Nadal outlasts Federer in epic final to halt streak at five
Associated Press
WIMBLEDON, England — Rafael Nadal, grass stains on his white shirt and a Spanish flag tucked under his arm, scampered through the Centre Court stands to celebrate his first Wimbledon title with hugs and handshakes.
Roger Federer sat in his changeover chair, protected from the night’s chill by his custom-made cream cardigan with the gold “RF” on the chest. Alone with his thoughts, alone with the knowledge that he had come so close to becoming the first man since the 1880s to win a sixth consecutive championship at the All England Club.
Two points from victory, the No. 1-ranked Federer couldn’t pull it out, instead succumbing to No. 2 Nadal 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5), 6-7 (8), 9-7 Sunday night in a 4-hour, 48-minute test of wills that was the longest men’s final in Wimbledon history — and quite possibly the greatest.
Even Nadal felt sympathy for Federer.
“I am very happy for me,” Nadal said, “but sorry for him, because he deserved this title, too.”
Here is the full story.
Nadal is King! Viva Rafael!
Federer is not as good as Sampras was at Wimbledon. Sampras had the knock-out smash, great at the net, and the best at serve and volley with much better serve than Federer.
Maybe they should have just agreed to share the title, instead of having all those silly tie-breaks 🙂
Ahem, Nadal lost both tie-breaks- he won all the other sets- so ignoring ‘silly tie-breaks’ it was a straight sets win for Nadal!
In my opinion all 6-6 sets should be counted as a drawn set, so that Nadal won 3.5-1.5!
Here are the rules I would make:
First to 2.5, with 6-6 counting as draw. If 2-2 after 4 sets, then play the normal final set where you must win by 2 games. No need for tie-breaks!
Explain to me why can’t have drawn sets as I said above instead of tie-breaks?
First to 2.5 referred to sets, 6-6 counting as draw referred to games in set and result of set as drawn- just to clarify above post.
I challenge anyone to put the case why you need tie-breaks, and why my method above of drawn sets is not satisfactory…
Why must a set be won, you only need the match to be won? Only the last set after 2 sets all requires play after 6 games each whereupon the usual play it out to win by 2 games so no need for tiebreak at all.
Actually by those rules Nadal would have won the match 2.5-0.5
Mmmh, interesting suggestion to count 6-6 as a draw – yet I do not like it for two reasons.
Firstly, the tie break was only created so that the players would not have to play all the sets until exhaustion, e.g. to 10-8 or so (except of course the final, fifth, set).
Secondly, if you consider 6-6 a draw why not go one step further and also consider a drawn service (40-40, deuce) as a draw?! It is difficult to see where to stop.
In my view, the current rules are good as they are. Funny side-note though: Michael Stich defeated Stefan Edberg in Wimbledon’s final years ago 4-6 7-6 7-6 7-6, i.e. after your rules he even lost…
Yes it was a paradox – Edberg broke his opponents serve once and didn’t lose his serve at all – and yet he lost 🙂
“Federer is not as good as Sampras was at Wimbledon. Sampras had the knock-out smash, great at the net, and the best at serve and volley with much better serve than Federer.”
I admire Sampras but the one match between them was at Wimbledon 2001 and Federer won.
Are the ones that root for 6-6 draws the same people that are complaining of chess players drawing?
Of course tie-breaks! Who cares about draws, with a chance of 2 players biting the trophee, beeeh!
And Tiger Woods sharing first place in the US-open… come on!
Explain to me why can’t have drawn sets as I said above instead of tie-breaks?
Drawn sets. Brilliant.
Some other ideas…
Drawn points: Any point played for longer than 10 hits is a draw.
Drawn games: Someone’s already invented this one.
Drawn matches: Both players proceed through the knockout.
Drawn championships: Everyone’s a winner.
Agreed draws: Players are tired, so don’t bother returning serve for a set or two. This saves energy, and makes the final set (a draw, ideally) more interesting.
No TV deals: Who would watch?
No players: Who would play?
Everyone gives up tennis and takes up chess: Excellent.
A fact about tennis is that the players regard the game as being about Big Points. Hence they are not averse to tiebreakers deciding whole sets. It’s also why they would reject suggestions that tiebreakers should be “win-by-three” rather than “win-by-two”.
The only requirement is that a point should not be decisive for both players at the same time. In a set tiebreaker it would put too much weight on the serve, with no fair path to having earned that advantage, and would have too much riding on a close line call. Hence tennis has ad-points and deuce points, but no “Armageddon points”.
“Everyone gives up tennis and takes up chess: Excellent.”
Apart from the drawing percenatge in chess, I hope you’re wrong: there already are ro many nitwits in this sport.
With all respect to those same nitwits.
Federer and Nadal had 5 set matches at Wimbledon both last 2 years- but both times Federer got his first 2 sets via a tiebreak. It is not very convincing to win by tiebreak and I strongly dislike the example given where Edberg lost the match only by tie-breaks in each set he lost- but not the one he won. I think it would be better if he won that match against Stich so the 6-6 draw system would work in that case in my view.
Tiebreaks put more randomness into the event unneccessarily. If you can only win the match by winning by 2 games in atleast 1 of the sets as in the method suggested it is an improvement I think.
Ofcourse points/games/matches need not be drawn as there is no such problem there.
kwregan, I guess if they are happy aboput it, but as a spectator I am not happy as I like the winner to have to win a set by 2 games somewhere, not just win tie-breaks.
In chess a world champion once needed to win 6 games, draws not counted. It was banned because mathces could take ages.
The same with voleyball, they changed counting to discard scoring only at serve, because … matches could take ages.
There’s nothing wrong with tie-breaks, in which you need to score 2 points more than your opponent. It’s in fact more precise and clean, because every point counts and service is shared!
The fifth set in Wimbledon for the title is not so much of tennis skills but it is about who wants it more.
One of the top three ever.
It is time DRAWS should be allowed in Tennis, cos none of them deserve to lose the game.
Like in chess, in tennis grand slams there are often complaints from observers of some top player having a too easy draw!