Bee’s Knees
Family portrait, originally uploaded by saffysafina.
Marat lost in the semis to The Fed. He couldn’t summon up his A game, gesticulated, muttered, yelled, threw his racquet. A minor opera from a man who one flew into a rage, smashed a chair onto the court, then recited a poem in Russian and apologized to the audience. Never been one for consolation prizes, but he won five matches in a row. Also, I’d assumed that he’d been playing badly for over a year because he was nuts. Turns out the problem wasn’t all mental. According to the Times of London, his coach Herman Gumy, who joined the team ten months ago, realized that Marat was favoring his surgically-repaired knee. This had changed his movement, notably the swing on his forearm. They’ve been undoing this, and the results are just beginning to show.
*****
The End. About 4 am Monday, as the match passed the four-hour mark, with a rain delay and two suspensions due to rain, I thought, Will someone please end this so I can sleep! Nadal defeated Federer, 6-4, 6-4, 7-6, 7-6, 9-7. Federer tried everything, coming back from two sets down and saving three match points in spectacular fashion. To produce the most beautiful shots at the worst moments of the worst day of his life: amazing. But Nadal was the Terminator—nothing short of liquid nitrogen would’ve cooled him down. Here’s a level-headed appraisal of what is probably the best match of the open era.
Jeg makes an interesting point in the comments about equal prize money for the men and women. It is true that the quality of tennis on the men’s tour is generally far superior to the women’s. What do you think: Do Rafa and Ana deserve equal prize money? And since more attention seems to be paid to the ladies’ outfits than to their playing, should the men take to wearing shorter shorts? Bring back the Borg-era hot pants!
More on the final from the Mayor of London, who comments on the omnipresent wedgie and how that cross-court forehand zinger approaches the Platonic ideal.
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
July 5th, 2008 at 15:35
So it’s not mental? Why am I suddenly disappointed?
July 7th, 2008 at 05:58
I really had a hunch that Federer would never get his 6th Wimbledon. I was hoping Marat would be the one to dethrone him nonetheless, a big congratulations to Nadal for the feat.
July 7th, 2008 at 14:06
Nadal was relentless. I have no other word for it. The final was such a classic I’ll have to force myself to watch it in full. If only the trophy can be split; they both deserved it.
July 7th, 2008 at 15:32
HEARTBREAKING!!!! IT REALLY IS!!!
When Fed was down 2 sets I was already psyching myself up that this could br the end of his Wimbledon reign but still… its hard to accept!! *sobs*
July 7th, 2008 at 16:06
It’s matches like that one between Nadal and Federer that highlights the travesty of the women being given equal prize money as the men. By the principal of equal pay for equal work alone, it’s already a travesty (men play 5 sets) and we dont even have to factor in the quality of play and the number of fans.
July 7th, 2008 at 16:09
I hate it that Roger lost. I still have respect for Rafa because he’s humble unlike Novak, but I really (25x) want Federer to beat Sampras’ record. From being happy that Venus won, I felt like a drag when Roger lost. Maybe I have bipolar. Hmm.
July 7th, 2008 at 19:49
Roger fan here to ends of the planet. But Rafa deserved that win. That was an incredible match. It just erased the Borg-McEnroe final in my list of BEST ever Wimbledon final. This match IS IT! Awesome athletes!
July 7th, 2008 at 21:41
Re: #5, the quality is not equal between men’s and women’s matches? As long as we are comparing, why not compare the French Open final (6-1, 6-3, 6-0) with the 2003 US Open semifinal match between Henin and Capriati? After that match, Henin was even in IV’s.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:28
didnt watch the “live” telecast. watched the replay but my mom got home just when rafa was going for the championship point! had to open the dang gate!
July 8th, 2008 at 14:20
Dyahe. I get cited in the post and I typed ‘principal’ in the comment instead of ‘principle’.
Anyway, lest I be accused of misogyny, I decry equal pay on principles we can quantify, since quality is indeed subjective. In Grand Slam tournaments for example, men play five sets to the women’s three. This means they have to train longer and harder and would be more prone to injury which would lead to higher medical expenses. Next, the number of fans. You can verify this but I would think the men’s tour has the higher number of paying customers, both in the stadium and on cable TV. A five setter would mean that advertisers get more exposure during the match and so the men should have a higher share of the advertising revenue. For tournaments were both men and women play three sets, sure; equal prize money is more justifiable, if youre not factoring the subjective criteria of quality.
July 8th, 2008 at 23:10
It may be true that more people watch men’s matches than the women’s. But I just don’t understand the logic that because men play five sets at the majors, that they would “have to train longer and harder, and would be more prone to injury.”