If baseball doesn't float your boat, then you've reached a sluggish point in the sports calendar. With the conclusion of the NBA Finals earlier this week, the MLB is the only one of the four major sports leagues in session. NFL teams won't hit training camp for another month, and at least for the forseeable future, you can't even pay any attention to golf, as Tiger Woods' season-ending knee injury has made the sport virtually irrelevant.
That said, how about a little tennis, anyone?
Wimbledon kicks off Monday, and on the men's side the prohibitive favorite is, of course, No. 1 Roger Federer. He's won a whopping 59 consecutive matches on grass and five straight Wimbledon crowns. If Federer can pull off another win at the All-England Club this year, he would become the first man since 1886 -- 1886! -- to win 6 consecutive Wimbledons.
But perhaps for the first time in the last few years, Federer is no shoo-in to win Wimbledon, and there's nothing like a vulernable legend to bring some suspense into a tournament. Federer's troubles this year have been well-documented; he's captured just two of the 10 tournaments in which he has participated, won only three matches against top-1o players, and most importantly, posted an 0-2 mark in major championships.
There are legitimate reasons for Federer's struggles in 2008. He battled an early-season case of mono that apparently sapped him of energy during the Australian Open, where he failed to reach the final of a major for the first time since 2005. By the time he recovered, he was battling through a clay-court schedule that has always been troublesome for him.
But with Federer now on the wrong side of 26, you have to wonder whether or not his best years are behind him, as has so often been the case for tennis' greats. Not including Federer, there are five players who played their entire careers in the Open era (after 1968) and who have won at least eight Grand Slam singles titles: Sampras, Borg, Connors, Lendl, and Agassi. Of the 49 Grand Slams that group has combined to win, only 19 have come after their 26th birthdays.
But it isn't just time that's against Federer's side. Unlike golf, where there is nobody within 10 clublengths of Tiger Woods' stratosphere, Federer has actual competition challenging him, namely No. 2 seed Rafael Nadal. The Spainiard is 3-0 against Federer this year -- all on clay surfaces -- with the latest victory coming in a dominant 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 win in the French Open final on June 8. It was not only Federer's worst loss in 173 career Grand Slam matches, but the worst loss by any No. 1 player EVER in a major final.
The knock on Nadal is that he is strictly a clay-court specialist -- he's never won a major played on any other surface. But it seems Nadal is closer to beating Federer on grass than Federer is to beating Nadal on clay. On Sunday, Nadal claimed his first career grass-court title, beating Djokovic in straight sets in the finals of the Queen's Club, a tournament Federer sat out.
Then there's last year's Wimbledon final, a classic that ranks amongst the most thriling matches ever played at the All-England Club. Nadal challenged Federer to a a 3-hour, 45-minute duel, becoming the first man to ever push Federer to a fifth set in a Grand Slam final. The Swiss star prevailed, but it was clear Nadal had significantly closed the gap on grass.
You'll hardly have to wait for a potential Federer-Nadal showdown to see someone challenge Roger. He could have to contend with France's Gael Monfils, who took a set from Federer in the semifinals of the French Open, in the third round and former Wimbledon champ Lleyton Hewitt in the fourth. In all, there are five former Grand Slam winners that are on Federer's side of the draw, the most prominant of whom is third-seeded Novak Djokovic. The Serbian sensation won his first Grand Slam at Australia in January, when he dispatched a mono-plagued Federer in the semis before taking the title match over Jo-Wilified Tsonga.
All told, it promises to be an exciting two weeks in England. Even this baseball fan will be watching.
2 comments:
You know, I've always thought about why a clay player's dominance doesn't at all translate to other surfaces. Look at Gustavo Kuerten. One of the best clay players ever, but couldn't do much anywhere else.
I, for one, don't think this is the end for Federer. He is so well-conditioned and smart about his body. Where do you think he stands on the best-ever list? I think, talent-wise, that he's no. 1, or if not no. 1, then definitely in the discussion.
Great stuff. Keep writing!
First off, it's nice to see tennis getting some love early on in your blog (post #2, no less).
But as for the matter at hand, let me say that as soon as Nadal embarrassed Federer on clay in France this year I immediately called Nadal over Federer in this year's grass final.
First off, while Federer's dominance has been undeniable over the past four years, it strikes me that he has plateaued, albeit well above almost every other player on tour. That said, Nadal has been trending upward at an astounding rate (note that while Nadal has put more and more distance between Federer in French Open finals, he's been closing the gap in Wimbledon finals, not to mention the Spaniard's first grass title this season).
I firmly believe that if Nadal's injured knee hadn't been bothering him as much as it did(he took an injury timeout in the fifth set of last year's final, if memory serves), the 2007 Wimbledon title would have been his. And lest we forget, Nadal made a run to the final two years ago while everyone had been convinced that his only surface was clay, even taking a set of Federer after the Swiss cruised in straight sets in all the other rounds.
The point is that I think Nadal has more than enough talent to beat Federer on grass. Granted that this is Federer's favorite and most dominant surface (not to mention the ever-important champion's edge that he always has on his side), dare I say that Nadal might actually be in Federer's head. Especially after the pounding he suffered at Nadal's hands at Roland Garros this year.
And Ross, for what it's worth, Bjorn Borg won 11 majors during his career, 6 in the French and 5 at Wimbledon. An anomaly? Perhaps, but I think that it's more than within Nadal's ability to do the same.
Post a Comment