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?

Wimbledon Week 1 Roundup

Wimbledon Week 1 Roundup

With the second Monday of this year’s Wimbledon now well underway, it seems an appropriate time to look back at the past week and assess the shocks and success stories thus far.

There were some big early shocks as third seed Novak Djokovic and twice beaten Wimbledon finalist Andy Roddick both bowed out in the second round. This will have been a major disappointment to both players but especially the young Serb, who was so impressive in his narrow defeat to Rafa Nadal in the Queen’s Club final just a week previous. Djokovic’s exit means Nadal looks like the only realistic challenger to the reigning champ Roger Federer, looking for his 6^th successive title.

The two big upsets in the women’s draw were the second round exit of Maria Sharapova, the champion of 2004, and the third round loss of world number 1 and winner of last month’s French Open title, Ana Ivanovic. Both women looked devoid of ideas and threw in a succession of unforced errors in defeat to Alla Kudryavtseva and Jie Zheng respectively.

Among the success we can of course count the usual suspects of Federer, Nadal and, in the women’s draw, the Williams sisters. All have displayed their characteristic strength of mind and no little amount of skill in their passage through the rounds. Indeed, as I write, Federer has just performed a demolition job on the only other player on the men’s circuit to have won a Wimbledon Singles title, Leyton Hewitt.

Nadal is the obvious challenger to Federer but there have been a few other players in the men’s draw who have impressed enough to be worth a mention. Former world number 1 Marat Safin has looked in really good touch, especially in his defeat of Djokovic. He has always had the shots but he now looks to have regained some of the mental toughness that has brought two previous Grand Slam titles. If he keeps this belief he could be a danger to anyone – and he’s on Fed’s side of the draw!

Also on Fed’s side of the draw – indeed playing him in the quarter finals – is Mario Ancic. Ancic remains the last person to beat Fed on grass and has looked like a man in form so far this tournament. However, he is already carrying a couple of minor injuries and is likely to be tired following a gruelling five set win over Fernando Verdasco.

Marcos Baghdatis, Janko Tipsarevic and Marin Cilic have all come through with relative ease, but the player that I’ve been really been impressed with is home favourite Andy Murray. I keep expecting the weight of pressure to tell but with every passing round Murray has looked more and more confident and, crucially, resilient. He will have his work cut out in the next round, however, as he is due to play the exceptionally gifted, if erratic, young Frenchman Richard Gasquet.

The tie is likely to be one to savour as both will see it as opportunity to advance against a relatively inexperienced opponent. We wait to see whether Murray will have the answers to Gasquet’s staggering array of shots.

Well done Cesc. Bye-bye Ade?

First of all I want to say congratulations to Spain for reaching the final of Euro 2008. Whilst they may not have excited as much as the plucky Turks, they have certainly been the most consistent team of the tournament. I was especially happy to see Fabregas turn in another impressive display after he came on to replace the injured David Villa. To be honest, his ability to influence the game has been so obvious during his several substitute appearances and his one start against Greece that I’m surprised he didn’t start against the Russians. I suppose this is a mark of just how blessed the Spanish manager Luis Aragonés is.

The good news for Cesc is that Villa’s injury looks like keeping him out of the final, which is likely to mean a starting birth for the Arsenal player. This of course I am happy about, and I truly hope Cesc can inspire his team to victory against the insufferably lucky Germans. I do have, however, a speck of caution. If, as is hoped, Spain do triumph, and if, as expected, Cesc plays a central role, it is likely to attract yet more unwelcome attention to Arsenal’s best and brightest.

It would be naïve of me to think that Cesc’s star has not already risen high enough to be seen by the keen-eyes of Europe’s hawks. But further evidence of the youngster’s exceptional ability may provoke the same unscrupulous tactics as have been witnessed during Real Madrid’s ongoing dalliances with Cristiano Ronaldo. A similar thing is already afoot in the form Milan and Barcelona’s pursuit of Emmanuel Adebayor. Contrary to the player’s claims that he wants to stay, his Italian agent Vincenzo Morabito is now claiming there is an “80% chance” the striker will leave for Milan.

Apparently, the only hope Arsenal have of keeping hold of Adebayor is if they treble his wages to £120,000 per week! Given Arsenal’s strict wage structure it is unlikely they will be prepared to offer such a deal, which I suppose means bye-bye Ade. Well, perhaps not. I don’t doubt Milan and Barcelona’s interest in the player – and there would be quite so much smoke without at least a small fire – but much of this hype is media and agent-generated – it’s about shifting newspapers and about establishing a strong negotiating position.

I would be very surprised to see Adebayor go this summer. Certainly it would be a mistake for him to go. Although he was one of the standout players of last term it would be foolish of him to forget the circumstances of his ascent. He was allowed to flourish at Arsenal because he was given time and because the manager repeatedly showed faith. At Arsenal, Adebayor is a key piece of an elaborate jigsaw. He should be aware that if he moves to either Milan or Barcelona his particular talents are unlikely to be indulged so fastidiously – witness Thierry Henry.

I just want to say a little on what seems to be a growing tendency for some clubs to publicly court players from other clubs with the explicit intention of unsettling the player and thus facilitating a transfer. The most talked-about recent example of this media-assisted tapping-up has of course been the Ronaldo to Madrid saga.

Despite United’s enviable global profile and evident reluctance to sell, it appears Real’s charm offensive may succeed. £60m may go some way to sweetening the deal, but for the European Champions there is more at stake than just money. The loss of their prized asset to one of the Continental heavyweights – even for such an astronomical fee – is likely to cause consternation. Why should they yield to anyone?

This is an understandable sentiment, but it should come as some consolation to United fans that Ronaldo’s desire to leave springs from an irresistible boyhood fantasy to one day play for Real Madrid. The unscrupulous way in which Real are exploiting this dream is regrettable, but I fear there is little can be done to stop them.

The team that have been affected most by the covetous overtures of some of Europe’s elite clubs are Arsenal. Hleb was the first to be targeted, followed by Fabregas, Adebayor, Van Persie and now, it appears, Gael Clichy. As an Arsenal fan, it is immensely frustrating to hear the constant speculation linking your best players with the exit door, but I suppose Arsenal are paying the price for not establishing their credentials as one of Europe’s elite.

After a season in which the team flirted with greatness only to fall at the last, the club’s top players are now hot property. Milan, Barcelona and Inter are waiting to gorge themselves on the fruits of Wenger’s fresh harvest. Any hint of discontent will register like a drop of blood in shark infested waters. If Arsenal were to signal their intentions more overtly – perhaps by imitating the spending of their rivals – they might finally be able to rid themselves of the unwelcome ‘selling-club’ tag. If they choose not to, they will face an incessant threat from clubs more willing to show their ambition.

David Davis

I just want to make a brief comment about the shameless opportunism of David Davis. Let me say in advance that I agree with the principles on which he is planning to re-contest his seat, however, if he was so committed to the principles of justice and liberty, why did he not resign his seat much earlier?

From a utilitarian perspective, 42 days detention without charge is clearly much worse than 28 days. However, from a deontological standpoint - a standpoint which, like Mr Davis, is concerned with principles not consequences - there is not a significant difference. Plainly, if 6 weeks represents an unnacceptable erosion of our fundamental civil liberties then so does 4 weeks.

In this light, Mr Davis' principled stand is nothing more than opportunism. He wants to make a name for himself as a man of uncompromising values during a time when, for various reasons, the public has lost faith in politics and politicians. We can't even respect David Davis for his bravery because, thanks to the rapidly plummeting fortunes of the Labour Party, the move is virtually risk free.