Epic vs. Epic: Why the Wimbledon '09 Final Is the Preeminent Grass Court Battle

"Beauty is a relation, and the apprehension of it a comparison."

— Gerard Manley Hopkins

---

On Sunday July 5, 2009, Roger Federer captured his record-breaking 15th Grand Slam title against Andy Roddick, rewriting history in an epic final lasting a mammoth 67 games and requiring four hours of struggle to declare a winner.

The monumental battle was jeweled with sheer willpower and an exhibition of breathtaking shots. The excitement of the never-ending final set made it a contest worthy of being classified as one of the finest matches ever witnessed on the Center Court.

Comparisons across eras are unfair due to the differences in styles of play, the advancement of technology, and the improvement in players’ fitness. But a fair comparison can be indeed be made among epics contested in the same generation.

That is why we went down the road to compare this year’s final with the epic last year, which pitted Federer against Rafael Nadal—we have found enough justifications to show that the Roddick and Federer offered us an equally thrilling final, and actually surpassed the latter.

(Zaphod provides his arguments on why the Wimbledon '08 final was better.)

0-0

Last year’s final witnessed two of the best champions of the modern era. Considering the history at stake, and the quality of the rivalry, the anticipation of the final coming into the match was enormous.

Comparatively, this year’s final never managed to generate the same excitement, given the absence of Rafa and Murray being knocked out in the semis—two of Federer's best rivals.

The fact that Roddick had lost 90 percent of his matches against Federer made the match even less appealing—to the point that fans were content to see a decently competitive match rather than a memorable one.

The situation was anti-climactic given that the tournament had produced so many classics.

0-15

The tournament was blessed by heavy sunshine throughout its length, resulting in dry, barren courts. Hence, they played faster and bounced lower than the years preceding it.

Pure attacking tennis was reigning again, as huge serving bombs were pounded mercilessly, and forehand winners were dispatched from mid-court, rather than the baseline. There was selective serve and volleying, and the players were not intimidated about getting passed.

Heavy topspin had given its way to flatter ground strokes once again, and the margin of error over the net was reduced significantly—over the net, and near the lines!

In short, the final, even though not an all-out serve-n-volley match, was reminiscent of  days when Wimbledon prided itself in players playing an attacking all-court game.

15-15

However, no epic is complete without drama. Wimbledon ’08 was marked by the historic fourth set tie-breaker, and the Wimbledon ’01 final was the day when Britain shred its manners.

While Wimbledon ’08 had plenty of drama—the contrasting styles, heat of emotions, rain breaks, and Rafa holding the trophy in near darkness—the final in 2009 was not as dramatic.

Both Federer and Roddick kept their emotions in check, and the contrast in styles was missing. Even though Roddick fought back courageously, he never found himself down two sets to love.

15-30

Amidst all the drama, one should not forget the quality of tennis offered by both players. The final in ’09 was reminiscent of age-old grass court tennis. But the quality of tennis still remains central in deciding a contest.

The serving by both players was precise, immaculate and intimidating. An average of 86 percent of points were won on first serves, and a total of 77 aces were pounded, and many more service winners.

Serves had as much variety as humanly possible—down the T, running away wide from the returner, body serve—and each break point was equivalent to a virtual set point.

Even in a match dominated by serve, the quality of ground strokes were equally amazing. The backhand flick by Federer at 2-6 down in the second set tie-breaker, or Roddick mesmerizing his opponent through deft volleys and almost perfect approach shots, comes to mind.

Finally, the statistics speak for themselves. Only 16 percent of points were lost by unforced errors (71 out of 436) in '09, compared to 20 percent in '08 (79 out of 413).

The difference may not be much at the first glance, but it becomes a lot more substantial in a match where both players were virtually going for winners on almost every point!

30-30

One would have thought that no final could match the perfect ending witnessed in ’08. Nadal opening his arms after falling down on grass, climbing up the stands to embrace his supporters, and holding the trophy amidst dwindling lights.

But ’09 had something special.

Roddick’s subdued—seemingly sarcastic and wittily humorous—behavior stood out after the match, which made the atmosphere much more pleasant.

Federer getting back to world No. 1 after winning his favorite tournament and breaking the record for most Grand Slam victories was special while the photograph of the four legends—Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer—is one to be remembered for ages.

Given that Pete Sampras flew here to witness his record getting bettered—it was his first time in Wimbledon after he retired—made the ending all the more special.

40-30

Final thoughts: The unfinished scoreline is what we can finally expect in the end.

Both finals were epic, and tennis fans have been lucky to have experienced them in back to back years.

It would be unfair to decisively tag one as better than the other because opinions will differ based on the criteria involved, and a conclusion can never be reached.

Based on mine, I would give a slight edge to the bittersweet final I saw last week.

---

(PS: Thanks to Zaphod, for coming up with the innovative idea of using tennis scores as a mode of comparison.)