Sports have offered us innumerable memorable moments, where the opponents have fought neck-and-neck in the entire match with one of them barely—scarcely—managing to cross the finish line.
The drama offered has been intense, the emotions are insurmountable, the pressure is inexplicable, and the end result is such a dramatic finish that the sports fans will call the sport itself as the "victor" rather than the winning opponent.
"Nobody lost the match" is a statement that will capture the headlines of the next day's newspaper.
It is not entirely true. The objective nature of sport doesn't allow for two victors. One will have to bear the axe and swallow the bitter pill of defeat. The victor will be the one taking a bite at the trophy and the vanquished will only be left with accolades that will be die away over time.
Fans would always remember that Manchester United scored two last-minute goals in the injury time to win the Champions League in '99, rather than the overhead kick by Bayern Munich's Carsten Jancker, which bounced of the sidebar that would have effectively sealed the trophy for the latter.
The heroic knock by Lance Klusener in the World Cup '99 semis will be mentioned rarely, but his last ball misunderstanding with Allan Donald will forever be remembered as another lost chance for South Africa. This was probably the greatest limited overs cricket match ever played. Not so for South Africa.
Near misses are part and parcel of the game, and they are hard to digest, specially when the vanquished had a golden opportunity to achieve something special.
In this dry season, when tennis is hiding away from limelight, and issues other than the sport—or its journalism—have taken center stage, antiMatter is in charge of making sure that we are reminded of some of these brave players who offered the fans a memorable experience, which was, at best, forgettable for them (please see page two for details on this series).
And what better way to start this series than focusing on a part of one of the best rivalries in tennis?
Back in those days...
Yes, back in those days...When the likes of Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, and Juan Martin del Potro were still in their teens, Andre Agassi was the runner-up in the U.S. Open, Rafael Nadal was in his pirate attire, and used to pump himself up with "Vamos," and Roger Federer was ahead of every other player by at least a couple of thousand ranking points—4000 points in today's ranking system...and Masters Series finals were still five-set affairs.
In 2006, the Federer-Nadal rivalry was just peaking. Nadal was still considered a specialist dirtballer but was increasingly becoming an intimidating presence for the Swiss. After winning his second consecutive title at Monte Carlo in four sets against Federer, he was, in fact, touted as the favorite to add Rome to his tally as well.
On the other hand, it was a golden opportunity for Federer to finally solve this Nadal puzzle which had troubled him for four out of the last five times. Even their costumes matched perfectly. Federer in his pristine white reminiscent of Wimbledon, while Nadal in the bright green, similar to what he wore during his blitzkrieg at the French Open 2008.
The stage was perfect for an epic.
And the match started with a bang. Winners were being hit one after the other, and unforced errors were being kept to a minimum—an exceptional start, more so because it was being played on clay.
The main difference in this match compared to others was because Federer seemed equally comfortable on his backhand wing against Nadal—an area where he has struggled throughout their rivalry.
Federer looked very confident on this stroke as he was not running around the backhand as he normally does. Perhaps it was due to the confidence gotten from getting close in Monte Carlo, he knew he had a great chance that day, more so because this surface was a little faster.
After trading a break of serve, the first set went into a tie-breaker, where he played possibly the best tie-breaker of his life—his breaker in the second set of French Open '09 finals included—as he stormed through by not conceding a single point!
The second set was no different than the first. Federer continued to play a calculative aggressive game, always willing to end the point quickly, but willing to grind through and defend as well. His backhand was exceptionally good as he was winning winners as well as trading moonballs through this weaker side as well. As a result, Federer dictated a lot of rallies and kept Nadal under pressure, just not enough to break him.
59 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete