Roger Federer overcame his 35 years, his 100th Australian Open match, and a dogged Rafael Nadal to set up his record 18th Slam with a sensational 6-4 3-6 6-1 3-6 6-3 victory.
It took three hours and 37 minutes of tense tennis, with both players having the capacity Melbourne Park crowd evenly split between the two in both ecstasy and dismay.
The ecstasy were the breathtaking rallies with both players unleashing ground strokes of the highest order down the line or across the court.
Federer came out on top with 73 winners to Nadal’s 35, but the Spaniard made only 28 unforced errors to 57.
Where they both let themselves, and their supporters, down were the break point conversions, the most important stat.
Federer converted only six of 20 break points for 32 per cent, but it was enough to stand alone at the finish with Nadal converting a mere four of 17 for 24 per cent.
For two of the greatest players to ever wield a racquet, those conversion rates didn’t make any sense.
Was it choking, or just incredible pressure from across the net?
I’d have to go along with the latter as both saved 27 of 37 break points between them at critical times.
But all that did was increase the tension among the multi-millions watching live on television around the world.
It will go down as a final for the ages which was rather fitting with a 35-year-old across the net from a 30-year-old.
Former French veteran Fabrice Santoro made the classic comment Federer had a 15-year-old head, 25-year-old legs, and a 35-year-old passport.
But both have been in the wars.
Just five months ago they were on the injured list and no certainty to make the first Slam of the year.
Federer had leg and groin problems, Nadal’s was a nagging wrist injury.
That they fought their way through to the decider last night bordered on the miraculous.
That both covered over 3000 metres at full pace – Nadal 3306, Federer 3218 – and that did them credit as well.
And a personal salute from me to Nadal who, apart from two well-separated serving incidents, was within the 20 seconds allowed between points.
That was a major first for the Spaniard and it played no small part in making the match so memorable.
So it was fitting Roger Federer served 20 aces to four and won 150 points overall, to Rafael Nadal’s 139.
The best man won.
Justin Ahrns
Roar Guru
What a match, and what a week in general. We may never see these two legends compete against each other on the highest stage ever again, but it was worth the long wait between meeting 34 and 35!
Johnno
Guest
1988 Cash vs Wilander first at RL arena was mighty tense and epic.
Bruce
Guest
Didn't he go on to win the 2014 FO? That's the very next Slam.
Bruce
Guest
Spot on. It was on Feds racquet all night. If he hadn't just lost his serve in the 1st game of the 5th it would have been 6-1 or even 6-0. Plus the 3rd set beat-down. He dominated. Maybe Nadal was a bit underdone but when you're a grinder you can't complain when its a grind.
Bruce
Guest
Are you using Anon and anon1 now?
Andy
Guest
Wonder if Federer ever sits there with Rod Laver and asks him with wonder in his eyes what it was like to play 3 of 4 slams on grass. I imagine him in his pjs and clapping with glee at the idea.
Johnno
Guest
Rory exactly well said. Men's tennis is more than just the big 3 or big 4 myth. It's so competitive, any guys in the top 100 can beat each other on any given day. Oh and the cheap slam stuff, Novak lost to Warinka at french open in 2015, no one harps on about that, or stuff like Warinka got luck. The cheap slam stuff laughable, and an insult to the other top-50 players on tour. Nadal lost to Kygios at wimbledon in the 2nd round from memory, let's put the boot into Nadal to. Novak/Nadal/Andy Murray have all lost plenty of matches to other guys, the Fed has an easy ride stuff is crap. And Fed in finals he's lost to Novak/Rafa he's pushed them to the brink. Fed in 2014 when he pushed Novak at his best to 5, is as well as a losing finalist I've seen play. And Nadal has lost to Novak to. All spin Fed is great.
clipper
Guest
That's the point I was making, everyone, especially males, develop differently. It would be very rare for a 21yo to still be an adolescent, and stretching it a bit to think Nadal had only just come out of puberty at 18, it's all just an excuse - I would go as far as saying Nadal was in his prime since 18, just as Hewitt and Becker were. Federer took longer to get going and Warwinka didn't click until the late 20's.
Rory
Guest
Anon, sure Nadal is a big match player, mentally tough, Novak for a while there was probably even tougher. Federer has probably choked multiple times during major finals. What about the other 361 days of the year outside the major finals? The trivialisation of Federers achievements just to suit your point is a bit ridiculous. 18 majors due to weak opposition? Easy peasy? And don't just look at who he beats in the final there are 6 matches before that. All sorts of reasons why outsiders could make runs to the final. The weak era thing is a crock spun by people who don't look past the big 3. Take out Rafa and Novak and it was arguably stronger.
Kane
Guest
Nadal is the opposite of Wawrinka in that respect. Everyone is different. Funny how some one in their mid 20's is in their prime aka Wawrinka and couldn't win a thing, then he gets in to his late 20's early 30's and now has three slams? But he wasn't in his prime... doesn't make sense does it.
Kane
Guest
But Murray has been far more consistently in the top 4 players in the world than Wawrinka. It doesn't matter who you play in the Final, just that you made it there and beat the person on the other side of the net. Since Novak won his first Slam he has been in the draw every time that Federer has won a slam since. Australian Open 10, 17 French Open 09 Wimbledon 09, 12 Us Open 08 Since Rafael won his first Slam he has been absent in the draw just twice when Federer went on to win. The Australian Open in 06 and Wimbledon in 09. Australian Open 07, 10, 17 French Open 09 Wimbledon 05, 06, 07 US Open 05, 06, 07, 08 Federer gave them every chance of beating him at these slams but unfortunately they didn't turn up. Hardly Federer's fault so any of these slams shouldn't be worth less than the others.
express34texas
Guest
Regardless of what excuses you want to make, Fed plays much shorter matches on average than Nadal and has been in better shape. Injuries happen, that's part of sports. Most of Nadal's injuries are byproducts of his style. And every tennis player will have injuries. Btw, serve/volley tennis is harder on your body, but points might be quicker. And Sampras wasn't in great shape like Fed.
anon1
Guest
Murray has won the same amount of majors as Wawrinka. It's a big 3, only the British think it's a big 4. Nadal has played 16 of 21 major finals against Djokovic and Federer. Of those 16 he's won 10. 10 of his 14 majors have been won against two guys with 30 of them between them. Brutal. Federer by contrast has won 14 of his 18 majors against players OTHER THAN Nadal and Djokovic. Easy peasy. A lot of guys like Gonzalez, Safin, Baghdatis, Philippousis, etc. A lot of unseeded guys, lot of guys outside the top 10. Imagine the damage a prime Djokovic would have done in that period. 3-4 majors every year.
anon1
Guest
Djokovic has 11 of the last 12 against Nadal. I think the difference is this domination has been since late 2013. Nadal really hasn't been the same player since he lost the AO in 2014. He hurt his back and it damaged him mentally. He started losing uncharacteristically even on clay. So the recent Djokovic domination has come in a period where Nadal has clearly declined. The Nadal domination of Federer almost completely came in a period where Federer was at the peak of his abilities.
anon1
Guest
That's how good Nadal was. He had won his third French Open in a row mere days after turning 21. Nadal hadn't even fully developed as a player yet was dominating the best player of all time (who was at his peak). Adolescence can last until 21 in males. Nadal entered his first French Open in 2005 as an 18 year old (turned 19 during the tournament). It's fair to say he'd only just come out of adolescence/puberty. It's not just youth in terms of not developing physically as a man, but what he gave up as an 18/19 year old to Federer who was at the peak of his game. That's a lot of experience you're giving up to the best of all time in his peak.
anon1
Guest
It's a fair argument. Nadal has a congenital problem with his feet though, which has no doubt contributed to his foot fractures. He was also sidelined by appendicitis. That's out of his control. I'd argue that Djokovic is hard on his body too, but has largely been free of injury. Sampras played a similar game to Federer, arguably Sampras was much kinder to his body since he played serve volley tennis. Yet he had injury problems throughout his career. Hingis and Henin were forced into premature retirements despite being petite women who put relatively little strain on their bodies. Serena Williams and Venus Williams are large women still playing well at 35 and 36. Federer simply can't cover ground like Nadal, so it gives the impression that Federer is kinder to his body. Federer is one of the great movers of all time though. Nadal is just better.
michael steel
Guest
They are both playing for a grand slam title so the expression " a hiding to nothing" really doesn't apply. Even though your points are correct that still doesn't mean Nadal was on "a hiding to nothing".
Johnno
Guest
Well said Kane. This Fed had a soft era is just rubbish. Safin was a world no 1, who beat Pete Sampras(29 yr old and not old) at the US open final. Philliopousous was a great player on grass, he was beating Sampras in one wimbldone semi final(sampras in his prime) and took the first set but had to quit during injury, he would of probably won at Wimbledon that year, Scud also blasted Pete at OZ open in 96 when he was a teenager and Pete aged 24 in his prime, so when and up and coming Fed aged 21 about to turn 22 beat Philliipousous aged 27 on grass and still in his prime that was no cheap slam, it was hard earned. And plenty of other good players guys like Juan Carlos ferrero and Hewitt/Roddick to real fighters. Roddick has one of the best serves ever in the modern game if not the best, and Hewitt is all guts who has beaten Fed before most notably in 2003 davis cup semi final in 5 sets and Fed had won wimbledon by then. Fed credits Hewitt with making him a lot of what the player he is today. So we need to drop the cheap slam nonsense.
Kane
Guest
Novaks opponents in slam finals have 38 Slams between them. Federer's 43 Nadal's 33 Murray's 30
clipper
Guest
Nadal had won 3 GS by 2007, he was well out of puberty, it's not as though he was 14 in 2003. Some players hit their stride early, Nadal certainly did and kept up those early high standards. Hewitt started great and trailed off, Becker was similar to Nadal, great from early on. Nadal also played Puerta, Soderling and Ferrer in GS finals - the equiviland of Gonzalez, Philipoussis and Baghdatis.