Wimbledon Final: Federer-Nadal

Wimbledon’s Men’s Singles final between World Number 1 Roger Federer and World Number 2 Rafael Nadal was one of the all time great matches. Was it the best ever? It is arguable. It is difficult, certainly, to recall another match with tension, drama, desire and finesse in such spectacular abundance.

Two points summed up the match quite beautifully: Nadal’s running forehand pass down the line to bring up his second championship point from 6 all in the fourth set tiebreak and Federer’s equally astonishing backhand pass down the line to restore parity.

Federer went on to clinch the tiebreak 10-8 to complete a remarkable comeback. He had been 2 sets to love down after Nadal had started the game in typically barnstorming fashion. At three games all in the third, with Fed 0-40 down on serve, it looked for all the world as though his astonishing Wimbledon run would finally come to an end.

Of course, top-class sport is rarely that straightforward, and Federer wouldn’t be Federer if he wasn’t capable of the extraordinary. He drew on all his experience to battle back from the brink and then, at 4-4 in the third, with Fed serving at deuce, the rain came. It was a welcome break for Federer, who could now take a timeout to plot his comeback. With Nadal’s serve looking virtually impenetrable, Fed knew his best option was to hang on in there and hope he could nick the set on the tiebreak. This he did, and it was feat he repeated magnificently in the fourth.

I have described the two points that illustrated so perfectly the calibre of the two men on view. What I haven’t touched on, however, is that Nadal had being serving at 5-2. Two points for victory with two serves to come. Again, Fed was staring down the barrel – again, he refused to buckle. Any doubts about the strength of will of the defending champion evaporated at that moment. Questions over whether after 5 straight titles he still had the hunger were firmly dispelled.

The most miraculous thing of the entire match, however, was Nadal’s relentless pursuit of victory. Many a player would have been mentally broken by the concession of a 2 set lead, especially to the 5 times defending champion. Despite acknowledging that Nadal had remained the better player throughout, I was concerned that Fed would have the psychological in the final set given his miraculous recovery.

None of it. Nadal always looked the more likely to break and at 7 games all he deservedly achieved it. He would have been under enormous pressure having to serve out the match, but he managed to do so with minimal fuss.

Boris Becker described the moment as a “changing of the guard.” Certainly it is surely only a matter of time before the computer recognises a new World Number 1 for the first time since February 2^nd 2004, but does this represent something more? Is this the end of the Fed era? Will he win another slam? I suspect he will be back. He is too good not to be.

Dwain Chambers and the drugs-in-sport debate

The BBC recently published a news item online about British athlete and former drug cheat Dwain Chambers and his continued effort to overturn a BOA bylaw and represent Team GB at the Beijing Olympics. The full text of the article can be accessed using the link below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/7482544.stm

Within the article there is a link to a comment page where users can post their thoughts about Dwain Chambers and the whole ‘drugs-in-sport’ issue. Unsurprisingly the issue is a highly contentious one. Among the large number of nuanced perspectives one can identify two distinct factions: the group who feel Chambers should never be allowed to race again and the group who feel – despite varying degrees of disapproval over drug taking – that once someone has served the punishment for their crime they are entitled to a second chance.

The first group, led by a posse of former athletes which includes the shamelessly self-promoting duo of Dame Kelly Homes and Sir Steve ‘I’ve won 5 Olympic Gold Medals’ Redgrave, are a rather witless band of kneedjerkers. They exhibit no signs of having engaged with the issue on any deeper level than, ‘He took drugs. Drugs is bad.’ I have no time for people who display this level of sophistication.

To be fair to the athletes, I have some sympathy with their position. If you had worked unimaginably hard to achieve success, you would understandably hold in contempt those who you felt had taken a short cut. Not only is it unfair, it also undermines the credibility of the profession.

The problem I have is that whilst the sentiments of clean athletes are perfectly valid, maintaining a blanket rejection to the idea of drugs in sport is incredibly naïve and, in the long-term, totally inviable.

On the immediate level, Chambers has served his punishment in accordance with the rules currently laid down and thus should be free to carry on as before. In any other field this would be the case. It is unethical to attempt to move the goalposts in an effort to appease the self-righteous protestations of a small and disproportionately vocal group.

In the longer term we need to change the whole focus of the debate. Instead of asking how we police drugs in sport and what the punishments should be, we need to look at the pressures that have encouraged proliferation. We also need to ask whether there remain genuine arguments against taking PEDs. Perhaps the answer is just to allow use of performance enhancers in sport – after all, human beings have always sought – via the use of technology – to push the boundaries of what is possible.

If synthetic PEDs can be developed that carry only the same risk of conventional forms of performance enhancement (i.e. intensive training, high altitude training, etc.) then why should there continue to be resistance to their use?

If, as is likely, some athletes continue to benefit from undetectable drugs, isn’t it in fact better to level the playing field?