Talking Point: US Open analysis
Related Articles
Featured
Fan favourite Fed picks up three gongs in a day
After matching his 62 titles with as many winners to dispatch Victor Hanescu in Indian Wells, Federer was honoured post-match with a trio of awards
Latest Category Articles
The 2008 US Open proved that once again, one could never accuse tennis of being a predictable sport, especially when there are tropical storms involved!
Living spectacularly up to expectations, the second week at Flushing Meadows treated the eager American audience to the best-ever encounter between the Williams sisters, billed as the match that should have been the final.
Serena won just three more points than her sister to take their career head-to-head to 9-8 in her favour, and from then on she was on an inevitable path to the final, her third title, and the “added bonus” of regaining the No.1 ranking after a record five years and one month.
Those who mattered most, the players, turned out to be those who mattered least…
Elsewhere, Andy Roddick did Novak Djokovic the biggest favour of his career, cracking a rather funny joke about his opponent’s long list of injuries. The Serb came onto court looking like a bear with a sore head, and promptly produced his best tennis since winning the Australian Open, thrashing the jesting American over four sets.
In a bizarre turn of events, he then lost the plot when he turned on the American crowd, but it remained the most assured he has looked in a while. Unfortunately for him, his semi-final was the moment when Roger Federer finally stopped looking like a man who has lost his car keys, and turned on the gas to deal the world No.3 a bit of a thrashing. It may have been over four sets, but on the whole, Federer produced untouchable tennis for the first time in the tournament.
And then there was Andy Murray. Andy Murray, whom just a week ago yours truly accused of not winning easily enough. I take it back. Murray became a man when he outran, outmuscled and outplayed Rafael Nadal. The Spaniard is arguably the most physical player in tennis, who thrives on pushing his opponents around the court and just when they think he can’t possibly go up a gear, he does.
Against Murray, that seemingly inexorable energy was lacking, perhaps an indicator that his whirlwind few months have finally caught up with him. But most importantly, the Scot point-blank refused to be worn down by Nadal, and as he retrieved formidably and covered the court nimbly, time and time again he found the space to hit winners, all 65 of them.
Even when he’d lost the third set, and thrown every tool in his box at Nadal to try and break him early in the fourth, Murray’s head did not go down. He recovered, broke back, and then broke again in the final game of the match. Welcome to the elite Mr Murray.
As well as spectacular tennis, there was a little political furore as well. On Super Saturday, which thanks to Tropical Storm Hanna became Soaking Saturday, the powers that be at the USTA agonised about breaking up their attractive television line-up, finally bringing forward Federer and Djokovic’s semi-final by an hour, but neglecting to start Nadal and Murray’s match at the same time.
The inevitable happened, and as Hanna blew in over New York, albeit 10 minutes later than predicted, Federer had sauntered home to have a bath, whilst Murray and Nadal were left twiddling their thumbs in the locker room, half-way through their match. The result was that Federer finished his semi-final 28 hours and 8 minutes earlier than Murray. Some have even touched on the scheduling being a conspiracy to benefit Federer, but that may be going a bit far.
Much has also been made of the need to satisfy the 23,000 ticket holders who had paid to see the two semi-finals back-to-back, and, of course, the needs of CBS, which pays the USTA $35m (£19.6m) a year to broadcast the tournament, but the overriding impression one is left with is that those who mattered most, the players, turned out to be those who mattered least.
The USTA later acknowledged that they had made the wrong decision, and that the second semi-final should have been started at the same time, but all the same, it is a pretty colossal error for such a professional outfit to make. The one plus is that they’ve decided to put on a roof by 2012. Well done them.
Pundits pointed to the dithering over the court scheduling as the reason why Nadal looked decidedly agitated when he was finally allowed to emerge for play, which might go some way to explaining why he didn’t seem to be on the same court as Murray during the first set. The Spaniard, of course, played this down, saying sagely that the conditions were the same for both players, and that Murray simply played better. “Too many matches on my shoulders”, he said, wearing the sadly satisfied smile of a player who knows he did his best and it wasn’t enough. Magnanimous Rafa.
And so to the final, with Britain, and a large part of New York, once again gripped in the clutches of Murraymania. Could we dare to dream that a British man could win a Grand Slam title for the first time since Fred Perry in 1936, the most-oft quoted statistic in British tennis. But as is often the case, the dream was not quite meant to be. Not yet anyway.
With the effortlessness of a champion’s champion, Roger Federer gave the young pretender a masterclass, seemingly saying: “Well done Andy, you’ve done great. Now I’m going to show you how it’s done.” Which is exactly what he did, reaching a level of tennis so high that he was almost flying.
Federer fired his forehand, and became the only man ever to win two of the major championships five consecutive times, the other of course being Wimbledon. Always half a step ahead of the young Scot, he seemed to have recovered his famous gracious glide around the court, which against someone who can scramble and retrieve as adeptly as Murray, proved crucial. Not a sign of the “finished Federer” on this court.
The straight-sets scoreline suggests it was a thrashing, and in many ways it was. But despite the brutal truth that Murray did not once look like winning the match, the fact that he recovered from a set and 2-0 down in the second speaks volumes about the young man’s character. Murray’s never-say-die attitude which got him through his five-setter against Jurgen Melzer and saw him overwhelm both Juan Martin del Potro and Nadal has typified his tournament, and is perhaps one of his most valuable qualities. If you believe you can fight your way out of a hole, nine times out of ten you can.
Unfortunately it didn’t happen on this occasion, but I submit that any player would have had difficulty denting Federer’s confidence in this match. Evincing a huge yell as he clinched the second set 7-5, the Swiss supremo upped gear again, and for the first time, the young Scot’s head went down. Whether the 28 hours less he had had to rest and prepare were a factor, or whether it was the culmination of playing seven straight matches at a Grand Slam for the first time, his legs looked heavier and heavier, and he seemed increasingly agitated by his troublesome right knee.
He prevented a whitewash in the final set, breaking Federer back at the 11th hour, before finally succumbing on the defending champion’s second match point. 6-2, 7-5, 6-2, after one hour and 51 minutes, incidentally 13 minutes less than it had taken Serena Williams to beat Jelena Jankovic and secure her title.
It was Federer’s hour, and Federer’s day, and overhauling Pete Sampras’ 14 Grand Slam titles seems more and more achievable based on this performance. But as we are reminded time and time again in this most unpredictable of sports, anything can happen. Last year, a plucky young Serb named Djokovic was beaten in straight sets by Federer, and went on to win the Australian Open. For Mr Murray, it is only the beginning.
Fans' Comments
Add your own remarks below
CalamityJane Sep 9, 11:27 AM
The Fed express made it look so easy. So easy.
Top Gun Sep 9, 12:11 PM
Well said.
beansontoast Sep 9, 01:45 PM
yeah, fed was awesome. different class in sets one and three – and that linecall in the second would have made NO difference whatsoever to the outcome of the match..
Billy Sep 9, 03:14 PM
i’m suffering extreme guilt that despite being british i was cheering on rafa and fed when they played murray. is that wrong?
Top Gun Sep 10, 02:41 PM
I wouldn’t say that it’s wrong. Tennis isn’t like most other sports, as you like and support the player regardless of their nationality, rather than supporting a team.
While I have nothing against Murray – I think he’s done brilliant and deservedly so – my favourite player is Rafael Nadal, but I also love watching Roger Federer.
To me, both have far better personalities, on-court presence and off-court attitude than Murray – plus I much prefer the way they play their sport.
Now, I would have been happy to see Murray win as it would have been a big thing for British Tennis, but to be honest, I think the sport saw the best result. Federer, back on form to challenge Rafa – what a contest that next match will be!
Comments closed