|
I watched the replays of the Serena incident and watched the Federer match live. Serena was obviously very rude, making direct threats and using abusive language. For his part, Federer should have kept his calm too - even though he may have had a valid point. If one compares the two, Fed was obviously more 'dignified', though his behaviour cannot really be justified.
But the true sportsman is one who ignores and rise above these decisions. In cricket, we've seen many decisions unfairly going against the batsman (and often they wrongly go in favour of him too). We've seen incidents when the batsman has taken it coolly, and also cases where they make a fuss. And in soccer, we've seen personal assault for reasons other than bad umpiring - Zidane being a classic case. Of course, one may arguie that both the player and the referee are 'human' - Federer is otherwise admired for his cool. But who loses in the end? Both the sportsman and the sport.
I thought Del Potro was just fantastic - first massacring Nadal and then outperforming Federer. How many times have we seen a 'nobody' knock out the two most respected names in the game? Am pasting an article which, though intended to cover the US Open men's final, also perfectly encapsulates the state of lawn tennis today. Read on
By MATTHEW FUTTERMAN / Wall Street Journal
This is the way it goes in men's tennis.
One king dethrones another and reigns for a few years before getting dethroned himself. It's an orderly progression that's held true for years: Jimmy Connors gave way to Bjorn Borg, who gave way to John McEnroe, who yielded to Ivan Lendl, who melted into Boris Becker, and so on, all the way to Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.
This was supposed to be the year that a new king, Spain's Rafael Nadal, inherited the bejeweled scepter. After Mr. Nadal's epic victory over Mr. Federer at Wimbledon in 2008 and his five-set victory in the final of this year's Australian Open, the trumpeters had already been summoned to the palace portico. But it hasn't turned out that way.
After bowing out of Wimbledon with bad knees, Mr. Nadal lost in the semifinals of the U.S. Open—seemingly opening up a clear path for Mr. Federer to capture his third Grand Slam title of the year and be reaffirmed as the sport's monarch.
But the men's final turned out to be as surprising as the year itself. In a stunning and at times contentious five-set match, Mr. del Potro beat Mr. Federer 3-6, 7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 6-2.
After starting the match with his characteristic marksmanship and efficiency, Mr. Federer went up a set and a break in just 45 minutes. Mr. del Potro was so flummoxed he missed wildly on a half-dozen forehands through the first 15 games, sending balls careening into the stands.
But the 20-year-old Mr. del Potro battled back—nearly taking control of the match in the third set. Serving at a set apiece and 4-3, with all the momentum on his side, Mr. del Potro faltered, and ultimately lost the game on Mr. Federer's third break point.
It was the sort of match the crowd at the National Tennis Center had been hoping for—fans in the cheap seats went back and forth with chants of "Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole" for Mr. del Potro and "Let's go Rogah" (to the tune of "Let's go Yankees") for Mr. Federer.
Mr. del Potro used his forehand to push Mr. Federer farther into the back court. He used his deft first serve to pull out the fourth set in a tiebreaker.
In perhaps the biggest surprise, Mr. Federer lost his characteristic cool when he felt umpire Jake Garner was giving Mr. del Potro too much time to challenge line calls.
After winning the ninth game of the third set, Mr. Federer told Mr. Garner, quite colorfully, that he didn't care what Mr. Garner said. Moments later, Mr. del Potro hit two double faults to throw away a set he had once appeared to have a tight lock on, giving Mr. Federer a commanding two-sets-to-one lead.
But as night fell crisply on the National Tennis Center in New York, it was Mr. del Potro who rode an off-speed but consistent spinning serve to a shocking victory.
When Mr. Federer's final shot sailed wide, Mr. del Potro collpased onto his back and Arthur Ashe Stadium turned into a raucous Argentine party. Fans swayed to the drum beats blaring through the loudspeakers as Mr. del Potro climbed through the stands to embrace his coach and family. "I don't have the words," he later said, before dissolving into tears during the trophy presentation.
Instead of gaining back his aura of invincibility Monday, Mr. Federer saw a relative nobody become the first Argentine to win a Grand Slam in 32 years—and to prevent him from winning his 16th Grand slam title. "Rafa and I, we've had some epic ones, some great ones, over the years," he said after the match. "Who knows, maybe del Potro is going to join that thing as well."
Earlier this year, when Mr. Nadal seemed ascendant, what nobody took into account was the way the Spaniard had played during his climb to the top. His was a violent, relentless, counter-punching style that forced him to run harder and farther and leap higher than his peers. The question nobody asked was whether this way of playing tennis was sustainable.
It wasn't. At the French Open, where Mr. Nadal had never lost, Mr. Nadal bowed out in a fourth-round, four-set match to Sweden's Robin Soderling. Three weeks later, Mr. Nadal announced that a pair of gimpy knees would prevent him from defending his Wimbledon title.
After winning the French Open and completing a career Grand Slam few thought was possible for a player who specialized in grass and hard courts, Mr. Federer suddenly faced a field that was decidedly free of a certain aggressive Spaniard. He set his sights on winning a record-breaking 15th Grand Slam at Wimbledon's center court.
A surprisingly resurgent Andy Roddick and his devastating serve pushed Mr. Federer to a 30-game fifth set in the Wimbeldon final, but the strength of the fight—and Federer's steely consistency through the whole thing—only served to reaffirm his greatness.
The big challenge was supposed to come from Scotland's Andy Murray, the national hero vying to become Great Britain's first Wimbledon champion since Virginia Wade.
Just 22, Mr. Murray has shown himself to be a brilliant defender of the court. But he, too, proved to be flawed.
The racket technology that allows players to hit the ball harder than ever has created an era that doesn't reward defense. Mr. Murray lost in the quarters in Paris, the semis at Wimbledon, and the fourth round at the U.S. Open, raising the question of whether a player can win Grand Slams without the sort of deadly offensive power that Mr. Federer and Mr. Nadal (when healthy) possess.
On the women's side, this was supposed to be the year Serena and Venus Williams—getting on in tennis years—were finally overwhelmed by the army of Eastern Europeans who have stormed the barricades of the women's brackets. What former rivals like Martina Hingis, Jennifer Capriati, Lindsay Davenport, Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters struggled to do—or had abstained from doing by retiring—this garrison of women was certain to accomplish.
But the sisters started training harder. They rose to the top of the game by mid-year when they met at the Wimbledon final. Venus, a grass court specialist, was expected to prevail but Serena took care of her in straight sets, setting herself up for a year for the ages coming into the Open. Then came Ms. Clijsters and Saturday night's controversial foot-fault call.
Ms. Clijsters, a year and a half out of the delivery room and a month out of retirement, won the title by taking advantage of a women's tour that can't seem to serve. The same racket firepower that has helped the top men's service games become almost unbreakable has helped the women's return game. When facing first serves that rarely crack 100 m.p.h.—and second serves that can travel in the mid-70s—the returns have become difficult to handle.
As the sun sets on the 2009 Grand Slam season in a place few could have predicted it would, the anticipation for the upcoming year may be as strong as it has ever been.
|
