# mill.

Andrew thank you very much for the post @ 8:32 PM Well said. It will probably still have some people grumbling years on about how Federer "complained" about the match because these things take on a life of their own, so it's important to dispell the myth as soon as possible! I hope this post doesn't become a discussion of an insignificant moment brought about by too many reporters in one room looking for excuses. I think the rest of it is too good to have it lost in the quibbling.