In June 2008, not only will Federer be seeking his 6th consecutive Wimbledon singles title, breaking Borg's 5 in a row---an incredible feat in itself---but he'll quite possibly be either tying or breaking Pete Sampras' all-time Grand Slam record of 14.
Consider this. With yesterday's victory, Federer now has 11 Slams under his belt. The U.S. Open in September could give him 12; the Australian (in Jan 2008) could give him 13. I don't think he'll win the French (ever). But assuming he can take 2 of the next 3 slams, the door will be open at Wimbledon '08 for Federer to catch Pistol Pete Sampras at 14. Can you imagine the hype? If this indeed plays out, Wimbledon will definitely be the ticket next year. And if he does tie Sampras then Federer will be going for the all-time record of 15 at the U.S. Open in 2008.
Now for some quick commentary and analysis of yesterday's final. It was an interesting well-played match by both players. And it's first time Federer has had to go 5 sets to take the title. Truly, a point here or there, and I think Nadal could've emerged victorious.
For instance, the third set tie-breaker was absolutely CRITICAL. If Nadal wins the third set breaker I think the odds were good he would've worn Federer down (physically and mentally). Also, consider this. In the third set breaker, Nadal was down 6-3 (or was it 6-4?) and he came back to 6-all. He had the momentum. The crowd was really getting into the match and Rafa was pumped. At this point, Federer was flustered, and seemed a bit panicked. Afterall, he'd just let 3 set points slip away!
Interestingly, Federer didn't stay flustered or suffer a meltdown. He didn't give into his emotions and the "c'mon Rafas" of the fans. He kept cool and used the changeover at 6-all to inhale deeply and pull himself together. Remarkably from this point on Nadal put up little resistance and Federer closed him out in the third.
It is my contention that it was Federer's ability to hang on to this tie-breaker in the third set, and the way he did, that won him the match. In this critical set he out-dueled the manly Mallorcan, breaking him down mentally at the end of the breaker. Now, instead of needing two straight sets to take the title---a tough assignment against a surging Nadal---he only needed to win 1 out of the next 2 sets.
Another mental note, for what it's worth. In winning both the first and third sets in close tie-breakers Federer really underscores his toughness under pressure. In effect it allows him to suggest to Nadal, "Today I'm beating you Rafa when the chips are down... I'm winning the close sets so the closer the score the more it favors me today." In other words, in the back of Rafa's mind he's thinking, I've got to win EASILY. If it's close (5-all, or tiebreaker) Roger has the advantage.."
Now I'm not suggesting that Nadal ever actually allowed these negative thoughts to be muttered under his breath, or hang for even one instant in his conscious thought. No way! But given that tennis is such a mental chess game I can't help but wonder if he were doubting his ability to win a close match. At all levels of tennis, one tends to "avoid" situations (eg game scores in a set) which haven't been favorable. So in effect, what Federer is suggesting by taking two tiebreakers, is "Rafa, I'm winning the close sets today. The tighter the set score is the more the odds are in my favor." Notice the next two sets weren't particularly close: 6-2, 2-6.
So Federer escapes with the third set to go up up 2 sets to 1. But the high of taking the third quickly fades as Rafa storms back to an easy 6-2 in the third.
Now this is where it gets interesting. On the changeover, just before the fifth set, Rafa calls for the trainer. His knee is apparently bothering him. He has it wrapped. On the first point of the set, Federer hits several balls back to test Nadal's agility. I think he even hit a short slice to see how well he moved forward. Well, guess what? Nadal's knee was fine! No gimp, no limp, Nadal is as fast as ever! For a lot of lesser players, the wrap could've played tricks with their mind. Is he injured? Do I change my game plan? Just thinking over the various options, and being toyed with, is enough to distract even the best players. I don't know if Rafa was feigning injury, but if he was it certainly didn't work. Federer basically discounted the "injury" after testing him in the first point of the 5th. If anything, seeing the bandaged Rafa only fueled the fire in his belly and convinced him the finish line was at hand. For the great Federer, seeing a gimpy opponent on the other side of the court is like a wolf quickening his pace towards the wooly straggler. But again, I didn't see any problem with Nadal's knee or his movement. Federer beat Nadal at his best, that's the conclusion. All in all I give Nadal a lot of credit though---on grass he hasn't proven to be Federer's equal, but each year he's inching closer I won't be be surprised if he eventually wins Wimbledon. Just like Agassi did after several failed attemps..
I'd like to hear your comments about this match...
Also, I'm interested in hearing your views on the television commentary. Do you like John McEnroe as a commentator? Who do you feel would make good tennis commentators? Do u like the Hawkeye system?
Also, another possible topic for discussion: Andy Roddick and Jimmy Connors. WHAT is going on with Roddick and Connors??!! I mean, Jimbo has been working with Roddick for what, a year now? Where are the results? Sadly, Roddick suffered a meltdown at this year's Wimbledon against the Frenchman Gasquet. It was a complete choke and I think even Rodick would agree it was a very un-Wimbledon-like effort. Can we blame Jimbo for poor coaching?
But seriously what I wonder is, how is Connors actually helping Roddick's game? What part of his game has improved? (If anything I'd say his serve during the last year has gotten back to its old self, but I don't Jimbo can take credit for that!). I just don't see any "improvement" in Roddick's game since Connnors apparently took over from Roddicks' brother.
Another topic for discussion: Federer used to work with Tony Roche. Does he have ANYONE giving him feedback?? I don't think he needs a full-time coach. (who can argue with his results?). But I feel every player needs feedback. Otherwise he's an island unto himself and only sees what he "thinks" he sees. If you had an hour with Federer, and he asked you to help him improve, what would you tell him? And yes, every player can improve....even the great Roger Federer. :)
Out for now tennis fans.
Charlie
No comments:
Post a Comment