Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
I don’t normally delve into sporting matters on these pages, but I can’t not mention the history that has just been made this afternoon, only a couple of miles away from my own house. Today’s Wimbledon men’s final was a mammoth but weirdly cagey affair — certainly not as explosive as last year’s classic — between two fighters stubbornly defending their turf at all costs, before a tense crowd that included the disparate likes of Henry Kissinger, Russell Crowe and Woody Allen. (See, we’re still about the movies here.)
But when — in the 30th game of the fifth set, a record statistic in itself — Andy Roddick finally handed Roger Federer his sixth Wimbledon title with a wayward, exhausted shot, the dramatics of the match were immediately swamped by its larger significance. One man. 15 Grand Slam singles titles. That’s not a record that’s getting broken for a good long while. (Longer still, if the man to do so isn’t named Rafael Nadal.)
It’s not often one can bear witness to a fully-formed legend in the present tense — much less one who has yet to turn 30. Humbling. Hats off.
35 responses so far
1 7-05-2009 at 12:48 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Nobody writes about sport like the Brits.
2 7-05-2009 at 1:00 pm
j said...
I hate Federer more than any other athlete not named Kobe Bryant. Eh, I’m not that much more impressed with first than tied for first for men. I might be impressed (though still hateful) if he got more than 6th-most overall Slam titles.
3 7-05-2009 at 1:11 pm
Jonathan Spuij said...
Supremely gifted and a surely brilliant sportsman. Fun thing is, every year I go to Switzerland around christmas and the retrospect of the sportsyear only features him. It’s the only winner they’ve got, aside from the casual Cancellara victory.
4 7-05-2009 at 1:22 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Kris: Yeah, it is indeed a proud tradition. My own meagre contribution. ;)
J: Christ, some people are hard to please. Can’t see what there is to hate about someone who is both gifted and a gentleman, but each to their own. But belittling his record? That’s stretching.
5 7-05-2009 at 1:43 pm
red_wine said...
I absolutely love the man in every possible way. The 2nd set tie-break almost had me die of cardiac arrest. Extremely happy for him. It was courage more than anything else that did it today according to me.
6 7-05-2009 at 1:43 pm
j said...
I would say it’s less belittling and more diminishing, the former being insulting, the latter being not grandly impressed because some people have over 20 singles Slam titles.
7 7-05-2009 at 1:57 pm
Sound Designer Dan said...
I doubt Nadal will ever break Federer’s record even though he is the only player who is truly better. Nadal’s just too intense and his body is already breaking down from all the power that shoots through his forearms.
8 7-05-2009 at 2:05 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Dan: I tend to agree, though I do love Nadal. He’s been my favorite player since way before he won his first French, but — aside from on clay — he doesn’t have Federer’s knack for keeping games clipped.
Red Wine: Tell me about it — that tiebreak was a thing of beauty. I wish the rest of the match had had that level of dialogue between the two players.
9 7-05-2009 at 2:13 pm
red_wine said...
Though I respect Nadal and what he has done, I just have murderous hatred for him due to the number of times he has beaten Federer.
About today’s match, though I adore Federer, Roddick ever-so-slightly played better. Federer actually lucked out, but I’ll take that anyways, he’ll take that anyways, he hung in there, a win is a win.
10 7-05-2009 at 2:28 pm
RichardA said...
Kudos to both players. What a game. Match Point!
11 7-05-2009 at 6:01 pm
Adrianna said...
What a tense game, they both played so well! I love Roger Federer, but I really respected the great play Roddick displayed throughout the tournament. Federer has such a complete game, and as well as being beautiful to watch, has such a knowledge (and respect) of the game, the other players, and the history of the game. It was great to see Federer, Sampras, Laver, and Bjorg all together.
It will be hard to beat that record because unexpected injuries can be so prevalent in the game.
The most Grand Slams won records are held on the women’s side, though: Margaret Court Smith -24; Steffi Graff -22; Navratilova & Evert, both 18, etc. I wonder if anyone will ever beat those.
12 7-05-2009 at 8:43 pm
Algoresnuts said...
Roger Federer is the greatest of all time. And i’ve seen ‘em all.
13 7-05-2009 at 8:46 pm
Algoresnuts said...
J, are you retarded? No man in tennis history had more than 14 slams. Sampras held the record with 14 Grand Slam titles. Federer broke that record with 15. In the women’s game there are individuals, I think, who have 20 titles or more. But the men’s game is an entirely different game; it is more fierce, more competitive, and fiercely tougher. You wouldn’t compare the NBA to the WNBA, would you?
14 7-05-2009 at 8:46 pm
Ash said...
I hate Roger Federer and his ridiculously tacky monogrammed Nike crap and stupid NetJet commercials.
Yeah, he’s the greatest. Still loathe him.
15 7-05-2009 at 8:49 pm
Algoresnuts said...
I’ll put it this way: If Federer played on the women’s tour, at this point, he would have 70 grand slam titles. DO NOT COMPARE THE WOMEN TO THE MEN IN SPORTS! GROW A BRAIN, J!
16 7-05-2009 at 8:50 pm
Algoresnuts said...
People tend to loathe greatness. Jealousy? I think so.
17 7-05-2009 at 8:51 pm
Davidraider88 said...
It was sad to see Andy Roddick look so heartbroken after the match. You know he really wanted it, and the way he played and how close he came to winning must have magnified his reaction.
18 7-05-2009 at 8:53 pm
Frank Lee said...
When Andy Roddick choked away the second set in the tie-break, I became very depressed because that is exactly how I play tennis: I put myself in a position to beat a more talented player, and then I hand the match back to them. Come to think of it, that’s how I live life. Very, very depressing.
19 7-05-2009 at 10:31 pm
Eunice said...
Impressive. He’s earned a good, long vacation with the back-to-back French Open and Wimbledon wins. Good for him. :)
20 7-05-2009 at 11:18 pm
tdr said...
It’s really Roger’s year. He got married, expecting a kid, finally won Roland Garros, reclaimed his Wimbledon title, broke the record for most Grand Slam titles. And on top of that with this win he’s back at number 1 in the ranks.
Congratulations, Roger!
21 7-06-2009 at 12:06 am
jackal said...
i remembre when he cried in australia.
nadal is better.
22 7-06-2009 at 3:20 am
AdamL said...
Was gutted for Roddick. Am convinced there’s no way Federer would have come out and served to stay in the match NINE times like Roddick did. Look at how Federer bottled it when simply serving to stay in the 1st set. Serving to stay in the match successfully 9 times is astonishing. If Roddick had served first in the decider I’m certain he’d have won. Take nothing away from Federer who is clearly terrific, but I was just gutted for Roddick and I can’t believe the entire crowdweren’t pulling for the underdog.
And actually I’m we’re honest Federer is a bit of a poncy tw@t – that marching band jacket he wore afterwards with the gold ’15′ sticthed into the back is ponciness and arrogance personified, yet somehow he has duped people into thinking he is modest and humble.
And as for the greatest of all time nonsense, Laver won the grand slam in one year, took 5 years off from majors, then when he competed in them again won the grand slam in a year again! On that evidence he’d have probably won all 20 he missed, giving him 31 total!
23 7-06-2009 at 3:25 am
AdamL said...
Oh and I forgot to say that Roddick was also v unlucky due to…
Federer shanking one off the frame to set up the match point.
And Federer challenged about 10 times in the match, only one of which was correct compared to Roddick’s 2 challenges – clearly the system isn’t there for gamesmanship challenges, but Fededer seems to think that’s what it’s for. No Roger, that’s cheating.
And he unquestionably came out on the right side of the “in by half a milimetre” challenges and had the majority of the net cords.
For those that didn’t have to listen to the BBC’s sycophantic commentary, you are very lucky. Henman and Castle were so in love with Federer it was embarrassing.
24 7-06-2009 at 3:38 am
red_wine said...
AdamL, is it Federer’s fault that Laver didn’t play for 5 years? And the games are really different, its almost completely different what they played in the 60′s to what they play now. Laver himself said, the game is much more fierce, much more competitive and much more strenuous on the body now than it was previously.
About yesterday’s match, Federer won it fair and square. How do the challenges even matter. You are supposed to be a good player, not a predictor. There was nothing in the least wrong with his victory yesterday. It was just that Roddick choked at some important moments.
About him being the greatest ever, all the greats without exception call him so, so I suppose they would know.
25 7-06-2009 at 6:02 am
The Dude said...
I considered him one of the all-time greats long before this record-breaking title. I missed the match (which sucks, considering how epic it turned out to be), but it’s great to see not only Federer getting in the record books, but also seeing Roddick really show great strength in this comeback-of-sorts.
In other sports news…the Phillies swept the Mets. Woohoo!
26 7-06-2009 at 8:14 am
adelutza said...
The match was terrific and finally Federer won because that’s what great champions do : they win even if they’re not having their greatest day of all. I liked Roddick too, but in sports someone has to loose. And Federer will loose someday too ( he already does consistently with Nadal ) so what’s the problem?
But I completely disagree that women’s competitions have to be tossed aside. While I’m not comparing them , why is it less worthy if a woman wins 20 slam titles than it is for men? Women compete against women, men compete against men .
Looks like even in sports women are less deserving, not just movies.
27 7-06-2009 at 8:32 am
Guy Lodge said...
“Looks like even in sports women are less deserving, not just movies.”
Uh, I’m sure that’s not what you meant to say.
Personally, I think it’s time for women to start playing best-of-5-set matches. Many of the players are now so physically strong that I think they’re capable of the bigger test. Sorry to say it, but for me, a three-set women’s match lacks the essential story dynamic of a men’s five-setter.
28 7-06-2009 at 9:07 am
red_wine said...
Guy, the men also always play best of 3 matches. Its only in the grand-slams that they have best of 5 matches. 4 tournaments in a year, that’s it.
And 3 set women’s matches can be as dramatic as they come. In 2005, the women’s final went on for longer than the men’s final which was a thoroughly uninspiring 1 sided drubbing of Roddick by Federer. Whereas the woman’s match was an epic between Venus Williams and Davenport, both playing their best and raising tennis to new heights.
I should note that most of Federer’s 15 grand slam victories have been so thoroughly one-sided, he all but romped over his opponent. He won the 2004 US Open 6-0, 7-6, 6-0 over Hewitt. More sets do not guarantee better tennis, both players should play well.
And about the women upgrading to 5, I shouldn’t say this but we should make a concession that they aren’t as physically powerful as the men. It would be asking a lot, as they would have to change their entire psychology, their training routines, plus the WTA Tour and all the tournaments themselves would have to change. It has been proposed but it just doesn’t seem feasible. I enjoy the women’s game just as it is.
29 7-06-2009 at 9:12 am
Guy Lodge said...
I did mean in a Grand Slam context, of course. And I do still enjoy watching women’s tennis, though for me the game has lost some competitive lustre since Justine Henin retired.
I just prefer the arc of a best-of-5 match.
30 7-06-2009 at 9:18 am
red_wine said...
“for me the game has lost some competitive lustre since Justine Henin retired. ”
I will concede that much. Safina as the No.1 just doesn’t do anything for me. You seem to see a new player in the Top 10 every week. Woman’s tennis is clearly not at its best right now but I have moderately high hopes for the rest of the season.
31 7-06-2009 at 9:38 am
the world said...
Nadal is overrated. He is very good, but just a flash in the pan in this era. His body won’t hold up, he’ll be lucky to win half the slams that Federer does. All the talk about Nadal being the next GOAT makes me sick.
32 7-06-2009 at 9:41 am
THE Diego Ortiz said...
Ric Flair has more championships.
33 7-06-2009 at 9:47 am
adelutza said...
Guy what I wanted to say is that women are less appreciated, of course.
Also, they play fewer sets but they are payed less as well.
And I bet that either of the Williams sisters could beat quite a few men out there.
34 7-06-2009 at 10:59 am
Marshall1 said...
I absolutely worship Roger Federer. Because he’s a very flawed human being. Think of him as this: a graceful champion+arrogant dork/nerd+fierce competitor+dreamer chasing history….that’s why he’s so fascinating as a person and as an athelete. Yes, he can be kind of an ass to atheletes, but he could be very generous to non-athletes. He’s a flawed human being, and so NOT one-dimensional (unlike Rafa Nadal, I think)….someone please start writing a script about him….lol
35 7-06-2009 at 4:05 pm
Ryan said...
I love that there’s a tennis/Federer post in this blog. In fact quite a few of the non-tennis blogs I read have mentioned Federer and his historic win.
As a big Federer fan, the past month or so has just been glorious and in fact very dream-like. I mean just a few months ago he couldn’t win a title to save his life and now he’s won three: one against Nadal on clay, one for his career Grand Slam, and another to break the all-time record *and* reclaim his number 1 ranking. Wow.
And can’t talk about that final without offering hearty congratulations and condolences to Andy Roddick. My God did he fight hard. I gained a lot of respect for him yesterday.