Rarely has a match come with more expectations than the 2015 final between the top two seeds, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer. Federer had played a magnificent Wimbledon, losing serve but once, and rarely taken beyond three sets. His semi-final against home-town favorite Andy Murray was an easy four-set win. This is no mean feat against the Scotsman and former Wimbledon, U.S. Open champion, Olympic Gold Medalist. I have long believed that Murray is the toughest opponent for Novak Djokovic. But Murray, as mentioned, was dominated by Federer. Federer, in fact, had a much easier tournament than Djokovic, notwithstanding Nole's number one seeding. An incredible server from South Africa named Kevin Anderson actually went up two sets to love against the world's number one, finally succumbing to the Joker in a darkness-delayed fifth set. Fortunately for Djokovic, his following matches did not stretch him as much. The elegant Frenchman, Richard Gasquet, who had beaten French Open champion Stan Wawrinka in an exhausting quarter-final five setter, was no match for Djokovic in the semis. But here was Roger Federer, still a "contenda" at almost 34. Djokovic (in a not unkindly way) referred to Federer as being of an earlier generation. Even though they are separated by close to six years, it is not unfair to view that as a generational difference in a game that puts such incredible pressure on a player's endurance, concentration, and well-being. Djokovic has an ability to outlast even the most tenacious baseliners (e.g. the great Rafael Nadal and David Ferrer). That said, as the world's number one and two entered the sport's most prestigious final, Roger Federer appeared to be both as fit and as great as he ever had been. The only difference was the man called the game's greatest player was facing the man called the game's greatest returner. This didn't mean that Djokovic was merely a counter-puncher. Far from it. What is meant was that Federer was facing an opponent whom he hadn't beaten at aIl in a major since the French Open quarters in 2012. Indeed, since 2010, Djokovic held a decisive 6-2 advantage over Federer in their meetings at the majors. While there can be no question that some of this may be attributable to age, Djokovic has come to dominate the game in the way only Federer had prior to 2011. (I am leaving out of this discussion the so-called "GOAT" debate, which is short for "greatest of all time." In that, Nadal has a lopsided advantage over Federer, but Nadal has been in a bit of an eclipse over the past year. Only time will determine if the Spaniard can regain his championship form.)
As for the "generational" argument, I remember a match from forty years ago that was hyped much in the same way this one has been. Much as the consensus viewed this as Federer's "last, best chance" at a major, In 1975, there was a match between the then "GOAT," Rod Laver, and his heir apparent, the brash and dynamic Jimmy Connors. This was the Las Vegas challenge match between the soaring Connors, whose return of serve, first volley and aggressive two-handed backhand had transformed tennis. In 1974, he humiliated the great Ken Rosewall (and just about everyone else he played that year). The only person of consequence he hadn't played (and beaten)was the semi-retired Rod Laver. At 36, the better part of a generation did, in fact, separate him from the 22 year old Connors. Laver, of course, was a tennis legend. Not only was he the only man to win two Grand Slams (in 1962 and 1969), but would have doubtless piled up numerous additional wins at majors had he not turned pro after 1962. Before the open era, as many of you know, the majors were restricted to amateurs. But since that time, no male has won even a single Grand Slam, much less two. Connors might well have done so in his career year of 1974, had a contract dispute not kept him out of the French Open. While the great Rod Laver was clearly past his prime, he gave the young Connors a run for his money in an exciting four-set match. Laver was ahead of his time in utilizing topspin drives off both sides. While usually relying on the backhand slice, the Rocket could drive the backhand for sharply angled winners. Laver came of age in the era of the "big game"exemplified by Jack Kramer and Pancho Gonzales. Points were much shorter then, and favored the player who could follow his serve to the net. This was one of Laver's skills, and was very much on display that day in February, 1975. Connors looked on his way to an easy win, going up 6-4, 6-2. Though both southpaws, Laver was not used to facing lefties, but seemed to be adjusting to Connors's distinctively different style of play. Laver won the third set 6-3, and came within an hairsbreadth of winning the fourth, finally losing 7-5. I remembered feeling (hoping against hope was more like it) that somehow the Rocket would do it. Alas, it was not to be. Had Laver been even five years younger, who knows how it would have turned out. There was a similar feeling in the Wimbledon crowd last Sunday, whose partisan attendees were rooting for the player they consider "almost" British. I remember seeing a shot of a fan with both sets of fingers crossed, wishing Federer would prevail. For him and many others, as it had been with the great Rod Laver, it was not to be.
The first set was, until the tie-breaker, a series of what-ifs for Federer. After each player held serve twice, Federer went up an early break, which he converted to lead 4-2. In what seemed like no time, Djokovic tied it at four all. Twice Federer had set points, and twice Djokovic survived, forcing what turned out to be an anti-climactic tiebreaker. It began with an amazing return of a Federer drop shot by the Joker, which he was able to push past a dashing Federer. From that point on, Djokovic rolled, winning the breaker 7-1.
The second set was about as even as one could imagine, with both players performing brilliantly. If Federer had won the match, people would have have pointed to this set as not only the highlight of the match, but its turning point.
Speaking of turning points, in retrospect, it was when Roger Federer was serving at 1-1 in the third set. Fed had just won an incredible second set tie-breaker, coming back from 3-6 down, and, overall, saving seven set points. Dominant as Djokovic has historically been when winning a a first set, he would have been insurmountable at two sets to none. With the match squared at one set apiece, the momentum seemed to have switched to Federer. With the crowd firmly behind him, he seemed to be destiny's child. After an easy first game service hold by Federer, Djokovic went down love-30, and finally won a shaky hold. It was now one-all. In that third game, Federer had led solidly, up 40-15. Djokovic dug in on the next two points and tied it at deuce. The deuce point was a mini-match in itself, with incredible side-to-side angled shots, ending with a magnificent drop shot giving Djokovic the ad. Federer set up the next point beautifully, following the return of a good serve with a deep shot to Nole's backhand, prompting a weak shot just a few feet from the net. Federer drove a forehand long, missing what, for him (and most pros) was a sitter. This was the first break of the third set, and a fateful one for Federer. People talked about the rain delay as possibly affecting Federer more than Djokovic (older players stiffen up, etc.), but, I could only think at the time that (if this break held) this was the shot Federer would remember, and rue.
After the rain delay at 3-2 Djokovic, the players traded holds until Djokovic broke a second time to go up 5-3. He held easily, to go up two sets to one. The final set was as undramatic as the first two had been the opposite. Djokovic broke relatively early, after which each player held until Djokovic served it out.
While many commentators had heralded this match as one for the ages (like last year's five-setter which Djokovic also won), it was not to be. Paul Annacone observed that Federer had played better the first set, only to lose, and the reverse was true in the second. But that, as they say, was "all she wrote." The most amazing thing about the great Roger Federer, is that--despite his diminishing records in the majors (his last victory being at Wimbledon in 2012)--his game appears to be as good as ever. After some initial difficulty, he has adapted to a larger racquet, and played a virtually flawless Wimbledon. At almost 34, he has an honest claim to being the number two player in the world, and well deserving of that ranking.
Federer and Djokovic are now tied 20-20 in the matches in which they have played each other. Although they are close to even in their meetings in the majors, Djokovic holds a commanding 6-2 edge in matches played since 2010. As to which of them is better now, few would dispute that Djokovic gets the nod. As for all-time, Federer's record of 17 Grand-Slam victories almost doubles Djokovic's 9, and he is widely considered the greatest of all time. It is, of course, too early to close the book on Djokovic (or Nadal), as the Serb and Spaniard each should have five or more years in which to build on their already formidable accomplishments. It is also possible that Federer has another major win in him. As for this, only time will tell. Although we rarely get to see players of different eras compete against each other on equal footing, this year at Wimbledon came pretty close. The truly amazing thing about Federer is that, as the relatively old age of almost 34, he can still be said to be on equal footing with anyone in the game. The equally amazing thing about Djokovic is his ability to put a heartbreaking loss of a match (such as this year's French against Wawrinka) or a set (as his second set tiebreaker against Federer) behind him. While I've never seen a front-runner as good as Federer with a lead, Djokovic--in my view--is the more tenacious. While others, like David Ferrer, share this quality, no one combines it with the array of skills that Djokovic is able to muster. As so, to paraphrase the old saying, (if) "the King is dead. Long live the King!"
