Posted by Stephen Tignor, TENNIS.com
When the Wimbledon men's final was over, I clicked on Tennis.com and saw this headline: "Match of a Generation." Under it was photo of
Rafael Nadal holding the trophy in near darkness. The words were appropriate -- like Borg vs. McEnroe on Centre Court in 1980 or Laver vs. Rosewall in Dallas in 1972, Nadal vs.
Roger Federer is, thus far, the apotheosis of its era. The Spaniard won the match, but he and his opponent together did something more: They vindicated a style of play.
Who, after watching them whip the ball and their bodies around Centre Court for almost five hours, would now say that today's baseline-oriented game is inherently boring? Who can continue to claim that tennis is at its best when there is a "contrast in styles"? And who would ever again complain that, without serve-and-volleyers, tennis is less exciting and artistic? Plenty of people, I'm sure. Tennis fans are rarely satisfied with their sport. But Nadal and Federer have given us an opportunity to appreciate today's game without any anxious looks to its past.
Despite the two contrasting players, if you focused on the shots they produced, you wouldn't have noticed a big difference. Each lashed up on the ball and sent it arcing over the net and diving into the corner. Each varied the length of their strokes multiple times within a point. Each took the first opportunity to haul off a scalding winner. Each made the outrageous look routine.
Laver vs. Rosewall in 1972 was a battle of two Aussie serve-and-volleyers. The game's aficionados still feel that this manly risk-taking approach is the way tennis should be played. And there is a cause-and-effect logic to the style -- you make something happen rather than wait for an error. But waiting for an error was the last thing that Nadal and Federer did on Centre Court. They played a refined and cerebral version of high-risk tennis. Federer's use of a wide serve and a forehand into the open court was the equivalent of a Laver serve-and-volley 35 years ago.
Borg vs. McEnroe in 1980 was a battle of opposites, the baseliner vs. the serve-and-volleyer. This is often cited as the ideal situation, and the contrast can make for compelling drama. But it's hardly a guarantee of excitement -- Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, opposites in most ways, never approached the drama of Nadal-Federer. A close, well-played match, no matter what styles the players are using, will always feature a contrast in personalities, and that's what Rafa and Roger gave us.
Baseline bashing can be monotonous, just as serve-and-volleyers can produce dozens of blink-and-you-missed-it points. But Nadal and Federer proved that two baseliners can also conjure tennis that's as varied, manly, dramatic, and full of personality as any ever played. They gave the style an historic legitimacy. If Laver and Rosewall perfected the classic high-percentage game, and Borg and McEnroe gave us two icons for the ages, Nadal and Federer did what the best tennis players have been doing all decade: They made stunning shot-making an every day -- every point -- occurrence. Maybe now tennis fans will begin to appreciate it. But I doubt it.
