I won't add anything to Brian Phillip's analysis. It's perfect and well-written and I co-sign 110% if you're willing to overlook the mathematical impossibility of it.
No, this post is more about just how good of a match it was, relatively. As in, relative to the best match ever played. By the time we're done, we should have a pretty good understanding of where this match ranks compared to what is the tennis match equivalent of the The Beatles--the 2008 Wimbledon Final. So far, the Internet has been timid about offering opinions concerning the conversation. No one wants to be that guy who claims U2 is better than the Beatles. And as of this writing at least one person has, and another hasn't. But neither offer much by the way of analysis, or why one match should be given/retain the top spot. So, I will take the responsibility on myself. Let's meet our contestants:
The Champ
R. Nadal v. R. Federer for the 2008 Wimbledon Championship. Centre Court. Five Setter. Two rain delays. 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 9-7 in favor of the Spaniard. It is telling, just so you know, that I supplied that scoreline instantaneously, without any sort of fact checking whatsoever. It just flew from my random access memory, like my ABCs or something.
The Contender
N. Djokovic v. R. Nadal, the 2012 Australian Open edition. Rod Laver Arena. Five Setter. One slight rain delay. 5-7 6-4 6-2 6-7 7-5 with Novak taking home the title.
The Breakdown
It should be noted, that I have no qualms pitting these two matches head to head, and it is not because I don't hold the '08 Wimby in a particular reverence. I most certainly do. I own the Produced by the BBC DVD of the Entire Match which I will just throw in and watch sometimes. For the fun of it. But what happened Sunday night was so monumental and affecting that it demands the Champ's company. Why is '08 the champ? Because of the context and backstory. It was No. 1 Federer on the ropes from No. 2 Rafael Nadal, whose Spring assault that year was unrelenting. Fed was on his home turf--five time champion at All England and going of his record breaking sixth title in a row. Nadal had lost the last two finals there to Federer (2006-2007) but had beaten Federer so totally at the French Open a month before that it looked like the tennis world's axis was beginning to turn.
Why '12 is challenging: For much the same reason. Here is No. 2 Nadal, loser of six straight to No. 1 Djokovic, looking for another such karmic shift, and draining every last reserve to do so. In fact the setting and context carries as much weight as the actual quality of play. You see, there is a group of matches that comprises the next tier down in our discussion. These include the '05 Aussie semi between Federer and Marat Safin, the '06 Rome Final between Fed and Nadal, and the '09 Aussie semi between Nadal and Fernando Verdasco. And these matches contain some of the best tennis, from a pure technical standpoint, that you will ever witness. Very hardcore fans will contend that the tennis in this sub category is even better than the kind of these two matches in question. But not one of those same fans will think about putting Tier 2 up with the above, because of the lesser context of them.
So what about the "tennis" in these two epic matches? On the Wimby hand, you have the sport at its most sublime, crafted by the great artisan of the sport, Roger Federer himself. All of the attendant aesthetic beauty of Roger's game was present to an order of magnitude seldom witnessed. This has something to do with the court's grass surface--points are faster and shorter and when two of the best players ever are zoning for 4+ hours, your jaw is bound to become unhinged. In particular, the fourth set tiebreak includes three such face melters that I won't bother trying to explain here. Just do yourself and Earth a favor and watch that tiebreak. You'll know the shots when you see them, especially since the crowd goes so ape on each one of them that you can't see the court anymore for the various limbs flailing about in front of the camera.
On the Aussie hand, you have breathtaking tennis played at its best, but intermittently. What it has going for it, though, is a sheer physical spectacle not touched by it's English counterpart. Here are two men, who's style of punishing tennis is rightly compared to boxing prize fighters, slugging and gutting and grunting it out over six (!) hours. Also consider the unpredictability that made for such good theater: At 2 sets to 1, Djok had 3 break points to take a 5-3 lead and serve for what would have been a relatively routine victory for him in 4 sets. But, but, Rafa saves all three with commanding authority, forces the tiebreak, wins the tiebreak and starts pumping his fists like some sort of demented cage fighter on crack. Djokovic is reeling, Rafa is surging, and you are just sure that there is no way in h-e-double hockey sticks that he (Rafa) is losing this match. And sure enough, in set 5 he breaks in the sixth game, and in the seventh is up 30-15 to basically put the match away. And then, that backhand. The gimmie to the open court that Nadal floats wide. And Djokovic breaks back (like what is HAPPENING?) and at 5-5 Djokovic somehow breaks again, but while serving for the match shanks a routine overhead before giving Nadal a break point. Which he saves with gutsy ground strokes that just look impossible after six hours of tennis. And then, Novak earns a match point and hits a mammoth serve down the middle, setting up a sitter on the forehand wing, which, at this point, you can barely watch him hit since you are not totally convinced the ball won't just fly off his racket for no reason, landing out and prolonging the match for another who-knows-how-long. It was just that kind of night.
Wild, wild match.
So, is it the mosaic of Wimbledon? Or the roller coaster ride Down Under?
The Winner
In the end, it's got to be 2008. There are three reasons I can think of: First, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are two of the best, most dominant players to ever play the sport. Novak Djokovic is making one of the better runs in history, but has not cracked into the echelon of Laver/Borg/Sampras where Rafa and Fed now reside. Wimbledon '08 pits two all time greats against each other, versus one all time great and the current hottest player on the tour.
Second, all Grand Slams are not created equal. Er, they are, I guess, in terms of rankings points. But while the top players chase history in the form of all four, there is a spoken and unspoken understanding that Wimbledon holds a more special place in the heart of pro tennis players everywhere. It has to do with it being the granddaddy of tennis tournaments, and with the tradition, the dress code, the grass courts, the iconic images of past champions and past matches. In fact, the current big three--Roger, Rafa, and Novak--have all publicly expressed that Wimbledon is the most important tournament to each of them. Ultimately, it's the only setting where the Greatest Match Ever could take place.
Third, (and you have to have watched both matches to get this) the quality of tennis from the '08 match is just unrivaled by anything else ever produced. Telling statistic: Last Sunday, Novak and Rafa combined for 140 unforced errors over 5 sets, compared to 101 winners (-39 differential). This is representative of the physical grind of the match. Yet three years ago at Wimbledon, Roger and Rafa, over another five sets, combined for 79 unforced errors, but (get this) 149 winners (+70). Just sheer quality. Pure, offensive, artistic tennis. The kind worthy of the historic setting of Centre Court.
Rafa and Novak, congrats to you guys. You played the second greatest match in history.
