Why isn't there talk of this? (Nadal d. Federer)

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Basically, like, today's Wimbledon championship was the best game of any kind I've seen. Wow.

[theattachment]

Because watching that game melted everyone's faces so much they got off their computers and watched it.

It was sport at its finest.

[cdcarter]

It was pretty much brilliant. Like, I could barely understand what was happening, but it was awesome.

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

I agree with the face melting thing. I'm still in shock at how amazing it was. The 209-204 split in total points won blows my mind.

[JackGlerum]

It was sport at its finest.

Totally Agreed. If you don't think golf and tennis are intense, look no further than this year's US Open and Wimbledon.

[Dan Greenstein]

I am glad it ended when it did. Shades of the 2002 U.S. Open of golf. It would have been horrible for it to be suspended due to darkness at 9:30 pm, restart at 2 pm tomorrow, then last 2 games.

[AKKOLADE]

I missed this, but Feder + Nadal always, always, always equals awesomeness.

[Chico the Rainmaker]

I bet Nadal is sure glad that there is no 5th set tiebreak at Wimbledon.

[The Atom Strikes!]

Interestingly, Federer called the result a "disaster" later on-- even more so than Nadal's spanking of him at the last French Open.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Well, it broke his grass streak. Also, I don't think Federer is dumb enough to think he's better than Nadal at clay, since Nadal is ridiculously dominant on that surface. So yeah, I can see where he would think this is a worse loss than that. However, both of those guys put on a tremendous game, and as much as I hate it when people say "nobody's a loser," this really was about as close as you can get to a situation where nobody is a loser.

[theattachment]

Except Federer. He did kind of lose, and in a lot of people's eyes he lost the number one spot in the world. He admitted that he had a lot of bad shots (52 unforced errors, namely some really hard misses at net like the last shot) but what that match proved is that Nadal isn't a novelty player only able to beat Federer on his worst surface. He's a player that can school one of the best players EVER on serve and can get the break point when it's necessary.

[dtaylor4]

At this point, this has the potential to be what saves men's tennis from relative obscurity. You have two great players who can stomp the rest of the field, and now Nadal's proven that he can beat Federer on grass. All we need is a Federer victory over Nadal on clay.

I doubt it will touch the level of Borg/McEnroe, but at this point, men's tennis needs something.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

I definitely agree that this rivalry is gonna be good for tennis, and I can only hope that the fact no Americans are contending doesn't hurt either. I think Roddick was America's last big draw for tennis, and his inability hold up to Federer really was somewhat of a letdown. I'd think US ratings of tennis watching has declined because of that.

[wexs883198215]

can Federer really beat Nadal on clay though? (don't think so)
and will Nadal ever be able to hold his own on hard courts? (actually maybe)

[Kanga-Rat Murder Society]

At this point, this has the potential to be what saves men's tennis from relative obscurity. You have two great players who can stomp the rest of the field, and now Nadal's proven that he can beat Federer on grass. All we need is a Federer victory over Nadal on clay.

I doubt it will touch the level of Borg/McEnroe, but at this point, men's tennis needs something.

It has already easily surpassed Borg-McEnroe, as they have played at least five classics (from 2005 Miami to now). Also, Federer has beaten Nadal on clay. Don't think that clay is only at the French Open.

Jack Glerum: I saw the U.S. Open in golf and was thoroughly disappointed. While it was courageous on Tiger's part, the golf was not very good. That morning of the playoff, NBC's announcers said that the hole positions were easy and they expected both to shoot under par. After they both shot even par, they said, "They are golfing better than anyone would have expected. This is the difference between Federer and Tiger: Tiger does not reach expectations in victory, while Federer plays better than expected in losses.

[KevinL]

This is the difference between Federer and Tiger: Tiger does not reach expectations in victory, while Federer plays better than expected in losses.

I disagree. First of all, Federer was expected to win Wimbledon. You cannot argue that he was not the favorite (with him having won five times in a row, beaten Nadal there on multiple occasions, Nadal's image as a clay court player, etc.), therefore, he could not have played better than expected in a loss, as most people expected him to win. Second, Tiger Woods is considered one of the favorites in every tournament he plays. Countless occasions Tiger has dominated the field or otherwise posted ridiculously low scores, such as the 1997 Masters, 2000 US Open at Pebble Beach, 2006 British Open, etc. And with this year's US Open, expectations were much higher than they would have been, had Woods revealed beforehand that he would be playing on a double stress fracture in his left tibia and a torn ACL in his left knee. He walked 92 holes on that and won a major championship. I don't think you can say he didn't reach expectations in his victory.

Aside from that, I don't really think you can compare golf and tennis. In golf, you are competing against the rest of the field, and you really can't do anything about the other players' scores. Tennis is more of a direct competition; you're score partially depends on how well your opponent is playing.