This might not connect, not at all, but to be honest my mind is scrambled, buzzing in a million different directions, and I have to start somewhere if I really want to write about Sunday’s brilliant, stressful, joyous, melancholic and draining six and a half set marathon Wimbledon final between Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer.
Going forward, although it's truly amazing that Federer is still able to do it at age 37, and didn't seem overly winded after 6 full sets, he's turning 38. We know that, at most, he has a year or two of championship tennis left in him. (Although I probably said that two years ago). The fact is that Djokovic will likely have the run of the place for 3-5 years, unless someone else emerges. Nidal will still be there for a while, but Djokovic has a distinct advantage over him, except at the French. Who knows what will happen. Injuries happen. New stars emerge. The desire to put in the time it takes to win may change. But Djokovic does have a very good chance of running right by Federer's majors win record.
While some were writing off Djokovic after his subpar 2017, it was not hard to see he would rebound. Nadal (3 years) and Federer (5 years!) went through longer major-less droughts.
It is now looking more and more like Novak will go down as the best player of all time. He has the age advantage over both; only a year younger than Nadal, but clearly better on hardcourts and grass, where three of the four majors are played. He has the head to head advantage over both, and given their ages, one can reasonably assume he will widen those advantages.
Also, he is less than a year away from setting the all-time record for weeks at Number One--only 50 behind Federer. There are a lot of points to defend, but his lead is substantial.
Thanks Joe. Was really hoping you’d write about this wonderful final- and about the Big 3. In all the talk about who is the GOAT, I have recently come to the same conclusion as you. There is not a hair’s breadth of difference between them in terms of their quality of play. These Wimbledon matches perfectly encapsulate that idea. A point here, a point there and any of the three could have won. There wasn’t a better or worse player among the 3. And compared to the rest of the field? There is NO comparison. Can you imagine if only one of these were actively playing for the last decade (say two had decided to retire) how many slams any of them would have won- 30? 40? It is simply remarkable how they have been at the top for so long. Other than when they have been sidelined because of injuries, they are almost unbeatable- often not even challenged. I am thoroughly enjoying this ride.
I really wish I could care about tennis more. I used to, back in the 1980's, and then I cared about women's tennis about ten years ago. It would be a great time to be interested in men's tennis again. Come back Ivan Lendl?
Not bad Swedish there, Joe. But it should be "Grattis till sju vunna mästerskap du tråkiga men underbara tennisstjärna". :) And Wilander is not forgotten here in Sweden, his French Open win in 1982 is still remembered as one of the biggest Swedish tennis wins of all time. Plus that 1988 season was pretty insane with Wilander winning 3 Grand Slams and Stefan Edberg winning Wimbledon.
Swedish Tennis Player Power Ranking
1. Björn Borg
2. Stefan Edberg
3. Mats Wilander
But let me tell you, the biggest Swedish triumph in Tennis was not a single grand slam title. It was the Davis Cup win in 1984. Here in Sweden that counts something like the USA miracle on ice in 1980. John McEnroe was world number one, Jimmy Connors number two and McEnroe/Flemming number one in doubles. USA only managed to take a single set the first three matches and Sweden won 4-1. Wilander embarrassed Connors, Henrik Sundström beat a furious John McEnroe and Järryd/Edberg won the doubles. Those were the days, now Sweden doesn't have a single mens player ranked top 100.
Oh, and by the way. Did you know Mats Wilander released a record in 1991? It's really bad.
I am totally with you on the final paragraph - during the fifth set my wife and I kept saying that watching the match made us want to grab our rackets and head out to play.
I was up early, consumed Breakfast at Wimbledon, watched the match with intense interest. The only thing that remained was Joe's take on the match. As always, it was the perfect bow.
Going forward, although it's truly amazing that Federer is still able to do it at age 37, and didn't seem overly winded after 6 full sets, he's turning 38. We know that, at most, he has a year or two of championship tennis left in him. (Although I probably said that two years ago). The fact is that Djokovic will likely have the run of the place for 3-5 years, unless someone else emerges. Nidal will still be there for a while, but Djokovic has a distinct advantage over him, except at the French. Who knows what will happen. Injuries happen. New stars emerge. The desire to put in the time it takes to win may change. But Djokovic does have a very good chance of running right by Federer's majors win record.
That's how I feel about the MJ vs. Lebron debate. I decided not to waste energy on who is the best, and just realize that pair is the greatest.
If you want a backhand to copy, look at Agassi's. It is compact, simple, and still effective.
Considering their greatness, and how often they've faced each other, Could Federer and Nadal be the tennis equivalent of Warren Spahn and Stan Musial?
While some were writing off Djokovic after his subpar 2017, it was not hard to see he would rebound. Nadal (3 years) and Federer (5 years!) went through longer major-less droughts.
It is now looking more and more like Novak will go down as the best player of all time. He has the age advantage over both; only a year younger than Nadal, but clearly better on hardcourts and grass, where three of the four majors are played. He has the head to head advantage over both, and given their ages, one can reasonably assume he will widen those advantages.
Also, he is less than a year away from setting the all-time record for weeks at Number One--only 50 behind Federer. There are a lot of points to defend, but his lead is substantial.
Thanks Joe. Was really hoping you’d write about this wonderful final- and about the Big 3. In all the talk about who is the GOAT, I have recently come to the same conclusion as you. There is not a hair’s breadth of difference between them in terms of their quality of play. These Wimbledon matches perfectly encapsulate that idea. A point here, a point there and any of the three could have won. There wasn’t a better or worse player among the 3. And compared to the rest of the field? There is NO comparison. Can you imagine if only one of these were actively playing for the last decade (say two had decided to retire) how many slams any of them would have won- 30? 40? It is simply remarkable how they have been at the top for so long. Other than when they have been sidelined because of injuries, they are almost unbeatable- often not even challenged. I am thoroughly enjoying this ride.
I really wish I could care about tennis more. I used to, back in the 1980's, and then I cared about women's tennis about ten years ago. It would be a great time to be interested in men's tennis again. Come back Ivan Lendl?
My concern is whether I’ll be able to care about tennis at all anymore when these three stop playing.
Not bad Swedish there, Joe. But it should be "Grattis till sju vunna mästerskap du tråkiga men underbara tennisstjärna". :) And Wilander is not forgotten here in Sweden, his French Open win in 1982 is still remembered as one of the biggest Swedish tennis wins of all time. Plus that 1988 season was pretty insane with Wilander winning 3 Grand Slams and Stefan Edberg winning Wimbledon.
Swedish Tennis Player Power Ranking
1. Björn Borg
2. Stefan Edberg
3. Mats Wilander
But let me tell you, the biggest Swedish triumph in Tennis was not a single grand slam title. It was the Davis Cup win in 1984. Here in Sweden that counts something like the USA miracle on ice in 1980. John McEnroe was world number one, Jimmy Connors number two and McEnroe/Flemming number one in doubles. USA only managed to take a single set the first three matches and Sweden won 4-1. Wilander embarrassed Connors, Henrik Sundström beat a furious John McEnroe and Järryd/Edberg won the doubles. Those were the days, now Sweden doesn't have a single mens player ranked top 100.
Oh, and by the way. Did you know Mats Wilander released a record in 1991? It's really bad.
I am totally with you on the final paragraph - during the fifth set my wife and I kept saying that watching the match made us want to grab our rackets and head out to play.
I was up early, consumed Breakfast at Wimbledon, watched the match with intense interest. The only thing that remained was Joe's take on the match. As always, it was the perfect bow.