Watching Rafael Nadal versus Roger Federer was like watching Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed knocking seven bells out of each other. Only it was more gripping because you knew it was the real thing.
Every time Nadal came within touching distance, Federer selected the finest weapon from his arsenal. But the Swiss has never seen so many of his shots returned in the same match.
In the end, Nadal's jab kept the five-time Wimbledon champion at arm's length. Federer couldn't control the structure of the points enough and even when he did, Nadal still seemed to land a telling blow.
And so this question keeps cropping up: was it the best final in Wimbledon's history?
I have never read much into this type of question because it is impossible to compare without watching one right next to another—which I've never been able to do. Tennis is not like football, where you get to see countless repeats. Comparing separate eras is simply impossible.
Plus, I'm too young. I've seen the classic McEnroe versus Borg tie-break several times, but I don't know enough about the rest of the match. Goran Ivanisevic's heroic display in 2001 was always my favorite, because there was a plethora of classic five-setters that year, played by attacking serve-and-volley maestros.
But I have to admit, this felt like the best ever, and I certainly respect McEnroe's opinion that it was. It was undoubtedly the longest, and it ended uniquely, with the trophy presented on a centre court visible only by a strobe light of flashing cameras. Unique, because next year's new roof will prevent the final from lasting as long.
Perhaps, if it was the best, a fitting finale.
3 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete