French Open Final...sponsored by Nike

Today the two best players in recent tennis history went head to head at Roland Garros to determine the winner of the French Open. Roger Federer v Rafael Nadal. Right hander v left hander. Maestro v power hitter. Grass court specialist v clay court specialist. Red Nike v Blue Nike. Switzerland v Spain. The previous comparisons are just in line with what everyone tends to do when describing a big match; compare as many things as possible, no matter how silly. I decided to draw the line at countries. In reality though it’s not Switzerland v Spain at all; the players would have been thinking more about what they were having for tea rather than the fact they were performing for their respective countries – because they weren’t.

I’m not going to lie (no doubt you feel much more at ease now knowing my next thought will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth) but I wanted Nadal to win. Federer comes across as quite arrogant on occasions, and whilst I like him, I prefer his younger rival. Listening to the crowd reactions all tournament you could be excused for thinking Roger Federer was French, such was the support he was getting. Novak Djokovic must have wondered what he had done wrong during his semi-final to be so massively cheered against. Did he declare himself anti-French in the build up to the tournament? Was he somehow involved in the murder plot on Coronation Street? No, he was just up against Federer; a massive crowd favourite. France haven’t had much in the way of sporting success recently, so they may just be trying to adopt him as one of their own. I like their approach. When Andy Murray wins something, I will support him as one of our own. Until then he will just be that moody Scotsman. When Andy Murray does finally win something though, I hope my great-great grandchildren are still around to appreciate it.

The greatest player to ever play the sport, Mr Federer, started off on fire (a slightly unfair advantage for Nadal). He broke the Spaniard in the first game, only for Rafa to reply with a break of his own immediately after. Amazingly, Federer broke again to make it 3 games without anyone holding serve. It was looking as if the player who could hold their serve would go on to take the first set. Federer was that man and got a set point at 5-2. A cheeky drop-shot gone wrong cost him that chance however and Nadal finally found fifth gear after messing around in first for the opening 7 games. He won the set 7-5 and he was now the one on fire (at this point I should just reassure you my use of the term ‘on fire’ is metaphorical only; both players were unharmed during the game, apart from a Nadal blister).

The second set saw Nadal’s superiority continue. BBC commentator Andrew Castle summed it up with his slightly pointless “If Roger could take a 10 minute time-out now, he would” statement. The problem is though, ‘if’ is quite a big word. If I could take back my bet of England to be winning at half time and full time yesterday, I would. If my cat barked, he’d be a dog. If Man Utd could restart their Champions League Final against Barcelona, they would do. Actually, they probably wouldn’t. The point is that a 10 minute time out is not in the tennis rules, so Roger couldn’t take a break and Rafa worked his way up to set point.  It was at this point the rain came. The players went off and Rafa stripped off much to the delight of Sue Barker, and all those who admire left biceps. After the rain ceased the players came back out and Federer found his form again, saving the set point and taking it to a tie breaker. My knowledge of the tiebreaker and the next 40 minutes of play was then down to my imagination and the skills of the radio commentary team due to a compulsory car journey. I don’t know if you have ever listened to tennis on the radio, but if you haven’t, it’s tricky to get your head around. The 40 minutes were along the lines of “CROSS COURT BACKHAND…NADAL…LONG…HIT THE LINE…RETURNED…NET!”. Great effort from the commentary team and it was through them I learnt that Federer took the third set 7-5.

Federer was back to his best and at the start of the fourth had three break points against Nadal. Rafa managed to save them all and take the first game and that was the killer blow for Federer’s dreams of a comeback. Rafa took the fourth set 6-1 with some vintage shots. An overhit Federer forehand saw Nadal drop to his knees and celebrate his 6^th French Open title in what was a great game and a fantastic performance from the Spaniard.

So that was the match. How about a point of contention? Numerous times throughout the match when a line judge’s call looked questionable, the ref left his high chair, walked over to the scene of the crime, stuck his finger up much like a cricket umpire, and repositioned himself in his high-tech chair. Not once was a decision overturned by this rather medieval method. What I cannot get my head around is that when a ball is travelling at a 100mph consistently, thousands of times in a match, it’s quite futile to point to a bit of a marking on the clay as proof of a decision. If it was a court case, it would get thrown out for insufficient evidence. Had the competition took advantage of hawk-eye, some calls would have undoubtedly been overturned, but it was quite refreshing to watch 20th century methods being employed. As a viewer there was more of a certainty that if a shot was called out, it was out. I like that. I didn’t particularly miss the clapping countdown of the crowd in anticipation of a computer generated ball either.

Rafael Nadal confirmed his dominance on clay and kept his place as World Number 1 with a 6^th title at the French Open. Roger Federer showed at times, particularly in the first half of the first set, that his reputation as the greatest ever was warranted. Djokovic’s amazing unbeaten run came to an end against the Fed Express in the semis and Andy Murray showed again that he will never beat one of the top seeds in a grand slam. All in all a very good tournament. Bring on Wimbledon. Come on Tim…on the commentary.