Feder Vs. Nadal, "Analyze This"

Now I don't know much about watching tennis but I know a great match when I see one. I have been following tennis in the news for the last two and a half years. It all started around the time Sania Mirza picked up her game a little bit and made it to the fourth round, if I am not mistaken, of the Australian Open, once again I maybe wrong, to lose to one of the Williams sisters. Ever since I have made it a point to follow the grand slams in the news. Like I said, I don't watch the sport but with all the hype surrounding this final I took the 'chance'.


The match was scheduled to start at six this morning. Thinking I'd give it some time to settle I woke up at quarter past six to see the match was just into the third game or so. I got through the 'motions' and switched on the T.V. to see that Nadal had breezed through the first set. Let me make it clear at this point that I am a Federer fan. I thought this would be a four setter and that Federer would win the next three sets, of course with some sweat. He even had a 4-1 lead in the second set only to lose it 6-4. The first two sets I was over the internet keeping an eye on the Asia Cup finals and finishing my review of 'Khuda Ke Liye' and started on 'Ed Wood'.

I watched the next two sets. I just had to. If Federer was going to lose, that too in straight sets, I just had to share his sorrow. Agreed I have been following this only in the news but I just love this guy. He was not doing too good. Would have probably lost if not for the rain interruption. It went to a tie breaker. Although the weather was gloomy the audience didn't let that permeate through into their enthusiasm. It was not magic, that was saved for the fourth set, but Federer survived another set. The fourth set too went by with the players not giving an inch. Because at that level if an inch is given a mile is generally stolen. Knowing this would happen I took a break to have bath. On return the match was headed for a tie breaker.

At this point I have to make a confession. I didn't exactly know how tie breakers work. I was not sure if the finish was at five or six or seven with a difference of two. Or if each player had one serve or two. You can now imagine how I must have felt when Nadal was on 4 and then went to 5. I was on the edge of my seat. Nothing surprising. The guy I was rooting for was almost down. But it was time for magic. Federer took the next five points and took the match to the final set, saving two championship points on the way.

I think there was another rain interruption somewhere at noon. I wanted to wait for the match but I had something scheduled. 'Analyze This' was on T.V.. It's not a great movie, I know that. But I had been trying to watch it for a long time. It had Robert De Niro and Billy Crystal, a pair I had not seen on T.V.. So I started watching this. It seemed like my lucky day it was on a channel which had plenty of commercial breaks which helped me keep an eye on the final at Wimbledon. Apart from the performances of these two great actors there was nothing much in the film. We have seen mafia movies before but this time it is packaged in a supposedly funnier reel. The only problem is that I could see most of the unfolding in my head a few minutes before it played out on T.V.. That usually means something is not working in the film. But to be fair, It was okay. That's it. (RATING: 2.5/5)

Every commercial break I'd change to the final. The final set went just like the last two sets. It was 6-6 and this time there would be no tie-breaker. I should have seen it coming. No tie-breaker would have, in all probabilities, lead to a win for Nadal. After all, Federer's record in tie-breaks was outstanding and today his record with break points was miserable. It just had to against Federer. I didn't see that coming though. The last shot Federer was a summary of the day's play for me. He hit it hard. But it went straight into the net. I understand it was off his forehand, unlike many of his other unforced errors which were off the backhand, but that was Federer today. However, he showed what champions are made of. Coming back from 2-0 he went down fighting.

Nadal broke Federer's run on grass. It had to happen. He kept giving himself so many chances by playing well and making it to the finals for the last two years. He simply had to win it sometime. I don't mean to say he got lucky. But this is my belief. Failure is not a reason to stop. If you try again you chances of success are that much higher. And that's why I keep saying that Federer will win the French Open once for sure. He keeps coming to the final. Moreover, Nadal has now shown him that no player ever owns a trophy. The trophy finally goes to a deserving winner.

SOME OBSERVATIONS:

1. The behaviour of both players was an example to the Australian cricket team, Harbhajan Singh and Santakumaran. It looked like a match from the 1990s. The players were so subdued. To see Federer chat with Nadal at the customary hand shake over the net at the end and his reaction to the defeat was a pleasant surprise. Nadal too knows his place and didn't go over the top with his celebrations.

2. For quite some time now I have believed it is cinema and literature that can keep give you goosebumps, make you laugh, make you cry and get inspired. But I have slowly but surely begun to realize that it is in sport too. In sport there are no genre like in literature and cinema. It's all there in one match. Nothing looks out of place as it often does on screen or in text. It all fits in. No one can write scripts like those written in real sporting events.

3. I am not clear on how the 'challenge' thing works. Although I understand that each player is allowed three incorrect challenges I don't quite follow what happens when a rally is stopped mid-way for a challenge. I will have to find that out.

4. There was a lot of talk of whether it was the best final at Wimbledon. I don't quite know. I have read and heard of Sampras and Rafter playing into the twilight. It happened again today.

5. While watching the match on T.V. I was not half as cool as two players on center court. Having seen cricket for so many years it was the first time I was exposed to such tension. While in cricket it all builds up over a period of time here it is from the first serve. And today it went over the top with the match lasting as long as it did. It was a different experience for me.

6. This is perhaps my most important observation. My experience with following sports has been purely through cricket and off late I have been following F-1 and tennis. In the other two sports it has alway been easy to pick the one I support. Raikkonen was an easy choice last year as he was the only good guy. Australia can never be my choice as they are the eternal bad guys. But in this final both the guys were good guys. Many people pick their favorites on skill but I give equal importance to character. Both Nadal and Federer are great players and are well behaved. I support Federer. So, when someone tells me he or she supports Nadal I have nothing to say against him. This has not happened to me before.