Federer vs Nadal: When worlds collide

By Remo Shankar / Roar Pro

Apparently around 6 million people tuned in to watch Roger Federer play Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open men’s tennis final last Sunday. One can only guess at the number worldwide.

Federer captivates in a way that very few athletes ever have.

There’s a very simple measure of this – people who don’t normally watch tennis will watch Federer, and though they know very little about the sport or the difference between a slice backhand and a topspin forehand, they are very aware that they are watching something special, something that transcends two people whacking a ball back and forth over a net.

So what made the final so memorable?

When worlds collide, everyone pays attention. Last Sunday, not only did this happen, but a whole host of other factors converged to produce a date with destiny that barely managed to contain the hopes and near hysteria of one of the biggest ‘what if’ moments in sport.

Let’s look at all the puzzle pieces so we can understand the beautiful picture that was made.

Neither Federer nor Nadal had any business being in the final in the first place. The 35-year-old Swiss and the 30-year-old Spaniard had both suffered long layouts with career-threatening injuries that saw them enter the tournament severely underdone.

The Federer-Nadal rivalry ranks highly in the annals of sport because of its peculiar nature. It presents the greatest player of all time versus the greatest player of the greatest of player of all time.

There were question marks hanging over each player. Nadal’s lead-up match was an energy draining, epic, five-set encounter against a resurgent Grigor Dimitrov. Federer took a groin strain into the final.

Even though Federer, thanks to his association with Stefan Edberg, has developed a more aggressive and attacking style of play in later years, the match up on paper against Nadal still heavily favoured the Spaniard. The pre-match tips of Lleyton Hewitt, Jim Courier and Darren Cahill all went, albeit with heavy heart, to Nadal. Make no mistake, Federer was the underdog for this match.

There was always been a pattern of sorts to Federer-Nadal matches. It’s not uncommon for Federer to come out of the blocks fast. Then invariably Nadal reels him in and takes control. A Federer comeback follows, that for a period ignites the flame of hope, and then an inexplicable stumble, which is all Nadal needs to snuff that fire and take the match.

This nearly happened again on Sunday. With Federer down a break in the third, the pattern was set to play out once again.

But not so fast. This is sport and sometimes the unexpected happens. Federer composed himself and decided to play the ball instead of the man or the situation.

And when Federer plays the ball, well, the world stops and he takes our breath away. Shot after shot found its mark and he created a force that took on a will of its own and wouldn’t be denied.

Millions watched and millions felt it.

Thank you linespeople, thank you ball boys and girls, thank you Rafa and thank you Roger.

The Crowd Says:

AUTHOR

2017-02-01T01:56:54+00:00

Remo Shankar

Roar Pro


Hi Clipper, I've heard a figure of around 350 million world wide tuned in or accessed the match in one form or another - not sure if this can be verified, but it must have been a mind boggling figure, whatever it was and right up there with any of the largest single sporting contests over the lat 20 years, including world cup finals.

2017-01-31T22:43:48+00:00

clipper

Guest


Hi MonkeyMayes - the figures I quoted are the 5 city metro figures which all the advertisers go on. The figure of 4.4 would, I assume, include regionals (same with the 2005 final). These figures are somewhat looser as they overlap, some areas aren't included etc, so there is some guesswork in it. I'm reluctant to say more as they are always trotted out when the AFL GF wins each year and league fans try to up their figures by saying what about the regionals and it descends from there, Basil Fawlty like, to include the war and Vichey. Would love to know the world wide figures as this was one of the most hyped up and anticipated sport events ever, and one that lived up to expectations - if there was a script writer, they would be in line for an Oscar.

2017-01-31T15:29:46+00:00

anon1

Guest


I like how Federer drags all those twice a year casual fans into tennis. They'll pop up again in another 5 months at Wimbledon. I thought it was great drama given what was at stake, but it was a funny match that lacked real tension that the Nadal semi had. Friday night you were waiting for someone to crack for 4 hours (from 2nd set on), whereas in the final each player was cracking at the start of each set. I'd give the match a B+

2017-01-31T06:53:08+00:00

Johnno

Guest


Plus all the people in Margarat court/fed square/and outside RL on the big screens. Was one of best nights of tennis in OZ open I seen if not the best. My previous best for moments of tension and wider audience tension was 1988 OZ open first final ever at rod laver, between Mats Wilander vs Pat Cash(aussie and was current wimbledon champ and a Melbourne local). That was massive game, but this tops it for me. The 88 final, RL was pumping inside all the swedish backpackers cheering on Wilander and making so much noise in the glory days of Swedish tennis.

AUTHOR

2017-01-31T06:19:08+00:00

Remo Shankar

Roar Pro


Actually Clipper, you're right, my quoted figure is a little out - it's what's they were quoting on Sydney radio this morning - but it seems your figures aren't quite right either. The Australian is reporting a figure of around 4.4 million viewers at the peak of the broadcast, not 2.7 million and the Safin v Hewitt 2005 final was 5.5million, not the 4 million that you're quoting. Anyway, the numbers is really what the article was about.

2017-01-31T03:48:24+00:00

clipper

Guest


Amazing figures, don't know where you got the 6m from, the 5 city metro was 2.7m, which was greater than any show last year bar the AFL GF and way over double what the Women's final got and a lot more than the mens final last year. Still a way to go to beat 2005 Hewitt and Safin which came in at just over 4m, although with the different ways of viewing may not be that much more.

AUTHOR

2017-01-31T02:30:16+00:00

Remo Shankar

Roar Pro


Thanks Max, appreciate the support.

2017-01-31T01:11:51+00:00

kk

Roar Pro


Agreed MM, Lucky you to see that semi live. We had drifted away from tennis. The Grigor/ Raffa semi had us cheering like teenagers. We now want more. The commentators noted that Raffa had to endure about 18 hours and Roger about 13 hours of play on the way to the final. That 5 hours difference may have told in the end. Looking forward to reading your League articles and posts.

AUTHOR

2017-01-31T00:39:29+00:00

Remo Shankar

Roar Pro


Hi Max, I get so drawn into the intensity of these matches that I sometimes lose objectivity on the actual quality of the play. I do, however, know there were some absolutely jaw-dropping rallies and some shorter and sharper clutch moments...but maybe they all occurred in the fifth set... I was in Melbourne for the Dimitrov v Nadal semi and it was easily one of the best live matches I've ever seen. Dimitrov was magnificent and not too many players could have stood up to the Nadal onslaught. I expect Dimitrov to use this match as a platform for the rest of the year. If he maintains that quality then he's top four bound and a genuine contender for a slam...maybe not the French but Wimbledon and the US Open surely beckons.

2017-01-31T00:24:10+00:00

kk

Roar Pro


Hi MM, The AO 2017 was a tournament to remember. Maybe the last Roger & Raffa show. The first four sets of the final were somewhat ordinary by the standards of the two champion players but concluded with all the drama and emotion of a Cecil B De Mille biblical classic. The name I take away from the tournament: Grigor Dimitrov.

Read more at The Roar