On my way to Melbourne 🚂💨😀 pic.twitter.com/yYpRh1zfPa
— Roger Federer (@rogerfederer) January 12, 2016
have fun!
On my way to Melbourne 🚂💨😀 pic.twitter.com/yYpRh1zfPa
— Roger Federer (@rogerfederer) January 12, 2016
Roger Federer had lost six of seven matches to Novak Djokovic, most recently last month in a dispiriting, straight-set affair in the French Open semifinals.
But that was on red clay during a soggy second week in Paris when it was even tougher than usual to breach Djokovic’s formidable defenses.
Wimbledon was rainy, too, on Friday. But Centre Court now has a retractable roof and so Federer, with his suspect back and grand plans, was able to stay safe and dry on his favorite tennis court; able to shift the momentum of a great rivalry back his own way with a stirring and surprising 6-3, 3-6, 6-4, 6-3 victory in the semifinals.
“Obviously I’m ecstatic; I’m so happy,” Federer said. “I played a great match today.”
...
At age 30, Federer, the smooth-moving and enduring Swiss champion, is now just one victory away from tying William Renshaw and Pete Sampras with a seventh Wimbledon singles title. He is also only one victory away from reclaiming the No. 1 ranking. (via)
In their head-to-head matches, Nadal has won seventeen, Federer eight. Nadal has now won six of their eight Grand Slam final showdowns. Yes, but take away the overall results on clay (Nadal, 12–2), one argument goes, and the Fed emerges with a 6–5 edge on grass and hard courts. But Nadal, crucially, had to go through Federer to win a Slam on grass, Federer's fiefdom (en route to his first Wimbledon, in the greatest match of all time — no quotation marks needed there), whereas Roger's sole French, c'est triste, mais c'est vrai, is his only because he never had to face Nadal. Nadal, moreover, won their only hard-court Grand Slam final, the 2009 Australian. If any further proof were needed, there was the 2007 "Battle of the Surfaces" exhibition match, played on a specially constructed hybrid court with grass on one end, clay on the other. Guess who won?
The truth, I suspect, is that we keep saying Federer is the best ever because we need it to be so. We need to believe in the triumph of the beautiful, that the grace he embodies isn't merely incidental to his success. Because tennis, even as it appears forever on the verge of degenerating into mere athleticism (cf. the joyless gruntfest that has been the women's game of the past half decade or so), can never quite escape its subtle relationship to art — to sculpture, say, even to dance. (Attending a tennis match is even a little bit like going to the opera, what with the hushed deportment.) Nadal's two-handed backhand, so powerful that Federer once said it was like facing someone with two forehands, could never be called beautiful. But the majestic sweep of Federer's increasingly anachronistic one-hander, so ruthlessly victimized by Nadal's tsunamilike topspin, has the drama of a grand gesture. In this dialectic tennis resembles soccer, where greatness can be achieved via mere winning (Manchester United) but immortality is reserved for those who win the beautiful game beautifully (Barcelona). (via)

joel and i wont be able to blog today because we just got some free courtside tickets to the US open, thanks to joey!

