Does Wimbledon Win Make Nadal Worthy Of No. 1?

Messages are flooding the e-mail; text messages are jamming the cell phone.

From the States comes word that this Wimbledon final mattered, that Fed and Rafa have registered with the American sporting public.

Except the order must be changed – it is now Rafa and Roger.

John McEnroe said it in the moments after the match – Nadal is No. 1. I don’t challenge John’s opinion. Rather I only question how anyone can be No. 1 with minimal success on hard courts.

But that does not detract from a classic Wimbledon final. One that legions, including John, are calling the best ever played.

Now John can’t be objective, and other longtime observers claim it is in contention with 1980 Borg-McEnroe for the “best ever” claim. This match, though, will grow in statue with time. Our appreciation for two champions willing to dig so deep physically, willing to fight so hard for something, wanting something so badly that they defy any physical limitations, is immense.

Their effort through a wet afternoon and evening at Wimbledon was cause for adoration. They are simply the best rivalry in sport since Ali-Frazier, Leonard-Hearns, and Nicklaus-Watson. The champions fully respect each other and the vibe emanates to all.

What decided this Wimbledon?

BREAK POINTS: They have played 10 sets in the last two Wimbledon’s and Nadal has only had his serve broken four times. This is the man with few aces but increased power and terrific play behind his serve. In Sunday’s final, Nadal played five-plus sets and was broken just once. This final resembled the 2007 French in that Roger had chances but Rafa was better on those big points.

NO FIFTH SET TIEBREAK: Which was likely Rafa’s biggest advantage. Federer has won five sets from Rafa in the last two Wimbledons and four have been in tiebreaks. Roger can’t break Rafa and the fifth set requires a break. Without one, Roger was at the whim of Rafa’s return game.

MENTAL STRENGTH: Perhaps the French Open hangover reared its head in the fifth set. Perhaps in the critical moment when one break would decide the match, it was Rafa’s belief that he could handle Fed’s serve that was decisive. Perhaps Rafa had the belief this year that he lacked last year because of the French final.

DUELING DELAYS: No doubt the first rain delay, in the third set, benefited Federer. But before a 2004 final could be written again (Fed was 1-1, 2-4 in the third when rain struck. Upon a resumption of play, he dominated Andy Roddick), a fifth set delay struck. At the time, Nadal’s faith was wandering. No rain and I believe Federer wins 6 in a row. But the last delay steadied Rafa and he survived into the “overtime.”

What does this mean?
 
Federer told Johnny Mac in our NBC interview that “it hurts.” I had never heard Roger say those words. John told me that Roger was intensely emotional. The effort expended in such a match could take time off the career of a champion who will soon turn 27.
 
Nadal has a terrific chance to finally ascent to the #1 rank by year’s end. Huge question: can he hold up on hard courts? Can he play enough tennis, and succeed in the US Open, to sustain the momentum generated by this historic double?

We are so lucky to watch this duo. Tennis is blessed to have two so fine. (Novak Djokovic is not yet worthy of inclusion with this pair.) All we can hope is that they persevere to do this again and again and again.

One Response to “Does Wimbledon Win Make Nadal Worthy Of No. 1?”

  1. Steve Says:

    Ted,

    Great call for a great match. I had Giants –Dodgers tickets at PacBell so I had to watch the fifth set on DVD later in the day and avoid the buzz in the crowd. Yes, people in the stands were talking about the match.

    The fact that Nadal has won the French and Wimbledon in the same year has given me a new appreciation for Borg’s accomplishment of completing this sweep 3 years in a row; a very difficult feat.

    I also am reevaluating my rankings of best all time tennis players of the open tennis era as we get more match results. So here are my rankings.

    1. Federer – Great success on all surfaces. He is clearly the second best player in the world on clay in addition to being the best on all the other surfaces. Without a great clay court player like Nadal he probably would have a French title by now. Other players are not even close to Federer’s achievements even if he retired tomorrow.

    2. Borg - His ability to win 11 grand slams on clay and grass distinguishes him as # 2. We now know how hard this is to accomplish the French/Wimbledon double. Plus, Borg has 4 US Open final appearances in his “worst” major losing to Mac and Jimmy. He only played Australia once. You must assume he could have won several Australia Opens on grass to reach 13 or 14 Grand Slam titles if he so desired. I was never a fan of Borg but Nadal’s win puts Borg’s feat in perspective.

    3. Lendl/Sampras - Tie. The conventional wisdom is that Pete is #2 and Lendl never enters the discussion, maybe because of his lack of popularity. However, Lendl won 8 Grand Slams and was successful on all surfaces. We know he couldn’t win Wimbledon but was in the semis 7 times and then reached the finals twice before losing. Compare that to Pete’s poor record on clay only reaching the French semis one time and never the finals. Lendl actually was in more grand slam finals than Pete (19 vs. 18). Unfortunately for Pete’s place in history, I think his lack of clay court performance is a major detractor, especially since Lendl, Borg and Federer could play on all the surfaces.

    I will try to call you on KNBR next time you are on to discuss as I try to call in when I hear you are guest hosting.

    Steve (from Belmont)

Leave a Reply