A quick thought on Federer winning Wimbledon five times
Back in the day, you were either a Borg fan or a McEnroe fan. When they met in the 1980 final, where Borg was trying to become the first person ever to win 5 Wimbledon titles in a row, it was immense. (And let it be noted that McEnroe himself got to 5 Wimbledon finals in a row from 1980 to 1984; bested I think only by Borg, with 6.)
Today, Federer beat Nadal in five sets - I’ll try to watch what I taped, but not all of it - which puts him on a par with Borg, utter tennis royalty, at least at Wimbledon.
There’s been a feeling that Nadal going for Federer has been like McEnroe chasing Borg, trying to stop the title sweep.
But the difference is that this would be like Borg going after McEnroe. Though McEnroe is in awe of Federer (and hell, who can’t be?), Federer isn’t another Borg. He’s quick like him, a champion like him, but he’s an incredible shotmaker, imaginative in what seem like obvious situations. Borg didn’t have that; he wasn’t as rounded. In this comparison, Federer is the McEnroe, and Nadal is the Borg.
Though Borg remains the better in these terms: he would win the French Open, and then he’d come and win Wimbledon, which was played on faster courts. Federer hasn’t done that, yet; and Wimbledon is slower, the grass holding the ball a bit more. He might actually benefit if it were faster. But the French/Wimbledon double is one of the toughest challenges in any sport, I think. It’s like the Tour de France, tennis version. And Federer still hasn’t done that one.
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- Tim Henman: a better player than everyone thinks (13 September 2004; score: 96.94%)
- That Wimbledon result in brief (3 July 2005; score: 86.18%)
- At Centre Court: seeing Federer, and what Murray got wrong against Roddick (4 July 2009; score: 50.6%)
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
July 8th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
The Federer of today would easily beat the Borg (and McEnroe) of yesteryear. (Provided someone had a time machine, of course.)
The game is much faster and scientific today, although was much more enjoyable back in those days because of the probability of a game full of rallies.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:13 am
(Historical comparisons are pointless; Borg and McEnroe would be playing very differently had they grown up when Federer and Nadal did.)
I thought it interesting that in this final both men were trying to match a Borg achievement - Federer the 5-peat and Nadal the W/FO double. I actually think Federer has a somewhat better chance of winning the FO than Nadal does Wimbledon, mostly because Federer’s game is so smooth and fluid that I think he’ll have better longevity - and he isn’t losing much on clay to anyone *but* Nadal. Nadal’s game is so heavily physical I can’t imagine he can keep up this rate for many years. I know he’s four-five years younger, but I’d expect him to have injury or burnout problems the sooner of the two.
wg
July 9th, 2007 at 9:11 am
See, in my world, if Nadal was the Borg, Federer would be Commander William Riker.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:17 am
@pauld - Star Trek TNG comparisons are lost on me, I’m afraid; never got into it.
@stephen - the game of yesteryear had far shorter rallies than today - you’d serve-volley, or serve, return, approach, and then it was either pass or volley. Borg was unusual in winning from the back of the court. The Wimbledon rallies now are like the French Open of 85. But don’t underestimate what Borg or McEnroe could do. The game at that level is very much what you can do mentally, from point to point, game to game, set to set.
@Wendy - I think Nadal has a better chance of winning Wimbledon than Federer has of the French. Again, it’s a mental thing: can Federer keep girding himself to play at this level? Can he find the mental energy to withstand Nadal’s pounding for three, four hours? Seeing your best shots coming back again and again gets disheartening even for the best players.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Take your point. I just think these days there’s much more of a science to everything they (including other professional athletes) do. From their diet to the aerodynamics of their tennis rackets. But, I agree, guts and determination are things that you can’t perfect with any science.
One of my favourite heavyweights, Jack Dempsey (1920s champion) was a great fighter and champion. A real brawler as you’d expect from those days. Do I think he would be heavyweight champ today? My thoughts are no.
Maybe I’m not comparing like for like as Wendy suggests but historical comparisons are a part of sport that people enjoying debating. Hence these comments. :-)
July 12th, 2007 at 12:49 am
> “Star Trek TNG comparisons are lost on me, I’m afraid; never got into it.”
That’s fair enough, it was never on: always got bumped for the tennis :)