Novak Djokovic had to play the tennis of his life to beat a gallant Roger Federer overnight to capture a second Wimbledon singles crown and a seventh Grand Slam.
The scoreline said it all – 6-7 6-4 7-6 5-7 6-4 in a tick under four hours of enthralling tennis, with the icing on the cake for the Serb being regaining his world number one ranking.
It was an epic in the truest sense of the word.
Djokovic won because he hung in tough when Federer was on song, Federer lost because his forehand deserted him when he needed it most.
The match stats proved there was hardly a struck match between them
Aces – Federer 29-13.
Double faults – Federer 5-3.
Winners – Federer 75-58.
Unforced errors – Federer 29-27.
Points won – Djokovic 186-180.
Where Federer managed to stay in contact for so long against a constant barrage of Djokovic’s magnificent passing shots, he also had an uncanny ability to dodge bullets, saving 11 break points, while Djokovic saved four.
But that forehand… The Fed Express will have nightmares over the number of missed opportunities that had been automatic in the six lead-up matches.
And to magnify the problem, Djokovic kept hitting the sidelines off either wing, and the baseline with regularity. His depth was a telling factor.
By comparison, Federer played far too many half-court shots that begged Djokovic to punish them severely. And he did.
But nothing could be taken away from the tension and the tradition of a superb final at the home of tennis, even though Federer had to draw on every morsel of his vast experience just to compete.
No better example than the fourth set, with Djokovic leading two sets to one, and 5-2.
Federer broke back, and held serve. but at 5-4 Djokovic held a match point.
Federer served what he thought was an ace, but it was called out. Federer’s track record with Hawkeye is dreadful, but this time he was right, and went on to win the fourth, and set up the decider.
The packed centre court, the packed Henman Hill outside, and the millions of television watchers around the world never wanted this epic to stop.
The right man won, but the sport is blessed to have two class acts on duty where it all counts.
Their courtside interviews were right off the top shelf, with the required humour.
Federer was surprised he was able to stay on court for so long – “After the third set I didn’t expect to be around much longer”
Djokvic, in heaping the highest praise possible on his beaten opponent thanked him for letting him win.
Great stuff all round.
Sitting in the Channel 7 commentary box was three-time Wimbledon singles champion John Newcombe.
In 1967 when he won the first it was the last Wimbledon for amateurs – Newcombe won a 50 pound sterling mail order.
In 1970 he won 3,000 pounds, in 1971 it was bumped up to 3,750 pounts.
Last night Djokovic banked 1.76 million pounds, Federer 880,000 pounds.
Another early Newk story was from his headmaster at Shore – Jika Travers.
Newk was constantly spending time improving his tennis, and his schoolwork suffered.
Travers called the tennis-mad kid into his study, and sent him on his way with the quote of Newk’s life – “Concentrate on your studies son, you’ll never make any money out of tennis”.
That was true to a point compared to today, but it was a lot of money in its day.
There was no secret in the fact Newk had far more enjoyment out of tennis than homework.
And there was no secret in the fact, he gave Australians plenty of enjoyment on his way to winning seven Slam singles, and 17 Slam doubles.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
It's obvious that you don't actually watch tennis but simply follow the results.
mushi
Guest
Who cares you are a pretty weak human being if you give up what you love to do for your "leagacy" or the adoration of some no talent keyboard jockey
Riccardo
Guest
Yeah. The fallacy of statistics is that they can be construed to suit the argument of the interpreter. If this is how you judge tennis and its combatants then I would suggest you are not really a tennis fan. You could argue Roger is in the twilight of his career but his partnership with Stefan seems to have reinvigorated his game. Time, as usual, will tell. I believe, like some posters here that he will get another Slam. The #3 in the world has just bowed out in a 5 set epic at Wimbledon and you think he's done. I think we're privileged to continue to see the finest tennis player to pick up a racquet not only prolong his career, but up his game. He deserves your respect Frankie.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Federer hasn't won a HC major since Melbourne 2010. And hasn't won in New York since 2008. Yeah he's done on HCs
Riccardo
Guest
I get you are no Federer fan but you could have a little more perspective in your posts. Under Edberg Roger has improved, if anything. I think to write him off based on a five set final loss to Novak is just myopic. Yes, he is ageing but is still good enough to compete with anyone, has the fitness to stay with Djokovic till the end of a five setter that Roger could have won if he had converetd a break-point in the fifth, and while his forehand remains susceptible under pressure appears to have improved aspects of his game, like his net-play for example. Not only that but you denigrate one of the finest players to have ever picked up a racquet. To suggest that Murray (who has dropped to 10 in the world) and Wawrinka (whom Roger has just bested) will easily account for him at the US Open is just unbalanced. Johnno may be right that Roger will struggle at the French but as long as Federer is fit and retains his love of the game he is a genuine threat on hard courts and especially grass for a couple of seasons yet.
Riccardo
Guest
Great post Frank and I'm in your camp. The sensationalist media really have little idea. Roger had a great Wimbledon, good enough to win it in the past. That damned forehand of his; it's his achilles heel and is something you think Edberg would target given it was also his weakness. On the plus side Edberg seems to have reinvigorated the Fed and I also agree with you that another Slam is more than possible. Roger has always been a decent volleyer buty have you noticed an increase in his net play since Edberg started coaching him. With sime success I might add. It's something I would like to see more of from him, particularly behind his serve. Anyway, I'm just grateful that we get to see some more of the best player to have picked up a racquet.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
10 months of average tennis? Winning 2 majors. Runner up in another. 3 1000s and runner up in another 2. Plus runner up in the world tour finals. Looks like you know nothing about tennis
James
Guest
Rockhampton Rocket!!??
ohtani's jacket
Guest
The same Nadal who just lost his No 1 ranking after 10 months of average tennis.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Grass is Djokovic's worst surface whereas it's Federer's best surface. Hence why Federer, aged 32, can still pull off a fluke run to thr final. Let's see what Federer does in New York. As he was no way near winning Melbourne or Paris.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Is this the same 'past his prime' Rafael Nadal whom is the reigning US Open and 5 time French Open champion? Throw in the reigning Canada, Cincinnati and Madrid 1000 champion as well... Yeah he's well past his best...
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Nobody watching that match felt Federer's 'legacy' was damaged. If anything, it enhanced it. Why would the number three player in the world retire? Federer's 'post prime' is arguably the greatest post prime in the history of tennis? World number three in this era that you say is stronger than the one he dominated in. Nadal is past his best. He should retire too.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Why would he be dirty at himself? He played excellent tennis at Wimbledon -- good enough to win it most years -- and served extremely well in the final. He simply couldn't break Djokovic until the craziness of the 4th set. Up until that set, break points had been like hen's teeth for both players. Djokovic's returning was the difference. We were just lucky Federer showed his class and pushed it to a fifth set, because it should have ended in 4. He'll rue that missed break opportunity in the 5th set, but I don't think he'll be disappointed with this Wimbledon overall.
duecer
Guest
6 years difference and pushed Novak in his prime to five full sets - no 6-1 scores - shows he's still got the goods after a year or so with back problems and having 2 sets of twins after raising his rivals to his level in the strongest era of mens tennis.
40 love
Guest
New to the sport are you Frankie? Federer is a legend, and regarded as such not only by the public, but more importantly his peers. Past players of the highest level also hold him in high esteem, I would seek their informed opinion before yours any day of the week. Novak stepped up a couple of rungs from his performances in the quarters and semis, is now the world No 1 again, and still took 5 sets to subdue his opponent. Perhaps you had your money on Bernard Tomic this tournament and you are smarting from his early exit.
Bondy
Guest
Frankie @ Johnno I think you're right, the Fed Express can hold his head high for giving us a great match, but Gee's he must be dirty on himself after that one in what most of us think his last solid chance of a major..
sheek
Roar Guru
Thanks David, Wonderful article. I didn't see the final, but it appears to have been a classic. John Newcombe is probably my favourite Aussie tennis player, for the obvious enjoyment he seemed to derive from the game. Then followed by his mate Tony Roche, all business on the court, all fun off it. Rod Laver was clearly the best of all Aussie tennis players, while Ken Rosewell was perhaps the gutsiest. Roy Emerson was your classic polite country kid & Fred Stolle a pit of a joker. But great Aussies all.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
The 2008 edition of Federer whom was beaten by Nadal? I doubt it. But for the rain in 2008, Nadal would've beaten Federer in straight sets.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Because if you play on passed your best(whether you dominated a weak era or not) your legacy gets damaged. Look at Hewitt, he should've retired 18-24 months ago. Federer should retire now, he says he wants to win the gold medal in Rio. But that's no going to happen as Rio Olympics is being played on clay.
Johnno
Guest
Fatigue got to him mid way through the 5th. That's why I reckoned he lost.