Sporting theatre at its very best but was it really the greatest ever?

CLOSE, tense, and of epic length, Sunday's match between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer was enthralling drama. At the third time of asking, and as Centre Court was almost cloaked in darkness, Nadal got the better of Federer in a Wimbledon final to end the world No 1's five-year reign as champion.

It was certainly one of the most exciting finals ever, and will take on added significance in years to come if it proves to have marked the onset of Federer's decline. But was it the best of all time, as so many people rushed to acclaim it on Sunday night?

To an extent that verdict depends on what you mean by best. For example, anyone who by "best" means the match which has had most emotional impact on them, which has left them in raptures, would have every right to acclaim the 2008 version as the greatest ever final if that was the way they felt afterwards.

In terms of the overall quality of tennis, however, Nadal's five-set victory over Federer fell short of the standard set by other finals.

Yes, there were some sublime examples of shot-making, especially late on in the contest, but for the first two sets and more, this match was far too one-sided to be regarded as one of the great duels of the sport.

If that bias had been caused by the sublime standard set by one or other player, the claim to greatness might stand. But the reality was that, while Nadal was playing pretty close to his best, for roughly that first half of the contest Federer was playing badly.

In fact, although it had been eagerly anticipated as the latest instalment in one of the great rivalries of modern sport, it came close to being no more than a meek abdication by Federer. The Swiss player's problems began as early as the third game, when he first committed two unforced errors to offer Nadal a chance to break, and then on game point allowed the left-hander to take a 2-1 lead with a winning return.

Federer's backhand, at its best one of the most graceful yet feared shots in tennis, was simply malfunctioning. True, this was in part due to the amount and variety of spin Nadal was imparting to the ball, and may have been exacerbated by the awkward wind, but even so: he has dealt with such tribulations in the past.

With his title in jeopardy, Federer began to play with a greater degree of freedom, knowing he had nothing left to lose by doing so. His play improved markedly as a result, yet even so, his timing was still out by a split second on some shots, notably Nadal forehands which landed close to his feet. On occasion those shots even left Federer looking ungainly, which would be the last word you would normally use to describe him.

The imbalance in quality over the first two sets was reflected in the statistics for the match as a whole. Nadal committed 27 unforced errors, which in a contest that lasted close to five hours works out at less than one mistake every ten minutes. Federer racked up 52.

Another notable disparity was in the players' serves. Federer, as usual, recorded more aces than his opponent (25 compared to six), but of more significance was the fact the five-times champion only got 66 per cent of his first serves in. Nadal managed 73 per cent.

At the end of the match Federer had won 204 points – just five fewer than Nadal. He might even have ended up with more points than the 22-year-old had he played his break points better. He converted just one out of 13: Nadal got four from the same number of chances.

It might be argued that in the final analysis the only statistic that matters is the result, but these minor stats help explain why the result turned out the way it did. In this case they also show that Federer, although at times still demonstrating the delicate incisiveness of a neurosurgeon, played patchily.

The urge to declare an event the best ever of its kind is understandable – people want to feel they have been witnesses to greatness, that they were at least present in the background when something remarkable happened. But in recent years that urge has been too readily indulged, and it does no harm to subject claims prompted by it to sober scrutiny.

The International Olympic Committee's convention of hailing almost every Games at their conclusion as "the best ever" possibly kick-started this regrettable trend, but there is also a wider tendency in society beyond sport to celebrate the here and now. The longer the history of professional sport stretches, the less perspective we can have on the standards reached in earlier days.

In terms of real consistency, for instance, the greatest grasscourt player of all time has to be William Renshaw, whose record of six singles crowns in a row Federer was trying to equal. The last of those was in 1886, when Renshaw held off the challenge of Herbert Lawford for the third year.

Perhaps the few thousand present celebrated that match as the greatest which had ever been, or would be, witnessed. Or perhaps, being undemonstrative Victorians, they clapped politely then repaired to the Pavilion for tea.

Federer's future will be decided by whether he has resolve to fight for No1 spot

ROGER Federer's uninterrupted reign as world No 1 has now lasted 232 weeks. Its continuation for much longer will now depend on how the 26-year-old reacts to the ending by Rafael Nadal of his reign as Wimbledon champion.

Nadal won the French Open last month, and Novak Djokovic took the Australian title at the start of the year. Federer, once dominant on every surface but clay, now has only one major to his name – the US Open – and his aura of invincibility has gone, perhaps for good.

The former Wimbledon champion is young enough to play on for perhaps a decade, but Nadal, four years his junior, could be there to challenge him for every remaining step of his career. Already the Spaniard is just 545 points away from claiming Federer's No 1 spot in the ATP Tour rankings, which are based on points gained at tournaments over the past 12 months. In the ATP race, which reflects results only in the current calendar year, Nadal is already at No 1, 270 points clear of his great rival.

Boris Becker, for one, is convinced that the new Wimbledon champion is the de facto No 1, and that the rankings will catch up in time.

"Whoever wins the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year for me is the No 1 in the world," said the German, who won Wimbledon three times in 1985, 1986 and 1989. "The computer just didn't get it yet."

Nadal is the first man since Bjorn Borg 28 years ago to have won the French and British Grand Slams in the same year.

He trounced Federer at Roland Garros in early June, but the impact of that loss was at least mitigated for the Swiss player by the fact that Nadal has always had the upper hand on the slow red surface.

During the early rounds at Wimbledon, Federer, whose year started badly when he contracted glandular fever, was back close to his best.

His form continued into the second week, when he easily saw off Australia's Lleyton Hewitt, the 2002 champion, and Marat Safin, himself a former world No1.

But the tension of the occasion got to Federer on Sunday, and he was two sets down to Nadal before he began to play his best tennis.

"In tennis, unfortunately sometimes there have to be winners and losers," he said after losing in five sets. "There's no draws.

"This is my hardest loss by far. This is a disaster. Paris was nothing in comparison.

"I wasn't able to break him in the last three sets but still I managed to push him right to the edge. Probably later on in life I'll go 'That was a great match.'

"I'm happy the way I fought. That's all I could really do." Federer now hopes to salvage his season next month with victory at the Olympic Games in Beijing followed by a successful retention of his US Open title at Flushing Meadows.

Both those tournaments are on hard courts, which until recently would mean him starting as the clear favourite.

But others, while knowing they cannot match Nadal's astonishing energy levels, will take heart from the Majorcan's recent victories over his older rival.

They will play with greater conviction against Federer, which will force him to put more effort into every match, which could lessen his ability to play at his best in the latter stages of competitions.

In the end, though, Federer's future will primarily be decided by Federer himself.

If and when he loses the No1 spot, if he fails to hold on to the US Open title, only he will know if he has the desire to fight back.

There is, of course, a precedent for a player in his mid-20s having the stuffing knocked out of him by losing to his leading rival, and by the consequent realisation that he is no longer the best in the world.

After five Wimbledon titles, Bjorn Borg lost the 1981 final to John McEnroe, then was defeated by the same opponent at that year's US Open. The Swede carried on half-heartedly at best throughout the following year, but retired at the start of 1983, aged just 26.

World away from power and fitness of today but 1980 remains bona fide classic

COLIN LESLIE

THE rackets were wooden, the pace was slower, the players less muscular, but nothing should be allowed to devalue Bjorn Borg's epic triumph over John McEnroe in 1980, famed for the 22-minute tiebreak which entranced Centre Court and a television audience of millions.

Borg was to lose that spellbinding fourth-set shoot-out 18-16, and with it a sequence of five match points, but the Swede roared back in the final set, securing his fifth Wimbledon title in a row against a raw opponent who would break his dominance at SW19 by avenging the defeat 12 months later.

The 1981 contest was another duel worthy of acclaim, but it was the 1980 version which rightly commands its place among the greatest sporting spectacles of the 20th century.

After daring to beat fans' favourite Jimmy Connors in the last four, McEnroe, playing in his first Wimbledon final, had the crowd as well as Borg to overcome when he emerged from the locker room to boos and cat-calls on Saturday, 5 July.

Within minutes, however, a focused McEnroe was afforded the respect he deserved, and he emphasised his worthiness by sweeping to a 6-1 first-set win over the bewildered champion.

Borg, then 24, drew on his reserves of composure to regroup for the second set, and although McEnroe threatened to open up a potentially decisive two-set lead, the Swede hung into break the 21-year-old's serve in the 12th game and level the match at 1-1.

McEnroe faced a thorough examination of his courage after Borg routinely took the third 6-3, then broke to lead 5-4 and edge within a game of title number five. The championship appeared a formality as Borg built two match points on his serve, but the American summoned up all the spirit and skill that would shape a glittering career by rallying to win the game and force a tiebreak.

To this day, the tantalising tussle that ensued encapsulates sport at its best – providing unforgettable excitement for those lucky enough to watch events as they unfolded on the day.

With Borg striving to win the match and McEnroe battling to stay in it, the tiebreak raged from one extreme to the other. Borg first reached championship points at 6-5 and 7-6. McEnroe held and lost two set points, then Borg agonisingly shipped another three match points. McEnroe was denied by Borg on another four set points before nailing the tiebreak on the fifth – the 34th point, which remains a record for a Wimbledon final.

Contemporary critics who seek to play down the drama of tiebreak, and indeed the entire 1980 final, basing their argument on the fact the game was not as well developed are surely missing the point – this was an era when skill was king, and the Borg-McEnroe finals were and are still a joy to watch.

This one, of course, went Borg's way when he wore down his adversary in the 14th game of the deciding set, but McEnroe's day at SW19 was but a year away.

Hugh Keevins, The Scotsman's reporter at Wimbledon in 1980, wrote: "A stupendous men's final. It showed the game at its highest level is pure theatre."