It did not really matter who had won Wimbledon’s longest men’s singles, for both were gloriously triumphant. Paul Weaver The Guardian tennis correspondent
A meeting of champions
By Roger Childs
Everyone hoped there would be a quality match, as the recent winner at Roland Garros was playing the man who was defending the title. There was some excellent tennis in the first two sets, however going into the third, with Rafael Nadal ahead 6-4, 6-4 over Roger Federer, the crowd was anticipating an early trip home. But nobody was leaving their seat.
Different styles but impeccable credentials
Nadal and Federer are arguably the two best tennis players ever. Coming into the 2008 final in London
- they had won 12 out of the last 14 grand slams
- they had contested the two previous Wimbledon finals
- Federer had won the last five Wimbledon titles
- Nadal had won the last four French Open crowns.
The Swiss maestro was at the peak of his powers with 12 grand slams under his belt. Roger Federer was a stylish perfectionist who had taken the game to new levels and he played shots that others wouldn’t even attempt.
He was the complete player and the undoubted number one in the world. His game was based on
~ a powerful serve which netted many aces
~ a devastating single handed backhand, especially down the line
~ the greatest forehand the world has ever seen (Bud Collins Boston Globe)
~ unerring overhead and volleying
~ great speed round the court and superb placement.
However the young pretender, Spaniard, Rafael Nadal had run Federer close in the previous two finals on centre court. He had also surprisingly annihilated the Swiss at the recent Roland Garros tournament 6-1, 6-3, 6-0. But could the king of clay prevail on Federer’s favoured grass surface?
Coached by his uncle, the inscrutable Toni Nadal, Rafa was a very disciplined player with a never say die attitude. He did not have the variety of Federer’s game or as fast a serve, but he had powerful ground strokes and a great placement instinct for producing winners. He also possessed breathtaking mobility which enabled him to retrieve seemingly impossible returns and often run round his backhand to hit powerful, tightly angled forehands beyond the reach of his opponent.
Strokes of genius
Although two sets down, Federer was not about to capitulate. He desperately wanted a record sixth title in a row. He took the third set in a tie break, but was in trouble at 5-2 down in the fourth.
He saved two match points in the eighth game and when Nadal uncharacteristically double faulted the Swiss was back in the set. It went to another nerve-wracking tie break which Federer eventually won 10-8.
San Francisco Chronicle sports writer, Bruce Jenkins, recognised this as the best tennis match ever played, eclipsing the epic Wimbledon final of 1980 when Bjorn Borg beat John McEnroe 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7 (16-18), 8-6.
The case for Federer-Nadal rests on its unrelenting tension, the sustained brilliance, the fact that neither man let a troubling moment let him down.
All who watched were riveted by many incredible rallies which featured amazing retrievals, powerful crosscourt winners, unplayable down the line backhands, delicate drop shots, tightly angled volleys and ferocious smashes.
Greatness in the gloom
Unfortunately the weather and light played a role. There was a rain delay in the final set and the light was fading on the centre court which was years away from having a retractable roof. But still the finalists produced tennis which Jenkins describes as setting a standard of brilliance.
The light was fading as the players went into what would be the sixteenth and final game of the fifth set.
- I can’t see nothing, No? Nadal
- I couldn’t see who I was playing. Federer
Reporters bemoaned the decision to play on in poor light. Bruce Jenkins: it was so dark at 9.16pm, the moment Federer netted forehand ended the match, they couldn’t have played another game. And Bud Collins commented: here’s Federer with the greatest forehand the world has ever seen and he puts a routine ball into the net.
Federer was gracious in defeat, but disappointed it’s tough on me to lose the biggest tournament in the world over maybe a bit of light.
Simply the best
Nevertheless, the great men had played an extraordinary match, with Nadal winning 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7. Lasting 4 hours and 48 minutes, it was the longest Wimbledon final in history and will stay long in the memory of those who watched it.
The beaten finalist in the superb 1980 encounter, John McEnroe, summed up the general feeling: …this is the greatest match I have ever seen.