The apogee of sport is when two 'Greats' meet in an equal battle
The word 'great' is over-used in sports commentary and I try to avoid it. But from time to time we are privileged to watch two sportsmen who deserve the accolade come together in a winner-takes-all battle. Last season's Formula one championship was a case in point. Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso, both drivers of exceptional talent, fought tooth and nail in their very different styles all the way to the wire. It was enthralling and exhilarating and a classic example of sport at its best. In a very different world the battle between Kevin Pietersen and Shane Warne at the Adelaide Ashes Test match in December was equally enthralling. KP won at the start with a brilliant and big hundred in the first innings with Warne labouring and conceding 167 runs in 53 overs. But in the second innings the tables were turned and Warne took four wickets including that of Pietersen who was bowled round his legs for 2. Two great gladiators were on display at that Test match and, despite his earlier heroics and his talent, Pietersen was the big loser.
For it to matter there has to be a loser!
The cliché often used after a titanic sporting contest is that it is a 'shame that there had to be a loser'. But that is what sport is all about - like it or not! As that very good and rather underrated F1 world champion Damon Hill once said 'Winning is everything. The only ones who remember you when you come second are your wife and your dog!' The great Stirling Moss won 16 Grands Prix and was the best driver around for ten years - but he was never world champion - he was second four times and third three times. The great Ken Rosewall won three of the four Grand Slam tennis tournaments - but never Wimbledon. Which brings us neatly back to Roger Federer.
For Roger Federer 'Roland Garros' is the greatest challenge
In the same way that Frankie Detori was never going to be wholly fulfilled until he won the Epsom Derby so it is with Roger Federer and the French Open. Federer has, as the Americans put it, a '10-1' record in Grand Slam finals. The one loss was last year in the French and the winner then was, of course, Rafael Nadal. In 2004 and 2006 the French 'failure' meant no Grand Slam either. This year, since winning in Australia, Federer went through rather a torrid time parting company with his coach and losing to an unknown in the Italian Open. Then a couple of weeks ago something clicked and on the clay court of Hamburg he came back from one set down to beat Nadal 6-2 6-0 in the Masters final. Since then he has not dropped a set. Does he have the psychological edge over Nadal, even on clay? Sunday will tell us all.
Is Rafael Nadal unbeatable on clay?
The answer to the above question would have been an emphatic 'yes' - until Hamburg and the loss to Federer. In sixteen top tournament finals on clay surfaces Nadal had never lost before that recent defeat by Federer - and along the way Nadal has beaten Federer four times in the final of a big clay court tournament. Was the Hamburg loss a one-off or has Roger Federer now found a way to combat Nadal's clay court game? In last year's Wimbledon final, which Federer in the end won comfortably, Nadal was certainly not outclassed even though the grass surface does not favour his game. He fought like a terrier in the tiebreaks of the second and third sets - a marvellous comeback from the 6-0 drubbing in the first. That is the nature of this brilliant young man (who is only just 21 years old!).
The winner will be the 'great' with the game plan
The winner on Sunday, if the dream final does actually happen, will be the player with the right game plan - and one that he actually puts into place. Federer will have the confidence that at Hamburg this worked - not to mention a run of eleven consecutive straight set wins in Grand Slams! Nadal is quite unburdened with any self-doubt and will already, one suspects, have put Hamburg behind him. Don't miss it!
Browse related articles
Paddy Briggs, BrandAware


Web Feeds