Wimbledon 2008 Final

Everywhere I go on the tennis www these days it slaps me in the face:

"Best match of all time", "Epic"....blah, blah, blah....

John Wertheim, trying to squeeze out a few $$$ for his retirement, has written a book about Wimbledon 2008 final and tennis.com are having a two week palaver series of articles ( btw I stopped reading tennis.com ages ago...so full of agenda it has become).

Then there is even a mini film on Wimbledon website I stumbled on trying to find order of play for tomorrow...

I admit, I have not seen the match and I doubt I ever will, even when one day a DVD collection of Best of Federer comes out.

Having existed on several forums over the years, I have inevitably come across a few short clips and read enough  to want to ask you all here WHY?

Why and how can a match in which  the player who symbolises tennis and all that is great about it, loses, be considered "best"?
Especially when the player who beats him stands for many negatives.

What was so good about it?

Is it the fact it was played in darkness when they couldn't even see the ball properly?
Is that what media want to celebrate, the moment of tennis darkness?

To me it's a morbid choice and as far as I am concerned  another effort to prop up Nadal as some kind of tennis icon and possibly signal their intention of further favouring him in his quest to win most slams.

I agree it was not a great match. It's a match that will certainly be remembered by the Nadal fans. But it was a very day like often those which have both sunshine and rain.

we all know fed struggled to play his best tennis that year but more importantly could not find his proper game before the rain break due to very windy conds. Not obvious on TV but I was just a mile from centre court so I could see the effect of it on the trees. The wind eventually died off after the second rain break but by that time, there was little time left for Federer to finish the match in day light. A typical case where slow play from Nadal prevented teh match to be finish in normal conditions.

Nadal dragged on and forced teh match to be finish in very dark conditions where of course the player with bigger margins has a decisive advantage.

No...the best ever hasn't got Nadal involved in it.

The best ever between Nadal and Federer is AO2017! Peak Nadal v old Federer! Undeniably much better quality tennis.

Tenez wrote:I agree it was not a great match. It's a match that will certainly be remembered by the Nadal fans. But it was a very day like often those which have both sunshine and rain.

we all know fed struggled to play his best tennis that year but more importantly could not find his proper game before the rain break due to very windy conds. Not obvious on TV but I was just a mile from centre court so I could see the effect of it on the trees. The wind eventually died off after the second rain break but by that time, there was little time left for Federer to finish the match in day light. A typical case where slow play from Nadal prevented teh match to be finish in normal conditions.

Nadal dragged on and forced teh match to be finish in very dark conditions where of course the player with bigger margins has a decisive advantage.

No...the best ever hasn't got Nadal involved in it.

The best ever between Nadal and Federer is AO2017! Peak Nadal v old Federer! Undeniably much better quality tennis.

It's gotta be!

That match was simply majestic. My heart still races when I remember the last set.

It's the stupid journalists that are creating the myth like parrots.

'A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth." Goebels

Think there are many reasons why this match is often rated the best between the two. I think the quality yes not quite other encounters they've had. 

1) The dramatic nature of the contest. When you think to the TB in the 4th which pundits and fans alike automatically remember the passing FH Nadal hit followed by that unreal BH Federer pulled to stay in it. 

2) The players standing in the game. I think as time has gone by and Federer and Nadal have added to their legacy has further enhancing the legacy of the match, so the match gets further acclaim based on the achievements after that match. 

3) Because it's Wimbledon. It will always be the event in which a greatest match will be associated. First it was Borg/McEnroe and now its Nadal/Federer.

I think Wimbledon 2008 and Australian Open 2017 will for me be key moments in their rivalry and careers, mainly because:

Nadal didn't go on to dominate as many expected following winning Wimbledon and becoming World No.1 

Federer experienced a renaissance that no-one expected that tipped the rivalry back slightly more in Federer's favour and add more life to one what was seemingly dead.

I can see the drama as being one reason...but it is the only one. You have Drama and great tennis in quite a few other matches too.

it was a great match, nadal would have won in traights had it not been for the rain

Oz 2009 or Rome 2006 were their best matches. Fed was far from his best at Wim 08 and Nadal was not great in Oz 17.

naxroy wrote:it was a great match, nadal would have won in traights had it not been for the rain

Possible. Break in momentum allows to regroup, rethink, and get some composure.

But had it not been for the the darkness, Fed possibly would have won in 5. Environmental factors effect different players differently based on their playing style. Nadal's playing style allows him bigger margins and higher consistency. Fed plays with smaller margins and hence such factors like darkness affect him more.

Some inaccurate Hawk-eye tech in those time also went in Nadal's favor on crucial points. HE is way more accurate now.

Tenez wrote:I can see the drama as being one reason...but it is the only one. You have Drama and great tennis in quite a few other matches too.

Which is why I am so surprised the Wimbledon Final 2009 gets so overlooked, but then Roddick isn't the marquee name TV stations or media would like to champion. That final was proper clutch tennis. 

How would you sell tennis to the masses. Federer v Nadal in a 5 setter or Federer v Roddick in a 5 setter?

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:I can see the drama as being one reason...but it is the only one. You have Drama and great tennis in quite a few other matches too.

Which is why I am so surprised the Wimbledon Final 2009 gets so overlooked, but then Roddick isn't the marquee name TV stations or media would like to champion. That final was proper clutch tennis. 

How would you sell tennis to the masses. Federer v Nadal in a 5 setter or Federer v Roddick in a 5 setter?

I see your point but to be fair Roddick never had quite stellar game. Good serve for sure but his shots were not very loose. I could not see much talent in him. And that's the problem of this era. All finals over the last 12 years or so had a roadrunner in it or in that exception Roddick.

I wish we had had more federer v Nalbandian v Coria, v Safin...etc finals. unfortunately those guys gave up early in their career. They had the shots but then either down to injuries or simply not wanting to work as hard never were able to pass the RR barrage.

So best finals after that, tennis wise, had to be between Federer, Stan and Djoko.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:I can see the drama as being one reason...but it is the only one. You have Drama and great tennis in quite a few other matches too.

Which is why I am so surprised the Wimbledon Final 2009 gets so overlooked, but then Roddick isn't the marquee name TV stations or media would like to champion. That final was proper clutch tennis. 

How would you sell tennis to the masses. Federer v Nadal in a 5 setter or Federer v Roddick in a 5 setter?

I see your point but to be fair Roddick never had quite stellar game. Good serve for sure but his shots were not very loose. I could not see much talent in him. And that's the problem of this era. All finals over the last 12 years or so had a roadrunner in it or in that exception Roddick.

I wish we had had more federer v Nalbandian v Coria, v Safin...etc finals. unfortunately those guys gave up early in their career. They had the shots but then either down to injuries or simply not wanting to work as hard never were able to pass the RR barrage.

So best finals after that, tennis wise,  had to be between Federer, Stan and Djoko.

He didn't have a stellar game granted, but in the match it all clicked and for me was his best performance. His volleying was clean and even from the back of the court really let rip on his FH. Even with all of that he still lost. 

He pushed Federer in way that wasn't so physically orientated in where yes Roddick served a clinic that day, but tidied up well with the returns Federer got back. Even in the 5th I couldn't call it. 

Nalbandian was unlucky with injuries similarly with Hewitt and Safin and Davydenko never had it between the ears. What is interesting is how quick the game passed Nalbandian and Hewitt by given by the time they were relatively injury and pain free, the tour had left them behind. Now we are seeing with Murray and Djokovic somewhat of a struggle, however what is intriguing is that we have Del Potro who has had massive injury lay offs and yet now a top 10er. Shows that the tour hasn't evolved to that extent.

This W09 final was one where I thought Federer was very nervous and played like he had everything to lose...which is a kind of true considering his record v Roddick.

Roddick has a slam and Nalbandian has not. In that respect I think Roddick should not complain. Nalby was a much tougher opponent to Federer than Roddick was and had that USO semi been in Argentina instead of NY, Nalby would have won it.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:I can see the drama as being one reason...but it is the only one. You have Drama and great tennis in quite a few other matches too.

Which is why I am so surprised the Wimbledon Final 2009 gets so overlooked, but then Roddick isn't the marquee name TV stations or media would like to champion. That final was proper clutch tennis. 

How would you sell tennis to the masses. Federer v Nadal in a 5 setter or Federer v Roddick in a 5 setter?

I see your point but to be fair Roddick never had quite stellar game. Good serve for sure but his shots were not very loose. I could not see much talent in him. And that's the problem of this era. All finals over the last 12 years or so had a roadrunner in it or in that exception Roddick.

I wish we had had more federer v Nalbandian v Coria, v Safin...etc finals. unfortunately those guys gave up early in their career. They had the shots but then either down to injuries or simply not wanting to work as hard never were able to pass the RR barrage.

So best finals after that, tennis wise,  had to be between Federer, Stan and Djoko.

Good point.

The fact they gave up their careers and Fed is more or less number one at 37 again shows how amazing he is.

Also, I don't think we'll have another RR era like this.
Tennis in its nature will work itself out, it's too much of a creative sport to die. It will just need a period of detox.

I am still hoping Shapo will wake up and make something out of that talent.
Before he turned up, I never thought the big racquets+spin-loving strings could provide any more excitement.
Watching some great juniors in our club, I can see that once they master ballstriking, they all want to have fun.

There was nerves for sure. Given the record amount of Slams was on the line with legends in the box, but also because Roddick played out of his skin.

That's the worst if to be honest. If it was in Argentina. He did beat a home country player at the AO that year. Nalby would've won a lot more had he been a bit more emotionally stable and certainly healthy.