Well here we go again. Fed and Rafa on Fed's turf. Being a Nadal a fan, I must admit being pleasantly suprised at Nadal getting this far I still think Fed will win it, though of course I'm rooting for Nadal. In the end, though, tennis wins overall. Oh, and Nike too. Can't wait. I'm hoping this goes five sets... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/sl_price/07/05/showdown/index.html Despite history, Federer wants to face Nadal in final If he wants to win a fourth Wimbledon, Roger Federer may have to get past Rafael Nadal, who has had Federer's number. Simon Bruty/SI WIMBLEDON, England -- Maybe it's those dainty country-club roots. Maybe it's that the word "love" is thrown around liberally during a match, or the lack of direct physical contact between opponents, or the fact that the game's first superstar, Bill Tilden, was gay. Whatever the reason, tennis has always been obsessed with proving its manhood. It's boxing from a distance, the aficionados will tell you. It's about blood and guts, Jimmy Connors insists. On Tuesday, some guy stripped down on Centre Court and showed the world his equipment. Streaking has been out of fashion for decades. At Wimbledon, though, it's never a surprise. So really, now that we are closing in on the showdown everyone wants to see -- No. 1 Roger Federer vs. No. 2 Rafael Nadal -- it's no shock to find some tennis minds simplifying the matter into a variation of the old Saturday Night Live sketch: Quien es más macho? The facts are simple: Federer has lost six of his seven matches with Nadal, including that four-set demolition in last month's French Open final. It's indeed a curious state of things when the player who thoroughly dominates the field is yet dominated by one man, and theories abound. But the most heavily trafficked these days -- because of both source and outrageousness -- is the one voiced by Swedish tennis legend Mats Wilander. "Rafael has the one thing that Roger doesn't: balls," Wilander told Sports Illustrated*in Paris. "I don't even think Rafael has two; I think he has three." Wilander backed off a bit for L'Equipe: "[Federer] might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once. It's every time," he said. Then, to make sure no one missed it, Wilander threw the interview up on his own website. These are, as everyone in journalism knows, great quotes, and when coming from a seven-time Grand Slam winner, they carry the ring of authority. Who would know better? Yet let's leave aside Wilander's possible fear of being left in the historical dust -- Federer's next Grand Slam title will give him eight -- or the thought that maybe he sees John McEnroe's continuing fame and figures some outrage could boost his visibility. The fact is, Wilander's is an easy theory to absorb, far easier than the wonky notion that Nadal's cross-court forehand exposes Federer's weakest shot, a high backhand, or that his speed and left-handed attack allow little room to establish a rhythm. Federer's game is all about elegance and flow; Nadal disrupts it like a street thug crashing a cotillion. That he does so while oozing testosterone, flexing his biceps in a sleeveless shirt, only seals the image of a man's man, Marlon Brando to Federer's Fred Astaire. Yet it should be said that, in Federer, we're not talking about a celebrated icon like Andre Agassi, who lost his first three Grand Slam finals, or stern workhorse Ivan Lendl, who lost his first four. Federer has been nobody's eunuch. He won his first seven Grand Slam finals and a record 24 straight tournament finals overall, and has repeatedly proven himself ready to scrap. In the 2004 U.S. Open he beat crowd-favorite Agassi over two rain-interrupted, windswept days; in the 2005 Australian Open he came back from 2-5 down in the fifth set and pushed Marat Safin to the brink before losing 9-7. Nadal? In his one win over him at the 2005 NASDAQ-100, Federer was down*two sets to love, 4-1 in the third, before coming back to win. In Rome this year Federer was down*two sets to one, came back to take the fourth and had two match points in the fifth before losing in a tiebreak. He certainly sagged in Paris the last time they met, but to dismiss Federer as gutless seems like the judgment of, well, some pontificating hack -- not a player who's been there. Wilander should know better. "Look. There's many former players, many experts, who think they know everything," Federer said Wednesday after disposing of Mario Ancic 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. "Sometimes they're right, but they can also be wrong. You can't always listen to them, especially as a player. From a former top player -- almost a legend of the game -- to hear stuff like this is obviously very disappointing. I thought I got along well with him; I probably still am, because he never told these things to my face. Next time I see him, maybe I'll say something. Or maybe he's not a man to be around for me. Because if you say stuff like this? There's professional [life] and there's friendship, but if you cross the line too many times eventually you're going to lose your friends. That's maybe what he's doing." It's too bad, really, because the looming matchup is intriguing enough on its own. Arguably already one of the top*10 clay-court players ever, the 20-year-old Nadal came into his third Wimbledon looking to merely to improve on grass. But upsets have cleared out his side of the draw, and despite complaints about his slow play and a hotly denied report that he was being investigated as part of the anti-doping probe that has gutted this year's Tour de France ("Nonsense," he said Tuesday. "I've never taken anything in my life and I never will"), Nadal has looked right at home. If he should beat 22nd-seeded Finn Jarkko Nieminen on Thursday, only Marcos Baghdatis, whom Nadal beat 7-5, 6-0 in Indian Wells in March, would block his way to Sunday's final. Federer, meanwhile, would have to get past 34-year-old shock semifinalist Jonas Bjorkman, whose attitude toward him isn't what you'd call aggressive. "He's just the perfect No. 1 we can have," Bjorkman said Wednesday after he beat Radek Stepanek 7-6, 4-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, "both on the court and off the court." Federer has won three straight Wimbledons, a record 46 straight matches on grass, and would enter this final heavily favored. But he also knows Nadal's presence would charge the air like no other opponent. That feeling of inevitability that has hung over the men's draw for a month would evaporate, replaced by questions. Could the courts, baked by a week of 90-degree heat, give a Nadal-struck ball enough bounce to trouble Federer's backhand even here? Would Nadal's lack of fear, not to mention the prospect of losing to him on grass, spark an anxiety Federer has never felt before? Would Federer, admittedly prone to playing his opponent's style, try to beat Nadal from the back? Or press his advantage and serve-and-volley like he hasn't done in years? And, if you're Wilander, what would a loss to Nadal, at Wimbledon, say about Federer's masculine cred? Federer's not ready to concede that possibility. "Credit to him that he came so far, and credit to him that he may go all the way to the final," he said. "All the way? I don't know." Asked if he wants a piece of Nadal here and now, on what he has come to see as his own turf, Federer doesn't hesitate. "I would love to play him," he said. "I've lost so many times against him on his favorite surface; I've gotten so, so close. Obviously I'd like to play him here four or five times, but grass is such a short season. I'm lucky enough my strength is also on clay, on hard court, indoor: That's what he's still working on. That's also why I'm by far the No. 1 player in the world." That last reminder was unnecessary,*but perhaps the clearest sign that Nadal is in*Federer's head. You know what they say about overcompensation. Sometimes, even real men get insecure.
Ugh...I hate journalists. I saw that interview with Wilander. Sports Illustrated took his statement COMPLETELY out of context. In the actual interview, Mats said something more along the lines of: "The way Federer played against Nadal today was the way I played in Wimbledon my entire career. I didn't have an aggressive mindset. I never believed I could win Wimbledon. I didn't play with 'balls' "Federer came into the final today hitting great shots, but it didn't seem as though he truly believed he could win. The moment his shots stopped going in, he strayed from his own gameplan and played right into Nadal's style. He doesn't play with 'balls' on clay the way I didn't play with 'balls' when I played on grass." SI probably just told Roger, "Mats said you don't have balls" just to get a reaction. Of course Federer didn't react very well.
I agree. Mats didn't mean it in a insulting manner. He spoke the truth but was pretty nice about it and even said that HE himself didn't play with balls at wimbledon. here is the link to the video if anyone is interested. http://matswilander.com/media/video/FrenchMensFinal.wmv
What a great match...I must've been holding my breath throughout the 2nd and 3rd sets. Pretty tough win for Federer. I think Nadal has definitely proven himself as an all-court player. Here's to seeing many more great matches between these two guys.
I think Nadal will get a grass title here in the next few years. He still looks a little 'out of whack' out there -- Fed's backhand slices were befuddling him which is odd in men's tennis. Nadal is only 20 though so he will figure Fed out on the grass.
At first the slices were causing Federer to be on the defense but the toll of having to bend down so low to get to the ball wrecked nadal's legs. The slices didn't have the same effect at the French where the ball would sit up higher. Nice moment during the ceremony.
Federer looked pretty dominating and he wasn't even at his best for the whole match.(The wind was whipping pretty good so it's hard to keep that consistency)I will say this though...Nadal has surprised me with his performance on the grass.Rafa had a fairly easy draw.That said,I thought he'd have more of a problem with an over the hill Agassi.This looks to be one of those classic rivalries.Can you believe Roger is only 24?..and Nadal only 20?Like he said today,Roger wants many more titles and doesn't plan on retiring early like the great one.We're watching history.
What is wrong w/ Safin, other than his psychological problems? I wonder how Federer would fare against the Safin that dismantled Sampras at the USO. I like JHH, but I'm glad Mauresmo won another Grand Slam title. It would be nice to see Mauresmo take over where Navratilova left off. Are there any other openly gay/lesbian players on the tour? Sharapova's game and on-court demeanor reminds me of another great champion: Monica Seles.
I'm happy that Federer won, he is the best tennis player there is, Nadal is good and a good talent, however IMHO Federer is better.
I think we saw what Safin can do when he is on his game when he beat Federer at the Australian Open in '05. It's such a shame that both injury and his mental state derail Safin so much because he is another player who can beat Federer, such a good player and i hope he can make a run at the US Open. As for Federer/Nadal, i love that we have a classic rivalry unfolding right infront of us, Federer was just a bit too good in the final but Rafa is definately a player who can finally give Federer a real challenge. I think a longer grass season is needed for the ATP because it is only fair that tournaments be played each surface at a fair ratio. I think a 50% hardcourt, 25% clay, 20% grass, 5% carpet/indoor etc is fair. The Clay season runs too long IMO and allows for players like Nadal to run up their streaks in two yrs while it takes Federer almost 4 yrs to get to the same streak on grass. . Looking forward to the US Open and another Re-match on a neutral surface
Agreed on the length of the clay court season. Grass courts are much more difficult/expensive to maintain than any other types of surfaces so don't hold your breath that grass court tournaments will grow beyond the handful (actually less than 5) we currently have. With his run all the way to this year's Wimbledon Final, Nadal has once again proven to be a worthy opponent of Federer. However, the kid has yet shown he can win the big ones beyond dirt, just like many other Spaniards. It won't surprise me if he crashes out of the US Open in the early rounds due to some injuries incurred by his playing style.
Safin's definitely a puzzle. He may very well be the most physically gifted player on tour. At 6'4" 200 lbs, he's very strong yet incredibly mobile. He capable of generating Roddick-like power, and at the same time play a controlled enough game to place his shots and use sick angles the way Federer does. It really sucks to see so much physical talent marred by a volatile temper and inconsistent mental fortitude.
He's in it for the poontang. He wins one big tournament and then slacks off the rest of the year sometimes taking the entire year off to enjoy his fame. His win at the australian open is running out of gas so that's why you've seen him playing tournaments lately. Once he gets his big win he'll sit back again and enjoy the fruits of his reward.
