And So It Begins...

We're only 6 days away and already this year's level of Murray mania is well on course to surpass the worst grotesqueries of his fourth round 5 setter last year, that saw poor old Gasquet booed off court when he chose to take a well earned, well deserved toilet break.

That was painful to watch (the way Reeshard was treated, not the actual toilet break). As was the Popeye tribute.

As are the rather desperate attempts of the media, to drum up a storyline for this year's Campaign.

You see, we have the history-evoking cable-knit attire, the stars appear to be aligned with the Fred Perry Centenary and we also, for the first time, have someone actually capable of going all the way.

And yet...it all still seems a little lopsided, not least because of his troubled relationship with the British Public. How after all, do you get the nation behind someone best known for slagging off the England Football Team?

All a load of tosh off course - what he actually said was he'd support 'anyone playing England', and it was all said in the very light hearted setting of some lively banter involving Tim Henman and some other journos, when they teased him about Scotland's early exit from the World Cup.

No matter. Taking such an 'anti-English' stance so publicly, and perhaps more jarringly rooting against 'our boys', however well-intentioned, was akin to taking a leak on hallowed ground. And the actions of a few over-enthusiastic journos ensured his fate was sealed as the Sports Celeb we all love to hate.

Even those that saw fit to defend him through that debacle -- one that saw him receive a large amount of hate mail on his website -- found it less easy to cosy up to a player that barked obscenities at Brad Gilbert whenever things got tough out there, and quite often even when they didn't.

Murray's gruff disposition rankled the British sensibility: this was SO not the face of British Tennis they wanted.

Understandable, up to a point.

And yet it's worth remembering Henman was mercilessly henpecked for not having enough 'fire in his belly'. He was even derided as being 'too middle class' in the heated exchanges that took place in the early morning breakfast radio shows that followed one of his Wimbledon defeats.

I'm not about to comment on Murray's standing in the social strata, and I don't buy into the theory on Henman's lack of competitive spirit. They're both different players, with unique talents of their own and express themselves very differently on court - that is all.

Anyway, things have cooled off since then, and many have followed Murray's rise up the rankings with renewed interest.

Brits, on the whole, are a fairly well-versed lot when it comes to 'the beautiful game' (and this is perhaps one of only a handful of UK-based sites where that description doesn't refer to Football - which I also think is a beautiful game btw), and even most casual tennis observers are well aware of his winning H2H against Federer as well as the other wins he's scored over Nadal and Djoko.

And though you continue to hear from those that would accuse him of being a 'foul-mouthed brat', it's usually from the same group that think the only story in tennis worth mentioning is Maria Sharapova's screams, or the amount of times Djoko bounces the ball - very 2006.

All of which means that the Fred Perry Cable-Knits were deemed insufficient - the Saga needed something a little extra to get the nation's competitive juices flowing and for them to begin to rally behind him.

Enter Roger Federer, and his well-publicised take on Murray's passive style of play, even going as far as to pick Davydenko over Murray to reach the finals at RG earlier this month.

And the five-time Wimbledon champion is clearly starting to feel the heat, having consistently criticised Murray’s style of play.

Federer has accused Britain’s brightest hope of negative tactics and failing to develop his game.

But world No 3 Murray countered last night: “A lot of the times I’ve beaten him, he has said negative things about me. His comments, though, don’t make me feel I need to change my game.

“I’ve won my last four matches against Roger and feel that will have a bearing if we meet again at Wimbledon this year. I will take a lot of confidence from those results.

“Much of the time, I think he has been very frustrated against me. That shows the style and tactics I play against him are working. He’s not used to losing very often and, when you’re upset, you sometimes say things you don’t mean.

“But I don’t think I’ve ever criticised an opponent. If someone beats you, you can’t have a go at the way they’ve played.

“When the top players lose it’s quite often down to a great performance from the opponent.

“So while it’s fine to be critical of yourself, and say you didn’t play your best match, it’s also fair to give credit to your opponent.”

(Source: The Sun)

I love the way the press suddenly feel the need to play on this drummed up trash talk.

It's no secret these two often see things very differently, but it's never bordered on acrimony, and it's certainly nothing like the very evident dislike Federer has for Djoko and his fitness related withdrawals.

Federer's well known for giving his at times slightly barbed opinion very decidedly, a trait I have no particular opinion on one way or the other.

But I welcome the fact that Murray's never shown the same levels of deference to Federer, that Nadal does rather too often. He tends, like Federer, to be quite frank in expressing his views. And even if that curtness may sometimes grate the British sensibility, it's part of the same innate nature that mustered up those 6 wins he had against the big man.

Just remember that English Football is off limits next time.
Read More...

Be Careful What You Wish For...

The headline applies to me, or rather to my ill-fated call for Murray to 'jazz it up a little'.

Which has been taken far too literally in this instance.

I so, did not have this in mind.

(and so, hate that colloquial use of 'so'.)


I want to say something hurtful.....

I want to make the obvious and very loaded comparisons with 'The Cardigan'.

I want to very openly observe how the classic gentility of it all, grates viciously with his less genteel British public persona.

I want to have a frank debate about how this dapper English look sits with those members of the British public that are still a little rankled with his completely misunderstood comments about not supporting the England Football Team. All an English torrential storm in a very British tinkling teacup if you ask me. Which, by the way, the brand new spanking retractable roof over Centre Court should do a good job of protecting us from.

I want to run barefoot across the rooftops of SW19 loudly proclaiming my astonishment that the lessons that should have been learnt in the aftermath of Rafa and the very pink explosion that took place on Philippe Chatrier a fortnight ago, were instead cast aside in favour of a look that will provide much fodder for the contempt and self-satisfied loathing that the press will be sure to cast his way the morning that follows his defeat. Not that I think he'll go out that early.

I want to express my concern that some of the lingering after-effects of last week's Parisian space-time imbalance may have found their way across the Channel, and that we'll now see Djoko and Rafa follow suit by striding on to Centre Court a week today dressed in 1930s Cricket flannels. *Shudder*

I want to confess I'm struggling to predict how Federer will follow up on his Cardigan now that Murray has upped the ante by throwing his hat into the ring. Hold that thought. A hat?

I want to make some well timed, well chosen rhetorical remarks on whether or not Andy will survive the hostility, if he ends up not surviving the first week.

And yet....he's been wearing the label for what - 3 years now? It's the one hundredth anniversary of Fred Perry's birthday. And Britain's best chance yet of a home grown Champion. Did we really not see this coming?

(Photos: Marc Aspland/The Times)
Read More...

Queens Club Trophy Ceremony...

I apologise profusely James - particularly after that strong showing.

What can I say, except that it's all in jest. And that your priceless expressions proved irresistable.

"Much as I love this post-modern lovingly sculpted artifact..."
(Photo: Julian Finney/Getty Images)

"I'd sooo much rather have that one..."
(Photo: ADRIAN DENNIS/AFP/Getty Images)


"I'm only kidding of course..."

(Photo: AP)

"Except I'm not..."
(Photo: Hamish Blair/Getty Images)

Read More...

More History in the Making...

You'll not be surprised to learn that last weeks rather hallucinatory tennis venture left me a little hung over.

So much so that I almost missed the week's action at Queens this year. It wasn't until Thursday that the matches began to vaguely interest me. And it took what I'm pretty sure qualifies as a once in a lifetime experience to get me fully on board: Andy Roddick hit a single handed backhand winner down the line.

I'm not even sure whom he was up against. Thinking back now I'd say it was in his match against Hewitt. But that's neither here no there. Grass makes things like that happen. The combination of the low bouncing, speedier and more slippery feel of the surface seems to connive together mischievously with the occasional imperfect bounce to yield a tennis experience that forces desperate plays like that. As well as players out of their comfort zone.

He was stretched out wide and found himself robbed of the time and court positioning he'd need to set himself up for that much improved double-hander we know (and don't always love) so well. I was expecting a desperate shot. And yes, instincts did take over, but not in the predictably unregulated way you might imagine. This was the A-Rod exuding confidence, with an almost craftsman-like air, knowingly going through the motions of the only aggressive shot possible under the circumstances. Rather like he's been all year.

Blake hit a single handed backhand slice winner down the line later that day that wasn't nearly as good - but in a split second that unique slice of Parisian history was, not forgotten, but tagged and suitably archived, to be enjoyed again another day, as I was suddenly reminded of my love affair with grass court tennis.

Sure, the rallies are considerably shortened, sometimes over in the blink of an eye - you sometimes think the authorities' intransigence to increase upon that 5-week 'season' is because it serves as a deliberate 'blink and you'll miss it' metaphor for those shortened rallies.

But like clay, grass rewards a particular style of play - to take advantage of it, you either need to be naturally gifted, or skilled enough to play to the needs of the surface.

No coincidence then that 70% of the field (hard courters, every last one of them) suddenly begins to look very ordinary out there.

And as entertaining a take on Wimbledon as it was, Lleyton's observation that "there's only a handful of players capable of winning Wimbledon each year", is unreservedly, spot on.

***

I suppose I should say something about Andy Murray, seeing as he won the Queen's Club Title today, the first Brit to do so in 71 years, when the trophy was lifted by someone calling himself 'Bunny' Austin.

(Yes alright, my sides split too the first time I heard that name. Now stop rolling around, and let's be adults please.)

"Stop pratting about with that arty shot of a clothes hanger and get a pic of this'ere piece of silverware..."
(Photo by Ian Walton/Getty Images)

"Alright that's too close boys..."
(Photo by Ian Walton/Getty Images)

Such a resoundingly colourful name seems to reflect all the swagger of the age, the considerably different attitudes to the game - not at all out of place in a Golden Era of British Tennis in which you could count Fred Perry amongst your contemporaries. And sure enough his equally colourful Wikipedia bio makes mention of conscientious objection, tennis matches with Charlie Chaplin and a friendship with Daphne du Maurier.

Not to mention winning the Davis Cup for Britain alongside Fred Perry four times (1933-1936) and forming one half of the celebrity couple of the age.

And Tennis-Celebs these days think they know a thing or two about living it up.

You've got a lot to live up to Andy. And with a mundane sounding name like 'Andrew Murray' you might need some help jazzing it up. Which is where I think his game (and in particular his backhand) comes into it's own.

When Nadal pulled out of Queens last week, Andy suddenly found himself the top seed. Which was great, but I also remember thinking what presumably anyone who follows the sport for the other 48 weeks of tennis we have all year might think: with the big wins Murray's had since last year, with the title's he's won and his appearance in the US Open final, he should go on to win this thing with consummate ease.

Anything less would qualify surely, as a disappointment of the severest kind.

The good news is he did exactly as I'd hoped, serving his way to the Title without dropping a set.

Under the gaze of a very discerning and annoyingly expectant media eye.

No nerves. No expletives. No facial contortions. And not too many 'Andaaaaaaieeees'.

Just big serving, a repeat of his Wimbledon showing last year where he served on average at around 132mph, and a mixture of those crunching groundstrokes and feather light touch, that gave us amongst other things, two very special contenders for 'play of the week'.

Can't find a video but if you've seen it you'll know the ones I mean.

One was a perfectly timed lob off an aggressive net rush by Mardy Fish, a rush that actually saw Murray pushed far back. A position that would have caused other players to panic, but which instead saw Murray pull off a shot we all know he's capable of, but often recently seems too inhibited to try.

The other was a repeat of one of the shots Federer used en route to his first Wimbledon Title - a shot that lead the press to gush that he was reinventing tennis - a short half volley cross court winner flicked effortlessly by a player that demands more of his tennis.

All of which got me thinking. Murray often goes to great lengths to convince us that hard courts are his 'surface of choice', and that though he'd like to win Wimbledon, it's at the US Open that he feels most comfortable of winning his first Slam.

I dunno. Anyone that can transition to grass that seamlessly and begin to pull of the outrageous winners he did after what is after all a 'minimalist' grass court practice regime, surely must be considered a contender. More so, considering the wins he's had over Federer and Nadal.

And Andy might have more than the pressure of the British Press and Public this year. As if that weren't enough, it's also the one-hundredth anniversary of the birth of Fred Perry. The last Englishman to win Wimbledon.

Think Federer's win in Paris was historic? Hold your horses.
Read More...

Roland Garros WTA Epilogue

-- Anyone that reads this blog on a semi-regular basis will know I like my tennis a little different. And how I long for that on the women's side in particular.

With that in mind, it was a relief to see a someone as skilled as Sam Stosur make the semis, the first Aussie to reach that level at a major in 21 years.

She's a doubles specialist which means she has great control over her kicked serve, consistent groundstrokes that actually mean something in terms of constructing a point and exemplary hand skills at the net. All good.

Can we get more top female doubles players to focus on singles please? More than just Sam Stosur and Zheng Jie I mean; the rest of them might actually learn something.

-- Ana Ivanovic has parted ways with Kardon, a coach she appointed not 4 months ago. Kardon boasts Navratilova amongst many other big names on his CV and I had thought I detected at least some positive changes in her recent matches. And what now? Back to the Adidas Player Development Program. That's just plain stoopid. Y'all know how I feel about that.

It usually takes less than 5 seconds for me to reduce any grievance I have, to a discussion on the many problems I feel exist in women's tennis. I intend to hold back on this occasion.

Despite the misgivings I might have, 'Team Adidas' may actually be ok for the younger girls trying to make their way up the rankings. Once you enter tennis elite though, you really need a more personalised one-on-one approach. And for a former world #1 that has already won a Slam, it's just stoopid. No other word for it.

I can only assume (and hope) that this is a temporary measure while she continues to search for a different mentor; one I hope lasts long enough to see some of the work they put in bear fruit this time and return her back to the top of the game.

Which incidentally, I wouldn't mind seeing, because as far as her RG performance is concerned, it was the absolute antithesis of the Rafa upset (except her tearful walk off court which was almost as painful to see). In that nobody seemed to care let alone be surprised by it. Eyelids were not batted. Her loss against Azarenka was not even broadcast. Most people were probably surprised she made the fourth round. And we all know how many prisoners Azarenka takes.

-- I wasn't as disappointed with Jelena as I thought I might be. Sure she went out in the 4th round to a player ranked well below her. But that player was clearly out to announce herself and you don't need to have seen the match to understand that 9-7 in the third is just about the closest ladies match of the entire event. Cirstea also happened take out Wozniacki en route to her first quarter final appearance at the Slam level. From what I saw Jelena wasn't playing that poorly, and you get the feeling that with any other tier-2 player facing her, we might have seen her in the quarters.

But that, I'm afraid is not good enough for someone of her level - someone widely tipped (not just by myself) to pick up her first Slam here. Were it Serena or an in form Maria at 7-7 in the final set and you can bet your bottom dollar they'd have found away through.

I've always held her to be just that little bit ahead of that other bunch of wobblers in the mental stakes. But now, with Azarenka, Safina (not withstanding that final) and even Zvonareva all staking their claims this year, I'm not half as sure.

-- Serena continues to make Alabama Cream Pie of any prediction I put forth for her. I backed Venus for the Aussie Open and Serena stormed through and won the whole thing. I didn't give her a prayer at this event either.

But making the quarters with a leg that's probably far from fully-healed on your least favourite surface is uniquely Serena. As is, threatening your opponent "you'll get her in the locker room".

When will I learn.

-- Ditto Maria Sharapova. I don't care that she almost got bagelled. Getting to the quarters on this surface, after such a long spell out of the game, and again with a shoulder that, let's face it, is still in lesser-rehab, is exactly what I would expect from her. Even though I didn't expect it from her. Or something. You know what I mean. I really can't wait for Wimbledon.

-- I gave more than a prayer to Venus though. She was my #2 pick. And even now, more than a week later I still have no idea how questionable scheduling gave rise to a performance so poor, it saw her lose the first set to love. Szavay is a great talent, maybe even a future top tenner, but I'm not sure I've ever seen Venus play as badly as this, and if it wasn't Wimbledon coming up next, I'd probably...continue to back her or something.

-- Azarenka. Recipient of the Hothead of the Year Award for the second consecutive year. Except this time it didn't rile me as much. Particularly when she gave as good she got in that booing contest that followed her win over Carla Suarez Navarro. And that first set of Tennis she played against Safina was something very special. Maybe even the best set of the entire two weeks. I still want her to rein in her tantrums a little. Except I sort of don't.

-- This event also gave me a new underdog to root for. At least until Navarro gets her act together (as great as Azarenka's play was, Suarez did wilt away towards the end). She's 5'2 and plays with exactly the right blend of control and topspin - elementary, you might have thought, but it's something a worryingly large number of so-called 'top' players don't do enough of.

How many times have you seen Ana or Dinara further increase upon their already maddening levels of pace in one of those wretched attempts at gaining control over their game when the balls begin to sail past the baseline?

Having said that Cibulkova has the hand skills to flatten it out and go for the lines too. Well that's what I saw anyway, as I watched her in her semi final against Safina. Anyone as skilled and pint-sized as that will get nothing but sickeningly overdone praise and richly decorated bags of good will from me. Particularly when they go at it with women twice their size and are able to expose their many limitations as well as that.

Read More...

Roland Garros ATP Epilogue

-- Unashamed Ode to Rafa: The defining moment of the event (and for me the most sobering) is Rafa being downed by Yoker-in-Residence Robin Soderling. Not at match point (though that was pretty traumatic in it's own way), but when he stumbled after losing his footing chasing down one of Robins big swinging forehands that stretched him out wide. A growing sense of unease I'd felt within me since the beginning of the match came to a head with the greatest indication yet, that the battle was lost.

Downed.
(Photo: AP)

Time stood still. I felt physically sick. It was like seeing a much loved Champ hit the canvas after being sent reeling with a right hook to the jaw. In slow-mo of course. With the usual mix of blood and sweat being spattered everywhere. And with all the 'King is Dead' subtexts that implies. Very Raging Bull.



Someone please put together a montage with that soundtrack, of Rafa's worst moments from the match culminating in that knockdown. I know I'd shed a tear. I very nearly did.

-- I didn't describe Robin's forehand as unsightly in that last paragraph. I apologise. It moved me so. Normal service will now be resumed.

-- Having said all of that, Rafa going out early this year was a good thing for the event. There, I said it.

-- That's said not as a Fed fan (I'm as much a fan of Rafa's as I am of Federer's) but as self-appointed Chairman of the Society for the Appreciation of Big-Upset Tennis. Like it or not, such a high profile loss injects a unique sense of drama into proceedings. Drama that makes further eye-popping things happen, drama that stirs the soul. Drama that makes Tommy Robredo do funny things with his tongue and prance around like a baboon in heat.

-- Tommy Robredo 'going ape' on us after putting an end to Kohlschreiber's fine run here gave us our best victory celebration of the event and a poignant reminder of how warped it all was.

-- And while we're on the topic - Tommy Robredo - last Spanish man standing - who'd have thunk it? Monteras off to you sir. I was wrong. You da man. And apparently da primate too.

-- I'm not a fan of the way Rafa was treated by the crowd. There was something a little unsettling about their fickleness. Something distinctly Ancient Romanic about the bloodthirsty way in which they were all too eager, seeing him on the ropes, to turn against a four time champion and the undisputed GC-COAT. Reason #7438 of why I'm not a fan. Look out for the voluminous book.

-- 'Unexpectedly found' in translation: Toni Nadal's take on the way his nephew was treated by the Parisian crowd is understandable but slightly OTT.

On the other hand "Wanting someone to lose is a slightly conceited way of amusing yourself" is one of the best tennis related quotes I've read in years. I'd be interested to know whether the original quote in Spanish is as good. Kind of 'lost in translation' but in reverse?

In any event it could only be bettered by saying something like, "Wanting someone to lose seems to demonstrate an abominable sort of conceited independence, a most Parisian indifference to decorum...". But that would be too good to be true.

-- Novak's early loss here was partly due to the amount of tennis he played in the clay court season. A schedule that included that newly created event in Belgrade his family owns. Way-too-much-Tennis-initis. An ailment he now shares with his countrywoman Jelena.

-- Speaking of Novak taking part in that family-run event, is it just me, or are the words 'conflict of interest' leaping out at anyone else? It may not matter, I'm hoping his appearance at the event's first outing was largely promotional. Hope Novak learns the lessons Jelena didn't.

-- Juan del Potro is a better clay court player than Andy Murray. Though I'm not at all sure about those 'big five' pretensions. He still has to win a Masters Title, and has only had two wins over top 4 players (Nadal and Murray). He'd need to put that right as well as turning around the abysmal record he has against Federer, to secure my big-five vote. Though he took a hefty stride in the right direction this week. And if he puts in a good grass-court showing, that'd mean his coarse, heavy handed ball striking -- unappealing and uneasy as it is on the eye -- is effective on all surfaces. Be stupid to try and argue with that.

-- Andy Murray has been fighting a rather separate battle with the British Media trying to convince them that the way he plays tennis is all a rather cunning experiment in stylistic adaptation. Apologies for those that have heard it all before, but the theory goes like this: he attacks grinders that hang back and hit a lot of topspin, and tortures the flatter, more aggressive hitters with those loopy defensive shots of his own.

Whatever it is it's strangely effective. Most players appear flummoxed by the fact that they can't subdue such an 'understated' style of play. It helped him to creep through the draw in the most under-the-radar way imaginable (Which with everything happening around him, wasn't actually that hard). Right up until he ran into Gonzo. And got bagelled. Further adaptations required. Read More...

History, Destiny and other Hoofed Creatures...

And now some words from a very special guest...


My thanks to TopSpin, 2Hander and the rest of the team here at 'Tennis is Served...' for allowing me to address you all on this very special moment of Tennis History...

He did it. 14 Slams, including that elusive rust coloured one they said he couldn't win.

And he did it with the single handed backhand a stroke that according to them, was a thing of the past.

[Rapturous Applause]

Even as my kind prepares to welcome Roger into our ranks this week, I think it fair to tell you that I almost don't care about that four letter word as, like a lot of other people, I don't think it actually means all that much. It also has some rather unpleasant Satanic undertones, which my kind tend not to like very much.

[Murmurs of consternation]

I take more pleasure in knowing that in this age of larger-framed racquets, muscular physiques and double-handed backhands, two of the most stylish and skilled players of this generation fought their way through and subdued a field largely comprised of power-baseliners.

['Amen to that!']

However, in the interests of completeness, and seeing as everybody from Sampras through to the bloke at the bus stand seems to have an opinion on the subject, here's where I stand on the whole four-legged, naturally-homogenised milk giving issue.

Let me me start with a question.

If Federer got through to the final playing a better standard of tennis than he played over the entire two weeks in Paris - playing as well as he was say in the 2006-2007 seasons - and then lost to Nadal in another one of those uncompetitive four sets of tennis, would that make him any less of a player than he is now?

(Photo: AP)

Not in my book. For what it's worth , were I to accept the validity of such a title, I'd argue he's already earnt it on the strength of those four consecutive French Open finals he contested against the GC-COAT. If he surpassed Sampras' 14 Slams without winning the FO, he'd still deserve it.

Now here's the rub.

Like it or not, I don't think you can ignore that he didn't face not just Nadal, but Djokovic and Murray too. The other best three players in the world, all of whom seem to have his number right now.

[Indecisive murmurs]

And those are the two extremes within which I rather uneasily reside. I think one more Slam (on any surface - we already know he can play on clay) where he subdues at least one other of the top four, would seal it for me. Were I to believe in such things.

Though this is a Slam win just like any other, and he can of course only play the 'ugly forehand' that's put in front of him, this just ain't the same as the US Open last year, where coming off a run of poor form, he dispatched both Djoko and Murray back to back, playing a less stellar and more pragmatic brand of tennis. His best win yet IMO.

[Amen]

On the other hand those that would rather confer the title on Sampras (and they aren't all Fed Haters), or relentlessly grind the 'weak era' argument (that on balance I don't buy very much even though I believe Sampras would have done just as well as Federer in this era) would do well to reflect on Sampras's less polished RG record, where he only once made the semis going out to Kefelnikov in a manner not dissimilar to Rafa's brutal dismantling of Roger last year.

Roger's made the final four years in a row. Even that semi final outage in 2005 was against, you've guessed it, Rafael Nadal. That, I'm afraid, most likely means he would have added further rust-coloured Titles to that incredible tally of 14 Slams had he not lived in the same era as the GC-COAT.

['YES he would!']

A problem, I might add, that Pete Sampras didn't have to face. I wonder how his single hander would have fared against the Pink Pounder.

And it is just Sampras and Federer in question here.

Laver? Meh. That's probably spectacularly unfair given the record of two 'Grand' Slams, and a #1 ranking for seven consecutive years. But still. Meh. Different era, different equipment, different standards of fitness and different motivations, drive and intensity. Different sport altogether. I suppose you should say he was the best player with a wooden racquet and leave it at that.

[Angry chorus of disapproval from one corner of the room leading to a group of loyal Laver supporters being expelled]

And there I'm going to leave the whole topic. Except to say that having lived through both the Sampras and Federer eras I find myself ever so slightly in the Swiss camp. A camp I've been in ever since I saw a potato-nosed, pony-tailed bumpkin of a teenager take out Sampras in his last competitive showing at SW19, following that up two years later with his first Wimbledon Title after which we saw those tears flow in a way which is now all too familiar.

(Photo: PATRICK KOVARIK/AFP/Getty Images)

I still think Pete Sampras had the best-serve-of-all-time; I might well say I'm beSOATed with that service action. Rather how I feel about most every other stroke Federer conjures up - but there's not much in it. I think I may even prefer Pete's volleys too.

And that rather subjective point of view is the best I'm afraid I can offer up. I don't think it's possible to resolve the 'best ever' question without reference to some absurd unquantifiable set of criteria that usually only exists in our own heads. Usually countered with reference to other seemingly irrefutable but equally unquantifiable sets of criteria.

But seeing as most everyone now, from Agassi to Roddick to Tim Henman to Neil Harman, right through to Sampras himself, is jumping on the 'Capra aegagrus hircus' bandwagon - and seeing as I'm not exactly far removed from that particular genus myself - I will for my part concede, that this is the best claim I've seen laid down yet.

I will in parting mention two other great men, that despite their differences, contributed into making this tournament the amazing, other-wordly, mind-bending experience it was.

Robin, you came into this event a misunderstood and somewhat 'fringe' figure - but not only have you made this your best ever showing at this level, you've won your way into our hearts with the best runners-up speech we've had in recent years.

[Applause]

And I'm not 'yoking' when I say that though we've said some pretty harsh things about the way you hit your forehand, I wouldn't want you to change anything about it. Not for the world. Well ok, maybe for the world. And a couple of Slam Titles. Welcome back into the fold...

[Further Applause]

Rafa, though you're hurting right now, I think everyone knows you're still the GC-COAT, and will likely pick up from where you left off next year. And I'm sure you won't mind my saying that your departure opened up the draw in a way we've never really seen since the parting of the Red Sea. Take some consolation if you can, from knowing that your beloved title here couldn't have gone to a better rival. Get thee knee better - and I hope to see you at Wimbledon!

[Rapturous applause and whistling only broken up with the sound of a fiddler starting up a jig.....]

Read More...