- Tennis
Best ever - but is it enough?
The praise is universal. Sunday's Wimbledon final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal has been universally canonized as the greatest tennis match ever played.
But before that - just a side note - hasn't 2008 been frikin' amazing?
Seriously - did you really think you'd see something better than the best Super Bowl ever with Eli Manning et al beating the NFL's supposedly perfect team? Or, an event that topped Tiger Woods winning the U.S. Open on a broken leg?
Well, if you tuned in on Sunday - you did.
And if you didn't - boy, does it suck to be you.
It was so good the hyperbole is in hyperspace with a debate wondering if it was the greatest sporting event not just in '08, but ever.
That's uncharted territory for a sport that has suffered in the doldrums for a while now.
For most folks who gave up on tennis just after Agassi lost his hair, the state of the men's game currently is a bunch of nameless faceless guys striving to get to the semi-finals - only to get beat like a rug by these two fabulous players. The two weeks of a major have now morphed into a PR campaign for the rival's arrival in the finals on the second Sunday. Their appearance there is seemingly so inevitable, regardless of who was playing in what match on what court, the commentators can't steer themselves clear of invoking numerous Nadal or Federer references a set.
At Wimbledon, the build up was so intense, the chances that the hype would overshadow the match, was all but certain. The stakes were high for everyone. Federer was trying for a record-tying sixth straight Wimbledon title while Nadal was trying to become the first Spaniard in 40 years to win the event, and the first player in 28 years to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year.
What happened shocked everyone.
The players over-delivered.
In retrospect, the hype-athon didn't do the final nearly justice enough.
Five set matches are, for the most part, a tough slog on everyone. It's asking a lot for the fans, the viewers, the commentators and the players to contend with three hours or more of whacking a ball back and forth.
Despite it being the longest Wimbledon final ever at 4 hours and 48 minutes, and that two rain delays stretched out the time to six hours and 40 minutes, Sunday's match seemingly flew by.
Considering how far out of the sports pantheon Tennis has fallen, the final score is probably discombobulating for most folks: 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5-7), 6-7 (8-10), 9-7. Regardless, what they were watching, they had to know it was special.
People were riveted like they haven't been in a long time. Friends called friends because what was once the tradition of "Breakfast at Wimbledon" eventually became brunch, then lunch, then an early dinner. NBC received its best ratings for a men's final in eight years, and the best non-U.S. final ratings since 1991.
At the end, John McEnroe, who himself had previously played in the two greatest matches in history, a Davis Cup thriller against Boris Becker and his Wimbledon final, now the second best ever, against Bjorn Borg in 1980 said, "This has got to be the greatest match we've ever seen. Ever."
Clearly it was.
The question now is - what can tennis do about it? How do they build on the momentum these two have created for their sport?
Similar to the troubles the PGA is having now without Tiger Woods, it is problematic because they are in danger of having their entire sport defined by just one signature entity - in this case a killer matchup. Can two players out of hundreds drive increased attendance and viewership?
After all, it's not like they are always playing one another.
Well, maybe.
First off, the rest of the summer has the potential to be amazing. They could face each other three times over the next little while. Once in Toronto at a Masters event, then at the Olympics in Beijing, and finally at the U.S. Open at the end of August.
The problem is, all those final appearances that tennis is hoping for are predicated on Nadal actually getting there. On clay, and now on grass, he's the best player in the world, but he's not even close (thus far) on the hard stuff. At the Open, he has not gone beyond the quarter-finals in five attempts, and last year lost in the fourth round.
Can Nadal show as marked an improvement on the hard courts as he did on grass? If the answer is yes, tennis has a chance of reclaiming past glory as one of the world's most popular sports.
If not, there is no bump here.
The 2008 Wimbledon finals will go down as one of the all-time classic sporting events in history, just like so many others thus far in 2008 have done (and we're only half way through it!).
For the future of tennis all the pressure is all on a 22-year old Spaniard named Rafael Nadal. Watching Sunday's performance, the only conclusion one could make would be...
...game, set and match.
Cheers - Gavin McDougald - AKA Couch
Get complete sports betting stats at betED.com.
Best ever - but is it enough?
The praise is universal. Sunday's Wimbledon final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal has been universally canonized as the greatest tennis match ever played.
But before that - just a side note - hasn't 2008 been frikin' amazing?
Seriously - did you really think you'd see something better than the best Super Bowl ever with Eli Manning et al beating the NFL's supposedly perfect team? Or, an event that topped Tiger Woods winning the U.S. Open on a broken leg?
Well, if you tuned in on Sunday - you did.
And if you didn't - boy, does it suck to be you.
It was so good the hyperbole is in hyperspace with a debate wondering if it was the greatest sporting event not just in '08, but ever.
That's uncharted territory for a sport that has suffered in the doldrums for a while now.
For most folks who gave up on tennis just after Agassi lost his hair, the state of the men's game currently is a bunch of nameless faceless guys striving to get to the semi-finals - only to get beat like a rug by these two fabulous players. The two weeks of a major have now morphed into a PR campaign for the rival's arrival in the finals on the second Sunday. Their appearance there is seemingly so inevitable, regardless of who was playing in what match on what court, the commentators can't steer themselves clear of invoking numerous Nadal or Federer references a set.
At Wimbledon, the build up was so intense, the chances that the hype would overshadow the match, was all but certain. The stakes were high for everyone. Federer was trying for a record-tying sixth straight Wimbledon title while Nadal was trying to become the first Spaniard in 40 years to win the event, and the first player in 28 years to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year.
What happened shocked everyone.
The players over-delivered.
In retrospect, the hype-athon didn't do the final nearly justice enough.
Five set matches are, for the most part, a tough slog on everyone. It's asking a lot for the fans, the viewers, the commentators and the players to contend with three hours or more of whacking a ball back and forth.
Despite it being the longest Wimbledon final ever at 4 hours and 48 minutes, and that two rain delays stretched out the time to six hours and 40 minutes, Sunday's match seemingly flew by.
Considering how far out of the sports pantheon Tennis has fallen, the final score is probably discombobulating for most folks: 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5-7), 6-7 (8-10), 9-7. Regardless, what they were watching, they had to know it was special.
People were riveted like they haven't been in a long time. Friends called friends because what was once the tradition of "Breakfast at Wimbledon" eventually became brunch, then lunch, then an early dinner. NBC received its best ratings for a men's final in eight years, and the best non-U.S. final ratings since 1991.
At the end, John McEnroe, who himself had previously played in the two greatest matches in history, a Davis Cup thriller against Boris Becker and his Wimbledon final, now the second best ever, against Bjorn Borg in 1980 said, "This has got to be the greatest match we've ever seen. Ever."
Clearly it was.
The question now is - what can tennis do about it? How do they build on the momentum these two have created for their sport?
Similar to the troubles the PGA is having now without Tiger Woods, it is problematic because they are in danger of having their entire sport defined by just one signature entity - in this case a killer matchup. Can two players out of hundreds drive increased attendance and viewership?
After all, it's not like they are always playing one another.
Well, maybe.
First off, the rest of the summer has the potential to be amazing. They could face each other three times over the next little while. Once in Toronto at a Masters event, then at the Olympics in Beijing, and finally at the U.S. Open at the end of August.
The problem is, all those final appearances that tennis is hoping for are predicated on Nadal actually getting there. On clay, and now on grass, he's the best player in the world, but he's not even close (thus far) on the hard stuff. At the Open, he has not gone beyond the quarter-finals in five attempts, and last year lost in the fourth round.
Can Nadal show as marked an improvement on the hard courts as he did on grass? If the answer is yes, tennis has a chance of reclaiming past glory as one of the world's most popular sports.
If not, there is no bump here.
The 2008 Wimbledon finals will go down as one of the all-time classic sporting events in history, just like so many others thus far in 2008 have done (and we're only half way through it!).
For the future of tennis all the pressure is all on a 22-year old Spaniard named Rafael Nadal. Watching Sunday's performance, the only conclusion one could make would be...
...game, set and match.
Cheers - Gavin McDougald - AKA Couch
Get complete sports betting stats at betED.com.
