Federer, Nadal and Wimbledon
World's best players put on a show on Wimbledon's biggest stage
Some commentators believe that tennis needs a dominant American to succeed in popularity. Federer and Nadal proved them wrong in a Wimbledon final for the ages
Heard some television commentators yapping recently about the lack of TV ratings for the Wimbledon final. They said it was because it lacked an American presence, that if Andy Roddick had made it all the way to the final dance that the ratings would’ve skyrocketed.
These commentators were, of course, American, and were probably speaking to their own personal experience with something (tennis) that they had little knowledge of.
For those who don’t follow the sport, Roger Federed and Rafael Nadal, arguably the two best players on the planet right now, squared off in the third straight Wimbledon final. Federer had won four titles in a row and fell short of the grand slam title (all four majors in one season) by the French, which Nadal stole from him for the third year in a row.
Nadal has won the French Open three years running and is just 21 years old. He is energetic and powerful with his ground-strokes and can run down anything within a one-mile radius. He has been a source of frustration for Federer on clay, where he seems to flourish and dominate more than on any other surface.
So yes, there was plenty of history entering this Wimbledon final. Federer and Nadal cruised through the preceding rounds - as most thought they would - despite hellish rain delays.
The tennis itself was worthy of the enormity of the hype surrounding the match, as Nadal stretched Federer as far as he could go before succumbing to the Swede in the fifth and final grueling set. Federer took the last set, 6-2, and collapsed in triumph before the sell-out Wimbledon crowd. Federer told the masses afterward that he was tearing up before the end of the match and had to pull himself together to finish it out.
Nadal was a worthy opponent on his second-favorite surface, and for many viewers, Federer’s victory came as a surprise. Nadal matched Federer’s every move and seemingly beat him at his own game for the majority of the match. Federer’s two winning sets both came in tiebreakers while Nadal eased through his two wins, and Nadal battled to a couple of break points in the fifth game of the fifth set (with the games tied at 2-2) before Federer kicked it into high gear and won the next four games.
It was high drama and great television. Nadal is a lightning rod of a tennis player, a superstar on the court and a dynamic kid off of it. Federer is the ideal counterpart: the icy, stoic, winning machine that acts exactly the same with a five-set win or a five-set loss - unless, of course, he’s playing for his fifth consecutive Wimbledon title.
Viewers got to see a fiery Federer in this final match, a foreign face to the tennis junkies that have watched him over the years.
But paired with Nadal’s perky style of play and the duo’s well-publicized history on the court, this Wimbledon final was one for the ages.
So all of those commentators and analysts who think that this match needed an American should remember what they watched, and realize that these are two of the best players to ever play the game, and they just met on tennis’ biggest stage for the sports’ biggest prize.
That might be incentive enough to turn on the television.
