TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, OR TRIUMPH OF SKILL?
WHEN FOOTBALL WAS USURPED AS THE BEAUTIFUL GAME.
A few people have been talking about the match yesterday (or last
night) as a battle of wills. He who wanted it most prevailed, they say.
But did Nadal really want it more than Federer? If Roger didn’t want it
quite so bad, how did he summon the strength to come back from two sets
down against the most imposing player on the planet?
Where Rafa has worn all other opponents down with his brutal strength and diehard persistence, Federer withstood. Just. And then, at match point down in the fourth set tie break, when put under more pressure than most can fathom, and driven deep to his weaker backhand side, Federer punched a single-hander down the line to save the match and set up a deciding set. A triumph of the will? Really?
For sure, the will plays a part - a big one in fact - but to talk about yesterday’s final as an exercise of the mind hardly does it justice. To me, there was more to it than that. What became more and more clear as things progressed was that this was not a matter of will against will - any two players can serve up one of those, provided they’re of a similar standard - but rather a celebration of raw ability and grace. The dire commentator Andrew Castle had a go at finally saying something other than, “Just look at Rafa’s muscles” when he piped up with, “This is not about tennis anymore”, as if skill had ceased to play a part. What rubbish. This was tennis at its very purest, and it produced impossible moment after impossible moment. Moments like Federer’s backhand when all seemed lost; moments of sheer beauty, not just of the will, but of the will and skill combined.
The thing is, Nadal had more, and to do that against Roger Federer makes him a deserving - and remarkable - champion.
For sure, the will plays a part - a big one in fact - but to talk about yesterday’s final as an exercise of the mind hardly does it justice. To me, there was more to it than that. What became more and more clear as things progressed was that this was not a matter of will against will - any two players can serve up one of those, provided they’re of a similar standard - but rather a celebration of raw ability and grace. The dire commentator Andrew Castle had a go at finally saying something other than, “Just look at Rafa’s muscles” when he piped up with, “This is not about tennis anymore”, as if skill had ceased to play a part. What rubbish. This was tennis at its very purest, and it produced impossible moment after impossible moment. Moments like Federer’s backhand when all seemed lost; moments of sheer beauty, not just of the will, but of the will and skill combined.
The thing is, Nadal had more, and to do that against Roger Federer makes him a deserving - and remarkable - champion.
Thank you very muchas. I think i play very well and am very happy with how i play. no? Ees unbelievable.
Ah, i see Rafa reads your blog. That's cool. I think what Andrew meant, and i'd agree, was that it had got to boiling point. These two players couldn't get any better. The game doesn't get any better; and so the only thing left that separates those two players was what was going on in their heads.
But in the end, the best man won. I'd say Roger has improved his game to perfection. But Rafa has not perfect his yet. Just comparing their serves is testament to what needs improving. Nadal 6 aces, Federer 25!!!!!! Imagine what Nadal could have done with 19 more aces.
And i'll leave you with won fact that is undeniably tennis at it's heart. Federer hit 60 winners, Rafa - 90!! and half the number of unforced errors. HALF. Rafa 27 - Federer 52.
The best man won. but Federer is still quite good. and we all love a bit of cardigan.
plus he complained:
"It's rough on me now, obviously, you know, to lose the biggest tournament in the world over maybe a bit of light," he said.
Nah, he wasn't really complaining. He was great in defeat. I just wanted to get across how little Castle and Henman contributed to the greatest final ever. If anything, they made it worse.
The thing that really annoys me is how Wimbledon is now nothing more than a hard court tournament played on grass. On the courts of 10 years ago Federer would have destroyed Nadal as easily as he was destroyed in the French Open final. Whatever happened to the quick, low bouncing grass courts where the serve-volleyer ruled?! Wimbledon is now just another base-line bashers tournament where the hardest hitting and fittest players will prevail - two qualities to which Nadal currently has no peer...
So Nadal is unequaled on clay. And has no peer on grass.
"Good. Then we're all agreed."