Ted Robinson’s Matchpoints

Forty-eight hours later and I’m still in awe over Sunday. A 10-hour plane flight, with time to absorb nearly a dozen London newspapers along with nearly a hundred messages, many from those who would be classified as “casual” fans, has lent to the aura of this match as “the best ever.”

Now I hear today that SI will feature the match on its cover. When Pete Sampras won his record 13th Slam and 7th Wimbledon, we came home to see a muscled and tattooed Jason Giambi on the SI cover. Sampras was appalled. And now we know that tennis fell victim to the BALCO scam.

This was pure.

This was cojones grande, the only way to describe Rafa doing what he could not 12 months earlier, find a way to win the third set from Federer.

This was a champion falling in “brutal gladiatorial combat…but tumbling with valour” in the stirring words of London Daily Mail writer Paul Hayward. And how fine is that description.

In 24 hours back home, there is a talk-show buzz and coffee shop chat about this match that I have not witnessed in many years.

These two made tennis relevant. Now can it sustain what these two have created?

More from the Wimbledon cache:

* The disappointment over early exits by Andy Roddick and James Blake certainly went away. Stories always emerge; be it Andy Murray’s next step towards the top echelon, Marat Safin (up 35 places to 40), Rainer Schuettler (up 55 to 39) and Arnaud Clement (up 73 to 72) all made themselves relevant again, the two-week siege and double wins for the Sisters, Britain’s obsession over 14-year-old junior champ Laura Robson and her marvelously refreshing attitude over new fame, and the continuing presence of so many former champions at the AELTC.

* The roof can’t arrive fast enough. Sunday’s final ended about 10 minutes before a nightmare encounter would have occurred. The Club, understandably, wanted play to continue until 9:30-9:45 p.m.. They, like everyone, wanted a result. The money and disruption for Monday play, perhaps as little as two games, would have been wasteful. Yet, there was a point at which the players would have said, understandably, that a Championship, particularly from a match so superior, couldn’t be decided in darkness. Thankfully, we were spared the moment. A match for the ages had a proper ending in the dusk of Centre Court.

And traditionalists need not weep. Centre Court will still be open. Remember that grass needs light. The roof will only close once it rains, a 12-minute process. Thus, the courts will be still be covered for a short period. The benefit of the roof will be to guarantee play after a short stoppage and thus never again the drama of Sunday night.

* Major consensus in London was that the Williams Sisters success was due in part to the weakness of the WTA Tour. This is a debate for another time but the perception must be countered by the Tour.

* Start perhaps with Aggie Radwanska, the most impressive of the game’s young women. She has a Martina Hingis-like presence on the court that adds conviction to less-than-punishing shots. She simply doesn’t beat herself. Her lack of serve may hinder the hopes of a Wimbledon title, but the women’s game needs a player like Aggie to rise.

After all, this week’s rankings still feature Patty Schnyder, a career fourth-round player with one Slam semi to her credit, at 13 in the world. Lindsay Davenport won one round at Wimbledon and rose to 23. Tough to explain that to the sporting public.

* While we’re on that point, Serena passed Venus on the computer (reason 5,742 why I hate the concept). But my colleague, SI’s Jon Wertheim, poses a terrific question: has Venus’ career eclipsed Serena’s?

* Now we move to the hard courts and wonder whether Donald Young, John Isner (both of whom fell and are close to being out of the top 100) and Sam Querrey can make a move. Can Bethanie Mattek continue her momentum from the spring/summer and make a Robby Ginepri-like charge through the summer?

And can Rafa play well in the States, particularly the Open? Will his knees, the ones that Uncle Toni admits are so tender that the family wants Rafa to play LESS on the hard stuff, allow him to show New York his greatness?

And does Roger, whose performance at Wimbledon showed he is certainly not done, feel a little pressure to win Slams sooner rather than later?

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.

Without question, the most astounding moment of Friday at Wimbledon occurred at 11:30 AM, long before the first ball was struck with purpose on Centre Court.

Court 5 stands amongst the dozen “side courts” that ring Centre and Court 1. They are courts that allow players to feel like creatures in a zoo; spectators walk around the courts in constant conversation while player sometimes no more than 10 feet away are playing a significant match. It toughens some players and weeds out others.

But the proximity is special, achieved nowhere else.

And that’s what drew a throng to Court 5 in the morning. They ringed the court 6-deep and security personnel were preventing people from accessing some perimeter walkways.

The attraction: Rafa Nadal was hitting with John McEnroe.

Think about this: the morning of his Wimbledon semi, a young man born 2 years after Mac’s last Slam title asked the 49-year-old legend to share a warm up hit.

Needless to say, John was flattered. And the Wimbledon ticket holders were entertained.

The moment spoke volumes about Nadal, his respect for the game, even for a champion he never saw play. It speaks to Nadal’s assurance that he was winning to endure the large throng of fans without losing his focus on his match four hours hence. And it speaks to Rafa’s soul that he remembered it was a hit and that he takes pains not to show up a great player more than twice his age.

I watched about 5 minutes, mainly because my 6-3 standing allowed me to see over the crowd. More interesting to me was John’s post-mortem which was my privilege to receive in our NBC booth and some of which John shared on-air.

John repeatedly talked about Nadal’s backhand; the improvement in the stroke now allows him to hit winners from anywhere. And John astutely noted that the better backhand should allow Nadal to not expend energy in hitting run-around forehands.

I have seen John hit with many great players. Rarely have I seen him so impressed. Nothing that happened on the court Friday altered anyone’s view on Nadal. Nor should it with Roger Federer. They are both peaking and it’s a gem when two champions meet with both playing at peak levels. That is what awaits us Sunday.

One immutable truth emerged from Wednesday’s men’s quarters: the Big Two are so far apart from the rest of the field (Novak Djokovic’s objection is immediately raised) that the men’s game is a race within a race.

Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal obliterated their foes; Rafa taking down a top-10 player (Andy Murray) so thoroughly as to render his five-set comeback career changing win in the fourth round irrelevant.

Check out MediaZone Tennis | E-mail Ted at MediaZone’s Mailbag | Sign up for my RSS Feed

Federer and Nadal are ManU and Chelsea. They are the Yankees and Red Sox – in good years. They are the kings; Rafa owns clay, Roger owns hard courts and the grass is looking more like a tossup despite Roger’s five consecutive titles.

Mario Ancic had precedent in his corner as the last man to best Fed on grass. Three games into their quarter, it was clear that the 2002 result would never be repeated. The King served impeccably, dropping only 10 points. Ancic was destroyed in the first set, fought back after a two-hour rain delay to play with passion but never made a dent on Federer’s serve.

Tickets for the Nadal-Murray affair started at $3000 on the broker’s market. England was captivated by a marriage certified Monday night on Centre Court; Murray bonding with his fans for the first time.

Could the recently maturing Murray enter the “big time” with a resounding match in the biggest moment of his career?

Nadal has made his living the last 3 years smothering such hopes and dreams. Murray fell as many before him, working so hard to hold serve only to see Nadal, with a better serve yet few aces, be unbreakable. When Murray became engaged in baseline rallies, Nadal would uncork a winner from unfathomable positions, no different than if he was rolling in the red clay.

The general theme of the BBC commentary was that Murray simply wasn’t ready to match up with Nadal.

But who is?

And with Federer for that matter?

These are the two Kings. Djokovic may demand his place in a troika, but he must another major first. I am a Federer fan for Rafa has yet to prove his worth on the hard courts that dominate the tour. But it would be an utter shock, despite Marat Safin’s resume and 2005 upset of Fed in the Aussie semis, to see anything but a third straight Wimbledon final between the Kings.

This is a glorious time in tennis. Those of us blessed to watch and chronicle this should be grateful to have another Bjorn Borg-John McEnroe or Pete Sampras-Andre Agassi in our midst. We know it will be short-lived, that the game will claim these greats sooner rather than later thus we need to treasure them now.

PIck up a Sunday paper in London and the first 7 pages of every sports section are Andy Murray. There is a dissection of his entourage, a team of 7 that replaced the solo coaching of Brad Gilbert. There are columns from his mum and big brother, a doubles player of moderate success.

Being a prominent sporting figure in these parts is lucrative. After all, there is little competition in that arena.

Check out MediaZone Tennis | E-mail Ted at MediaZone’s Mailbag | Sign up for my RSS Feed

Winning Wimbledon, though, would make Andy Murray a sporting hero.

And what’s funny is that his game might allow him, and a nation, to dream.

Murray has always had the talent, now he has some sound grass -court experience, and finally, he seems to have grown into his body and out of his immaturity. His Saturday win over Tommy Haas featured high level play on grass, including the short variety that endears Murray to all who truly love the game.
 
What struck me was his body language- it was less mopy, less Gumby-shouldered, less negative. A wise person recently commented that the difference with John McEnroe was that John used anger as fuel. It was often a positive for John while Murray seemed to drag himself down through his behavior.

Now, Murray looks and acts like a man who believes he can someday become a British hero. Perhaps not now, with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal in their prime, but someday soon.
 
Nadal followed form with a decisive win over Nicolas Kiefer – after a first set in which the over-30 Kiefer turned bacvk the clock. He struck serves in the mid-130’s, moved adeptly and struck the ball with significant pace. Pushed to a tiebreak, Rafa delivered the goods, then broke Kiefer’s spirit in the next two sets. A potential Nadal-Murray quarter is still a delicious thought
 
I lamented here how frustrating it is to pull for James Blake. Perhaps Richard Gasquet is that man for the French. He bails on Davis Cup, wanting no part of an indoor match with Andy Roddick. He bails on Roland Garros, the tournament where he clearly cannot handle the pressure. But at Wimbledon, he is a different player, again in the round of 16 and a legit threat to disrupt the Nadal-Murray match. Wimbledon is to Gasquet what the US Open is to Blake, their one major to shine.
 
Jelena Jankovic wanders through the first week in anonymity, although her third-round win owned a share of drama. A hyper-extended knee hampered, followed by a tape job that hampered Jankovic enough to cause her to remove it in the third set. She is always injured, always bandaged and always calling trainers on-court. Yet she is still No. 2 in the world and still a darkhorse threat in Week 2.
 
Monday is Williams day. But I hope that Bethanie Mattek seizes the moment to make people talk about her tennis rather than her wardrobe.

As Novak Djokovic fell to Marat Safin, my thoughts veered to one of tennis’ more astounding streaks: Roger Federer’s current run of 16 consecutive Slam semis.

It’s not as impressive as 10 straight Slam finals or 12 Slam titles (both at the top of Fed’s Greatest Hits) but it speaks to the dominance that Djokovic and Nadal have threatened but can’t match.

Check out MediaZone Tennis | E-mail Ted at MediaZone’s Mailbag | Sign up for my RSS Feed

Novak had the early makings of a run (five straight semis) but he fell victim to what Federer has avoided since 2002 Wimbledon (before he was a champion) in the early-round KO.

If you didn’t see the match, Safin had the day which all opponents fear when he plays like a contender and not a good-time Charlie. Yes, it was windy and likely contributed to Djokovic’s 10 doubles. But, Novak didn’t show the champion’s fight, especially in a flat third set, when things were going against him.

Contrast that to Rafael Nadal’s breakthrough Wimbledon win – his 2006 second-round over Robert Kendrick – when Rafa rallied from two sets down against a young American who was in a serving zone.

Or Federer’s classic 5-set win over Janko Tipsarevic in this year’s Aussie when, it turned out, Roger was afflicted with mono.

Djokovic actually gave a small glimpse at the truth in his post-match intro when he said there was no physical fatigue, but admitted to a shred of mental fatigue.

There’s been the adjustment to his first Slam, the pursuit of Fed and Nadal that has succeeded in creating a separate race for the Big 3, and the challenge that those 3 have accepted in taking places on the ATP Board.

The last point is the huge story within men’s tennis – the actions of ATP Chair Etienne de Villiers that have angered the game’s best players to the point that they felt compelled to “overthrow” the current leadership.

This is not an exaggeration; the Big 3 have learned of the methods employed by the ATP in creating a new 2009 schedule, forcing more participation by the players in a 19-tournament series (eliminating the freedom to schedule that the 3 feel they have earned and is essential to their continued success) and led to the potentially explosive Hamburg lawsuit (ATP legal fees are said to have exceeded $10M.)

More on this to come in the fortnight, but suffice to say that when Djokovic copped to some mental fatigue, I understood.

The stat came in the third set of Rafa Nadal’s first-round win over Andreas Beck. After nine service games, Nadal had lost a total of 8 points.

Check out MediaZone Tennis | E-mail Ted at MediaZone’s Mailbag | Sign up for my RSS Feed

It reminded me of last year’s Wimbledon final – through four-and-a-half sets, Nadal’s serve had been broken once. By the best player on the planet. On grass. With one ace.

There is the essence of Nadal. He doesn’t blast serves. He doesn’t win a free set with aces as Roger Federer did in last year’s classic five-setter.

Nadal just holds serve.

How? I keep recalling Johnny Mac’s statement last July that Nadal was the modern-day Bjorn Borg, the player who won matches through physical play — the player that John remembered as being “impossible to get a ball past.”

And there is an apt description of Nadal, even on grass where he hugs the baseline.

* * *

Our wait for an American to make a 2008 push continues. Sam Querrey, John Isner and Donald Young (to fellow American Jesse Levine) all lost in the first round. Young has lost first round in both Paris and Wimbledon — same with Querrey, although he drew Federer in Paris.

Isner had a tough draw at Wimby with Ernests Gulbis, but as some point one of the young Americans needs to win some tough matches.

Like Wayne Odesnik taking out Guillermo Canas in Paris or Bobby Reynolds winning first round at Wimbledon.

* * *

Well done by Lindsey Davenport in overcoming a significant leg injury that required sophisticated taping. Davenport was pushed to the third set by an anonymous European but managed to call on her classic ball striking to survive. Her third round, against Elena Dementieva, could be tough.

* * *

Great Britain’s hope is that Andy Murray can reach his first slam quarter where he would likely meet Nadal. Murray comes across in interviews as calmer than the player derailed by “court rage” in the past. Can he handle, as Tim Henman did so well, the heat of a country’s intense focus?

The grass is pristine on the first day of Wimbledon. Pure green for one day a year, before the relentless baseline game that marks this era of tennis creates brown dust at both ends of Centre Court.

Check out MediaZone Tennis | E-mail Ted at MediaZone’s Mailbag | Sign up for my RSS Feed

I thought of that as I watched Roger Federer easily move through his first-round match Monday. Seven years ago Federer’s moment of arrival was a Centre Court upset of Pete Sampras, a match that featured a heavy dose of serve and volley play from Roger.

As is well known, Federer claims he has no need to use that style now, so easily has he won five straight Wimbledons. Will Rafa Nadal or perhaps Novak Djokovic force him to change?

Federer gave several interviews Monday and stood firm against any line of questioning that suggested a hangover from the French final. The moment Fed walked off the court after his beating by Rafa, Roger said he bade the clay farewell for 11 months. And in that farewell went any impact of that match.

I tend to believe Federer. If there is a carryover, Federer will feel its full impact next spring. If the two meet again on clay, Roger will know the feeling of being a significant underdog with the need to prove himself in a way unknown for a 12-time Slam champion.

But Wimbledon is Roger’s until beaten. Rafa came close last July, but all that earned him was a second runner-up plate.

Disappointing day for Sam Querrey. The big serve would seem to bode well for his chances at Wimbledon but the American fell in four sets to Juan Carlos Ferrero. Querrey says he is uncomfortable on grass and feels veterans have a huge advantage playing on the surface used only one month a year.

Ivo Karlovic lost in the first round for the fourth consecutive year, stunning for the 6-foot-10 (208 centimeters) Croat with the huge serve.

So, I wonder – if Querrey and Karlovic are early KOs, has the impact of grass lessened? Does the grass court game play differently than a generation ago?

Rafa Nadal stood on the grass of the Queen’s Club in London, 7 days after winning his fourth consecutive French Open, and lifted a championship trophy. Seven days after reestablishing his dominance on clay, Rafa beat Andy Roddick and Novak Djokovic on grass.

He may not win Wimbledon this year, but no one should doubt Nadal’s abilities on grass.

Check out MediaZone Tennis | E-mail Ted at MediaZone’s Mailbag | Sign up for my RSS Feed

In the Roddick match, Nadal was the better man on grass. That’s a stunning statement, I admit, and Roddick owns the dominant serve that always gives him a “puncher’s chance” (John McEnroe’s fitting words) at Wimbledon, but it was Nadal who moved more smoothly, volleyed with great touch and served well enough.

Greg Rusedski commented for BBC on the match and noted that while Roddick moves well laterally, Nadal is better moving forward, the necessary quality to succeed on grass.

I watched NBC’s replay of much of last year’s Wimbledon final during the French Open. What I had forgotten: Nadal broke Roger Federer’s serve more than Roger broke Rafa’s serve. During the match, John and I kept mentioning how stunned we were by that fact. And if Rafa had converted any of the now-infamous 4 break points in the fifth set, he may well have lifted the trophy.

The draw is due Friday and will always contain some intrigue, notably on which side Djokovic lands. But after watching London, and I’m sure Federer noted the results as he won the Halle warm-up, Nadal is no longer a surprise to win Wimbledon.

Speechless – that’s the state Rafa Nadal left us in Sunday. No one, anywhere at anytime, could have imagined Roger Federer rendered so impotent. It was impossible to conceive of the great Federer so helpless on any surface, even the red clay Nadal so loves.

What Rafa sent Sunday was a strong bulletin, if not a warning: don’t anoint Fed yet. Don’t believe anyone will beat me (Nadal) on this red clay. Don’t think there is kryptonite anywhere.

Check out MediaZone Tennis | E-mail Ted at MediaZone’s Mailbag | Sign up for my RSS Feed

Indeed, Nadal played the role of Clark Kent Sunday, changing into his Superman pirate shorts and sleeveless short before taking the court where he has never lost.

Federer talked the role, speaking confidently of his improvement on clay and the design given him by Jose Higueras. If true, there needs to be a serious recalibration by Federer for the stark truth is that the gap between himself and Nadal on clay has widened in the last year.

Nadal is sick, a heaving mass of muscle who moves like a dancer on the tricky surface and strikes winning shots from the most defensive of positions. At the very moment one thinks he has Nadal beaten, he strikes a winning blow.

Nadal is James Bond… or Jack Bauer.

So the more relevant question, for there is neither logic nor hope in wondering about Federer’s chances on clay, is whether the pendulum swings on grass. As unnatural as the surface is for Rafa, he solves it more definitively than Roger does clay. Rafa has come closer to winning Wimbledon than Roger at Roland Garros. And there is every reason to wonder if this is the year that Fed’s reign at SW19 could be toppled.

Novak Djokovic is a contender, although still a step behind the big 2 on clay and grass. Rafa has yet to prove he can play on the hardcourts, particularly after Wimbledon, but there is no one yet able to disrupt the Dynamic Duo in this spring doubleheader. Yes, even Andy Roddick has been able to insert himself into the equation, although it would be nice to see America’s No. 1 do so when few expect.

The great Bjorn Borg watched in awe as Nadal thoroughly dismantled one of the game’s greatest. Nadal is clearly Borg’s equal on clay and Fed has matched the Swede’s five straight Wimbledons. Is it clear that we are enjoying the greatest rivalry in the history of this great game?