The Roger-Rafa Rivalry: Wimbledon 2007

It has been a while since I last updated my blog, but here I am again. The upcoming posts will be more concise in nature; nevertheless, I hope they continue to be thought- provoking and enjoyable. Well, after last week's epic five-set final between (who else) Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, I feel compelled to talk tennis.

First of all, hats off to the Swiss champion for retaining his throne as King of Grass for a fifth consecutive victory– one that will go down in history books, as he has tied the legendary Swede, Bjorn Borg and also achieved sporting immortality. However, his competitor and biggest rival, Nadal, was not eliminated with ease, to say the least. The second seed sent his opponent scrambling for returns, led the defending champ to a series of unforced errors, and even peeved Federer with a number of challenges (courtesy of the newly implemented Hawk-Eye technology) that turned out unfavorably for the world number one.

Other than the fact that grass is Federer’s favorite surface, it was the demon-like serve of the Swiss that spelled the difference between the two competitors. With a remarkable twenty-four aces, compared to Nadal’s measly one, it is safe to say that these free points ultimately gave the top seed that extra edge. If the master of clay had served like he had in the quarterfinals against Tomas Berdych (with 6 aces and a 75 first serve percentage), Federer's tears probably would have been a result of dissapoinment, not relief. Although the twenty-one year old fell just short of ousting Federer and finally claiming his first Wimbledon title, it can no longer be said that Nadal cannot play on grass. Perhaps the underlying question is – who performed better, Federer in the 2007 French Open final or Nadal in the Wimbledon final? While both players emerged victorious in the surface of their preference, in my opinion - the Spaniard performed better overall.

MATCH TIME
- The young Nadal won the 2007 French Open quite convincingly in four sets in 3 hours and 10 minutes
- Federer was pushed in a 3 hour and 45 minute five-set final at Wimbledon

UNFORCED ERRORS
- Federer lost on the French clay with an uncharacteristic 59 unforced errors, 32 more than Nadal
- Nadal finally succumbed to the clutched of his Swiss rival, but with only 24 unforced errors, even less than Federer's 34.

IMPROVEMENT
- Nadal appears to have improved more than Federer. In Wimbledon ’06 he lost in four sets, however, one year later he eventually succumbs to the top seed in a nail-biter final taking the Swiss champ to two breakers in five sets.
- Federer loses in four in both ’06 and ‘07, unable to even take Nadal to a single tie break set.

Let’s not forget the Battle of the Surfaces, where Nadal finished triumphantly in a custom made court for the world’s top two players - one that is half grass and half clay (pictured to the right). The Roland Garros champ proved to be more masterful of the different turfs, winning the exhibition match in three sets.

Through this year's Wimbeldon tournament, Nadal has established himself as an all-around tennis great. Even Federer would concur to this, as he admitted just after sealing the Spaniards fate in the grass final, that Nadal; “Because he came so close...I think he deserves a title here as well.” Lawn tennis might just see a new champion in '08.

Wimbledon Tennis: Leveling the Playing Field

Once again, the posting for this week will involve other engaging blogs within the sports realm. I have composed comments in response to a pair of interesting blogs that I have discovered within the hidden internet. As I have previously mentioned, I wish to further engage myself within the blogosphere in order to gain some visibility and authority for my website. This week’s post pertains to the Wimbledon prize money which has finally been leveled for both male and female tennis players. The first post I commented on is from a reputable socio-political blog called "The Lede" by Tom Zeller Jr, a New York Times blogger. The second entry is by an established British political commentator, Iain Dale. My responses are posted below as well as the permanent links of the source post. I encourage you to peruse through these blogs because of their insightful and interesting nature.

Mr. Dale, while your post brings about valid points; I disagree with your stance. Women are finally being placed on a level playing field in tennis by receiving equal pay, and rightfully so. We are in the 21^st century, there should be no discrimination between men and women period. Match time aside, the amount of hours women spend preparing for Wimbledon and the other Grand Slam events is in all likelihood equal to men. Secondly, women’s tennis is definitely not dull. While indeed men’s tennis involves more power, the quality of their play is not necessarily superior. The entertainment value spectators’ gain from women’s tennis can be equal to, if not greater than men’s tennis. Many points in men’s matches are won all too quickly, through aces because of their commanding serves. Also, Roger Federer depicted on the right, performs at a caliber which is next to perfect. It does not take a rocket scientist to predict the winner of a match involving the Swiss champion. One the other hand, the women’s game has no one dominant player, which leaves the game interestingly unpredictable. Also, there tend to be more rallies in women’s games because of fewer aces. Although it is definitely enjoyable to watch an ace serve, when it starts to displace potential rallies (which often occurs in men’s tennis games) it becomes boring. Lastly, I am quite perturbed by your final comment “who on earth would want to watch a couple of women slugging a ball from baseline to baseline for an hour? It's about as exciting as watching paint dry.” This reflects a lack of comprehension and appreciation for women’s tennis in its entirety. I understand that a woman’s game may not be as powerful or fast paced to that of a man, yet ultimately, it boils down to the quality of the game. According to the Columbia University news service, “ratings for women’s matches are on par with men’s matches and rising faster. The men’s and women’s finals of this April’s Nasdaq 100 Open in Miami drew the same number of television viewers. But that represented a ratings increase of 50 percent over last year for the women’s match, and only a 25 percent increase over last year for the men’s final." Women's tennis can be a thrilling showcase of athletic adeptness and sheer talent. Television rating records have been broken especially with the likes of Maria Sharapova – the Russian Wimbledon champion at 17, with glamour girl looks to compliment her already superb tennis prowess. The William’s sisters are not to be condoned either. These robust siblings can serve and hit nearly as powerfully as some male players, with a serves speeding up to 130mph.

Permanent Link

I could not agree more with your post, Mr. Zeller. After 123 years, the indolent All England Club has finally arrived at decision, which should have been obvious to them many years ago. It is about time that the female Wimbledon champions receive the same pay as their male counterparts. The quality of the women’s game is just as good, if not better than the men’s because rallies are not frequently replaced by a powerful serve which often translates into an ace. Also, professional women’s tennis does not have a principal player who wins virtually every match. The men’s professional circuit however does have a player of such finesse and excellence – Roger Federer. The twenty five year old holds 46 singles titles and has won Wimbledon, the world's most prestigious tennis tournament three years consecutively since 2004. The only other player that actually has a chance of defeating the Swiss champion is Spanish sensation Raphael Nadal. However, Nadal (shown on the left) is only a threat on clay courts. On grass and hard surfaces, Federer is simply unstoppable. Moreover, female tennis players provide the same amount of input as male players into their games in terms of preparation which warrants equal prize money. Although their male counterparts play two sets more, the entertainment value women provide is undoubtedly no less than that of men. Besides, many female players in their less than conservative tennis attire are viewed as eye candy, further contributing to the entertainment aspect of the game. Lastly, we live in the twenty first century, a supposedly modern era. One would assume that by now a gender disparity would cease to exist.

Permanent Link