by Beth Rifkin
There are those who don’t really care how Roger Federer won the French Open or Wimbledon, just as long as he won. I know this story is being written a little after the fact - writing assignments combined with being distracted by the passing of Michael Jackson (I am of the “I want my MTV” MTV generation), caused a slight delay.
My motivation at this point - I lost a bet. The deal was that if Federer won the French Open (and/or Wimbledon), to my pick of Nadal for both, I would mention my tennis friends Mitch Constantine and Dan Giurca in my follow-up story. I think they were hoping for all of their commentary, analysis and predictions to be the entirety of the story, but it's easily summed up by saying both Mitch and Dan think Federer will set the Grand Slam record at around 20 or 25...commentary not needed. However, I will say right here that if Nadal loses the US Open and Fed wins, I promise to print Mitch and Dan's analysis...and further predictions.
Roland Garros
I don’t really have too much to say about the French Open final; it was refreshing to see Roddick make it to the 4th round and Gonzalez to the semifinals. And while I was happy for Federer to complete a career Grand Slam and meet Sampras’s record, I am of the mind that something was missing without Rafa. On Federer’s side, and to his credit – a record win is a record win – he is deserving and of course he certainly can’t control who is on the other side of the net. But to a fan who’s been fully engaged in the Roger-Rafa rivalry and the drama that has taken place at Roland Garros for the past four years, watching the championship slide onto Fed’s racquet at the hands of Soderling was a bit disconcerting. After all, it’s The Rivalry that sparked the renewed interest in clay for many American's.
Wimbledon
The Wimbledon 09 final was incredible, but the match didn’t come close to the excitement of 2008 and I was shocked when I saw numerous headlines to the contrary. All credit to Roddick – in “The Battle of Serves” he played the match of his life and stayed on equal terms with Federer for over four hours (Ace Count: Fed-50, Roddick-27).
The difference is that Roddick’s play represented the hard work he’s put in this season. But there was much more than improved fitness at stake last year and it was evident throughout every minute on the court; the tension, anticipation, shot-making, footwork and strategy were all much more enthralling last year. But more importantly, it’s about what Nadal’s victory represented, along with the significance of winning a Slam other than Roland Garros, and that it was Wimbledon – being the “one” to beat Federer on his most treasured of courts in all the world...it was about the future – about the bringing down of a King and the rising of a Prince.
No matter your opinion, I think everyone agrees that it was exciting to witness such a pivotal moment in tennis history when Federer broke Sampras’s record and confidently claimed his legendary status as the greatest player of all time. Regarding the match with Roddick, Sampras said, "Roger was also a little lucky today, but that's not surprising. The great ones are always a little lucky." Clearly someone or something was looking out for Roger during that final…maybe Michael Jackson is a Federer fan.
July 15, 2009
