Sunday night at Rod Laver Arena saw another Australian Open final. No records were at stake, nor was history destined to be rewritten, yet the tennis world was about to witness something it had never imagined a fortnight ago.
Two of the greatest legends and rivals of the game, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, were squaring off against each other in what turned out to be another epic and gripping final.
As an ardent Federer worshipper, the night was not to be remembered for statistics – aces, forehand winners, backhand winners, forced and unforced errors. The night was meant to get soaked in the taste of a hard-fought triumph, a triumph that will remain etched in history as one against all odds and after an excruciating period of time.
Roll back the clock to 2009. Same stage. Same opponent. The only difference: history was at stake.
Federer was aiming for a record-equalling 14th Grand Slam. The “God, it’s killing me” after his defeat was not a mere statement of grief. It was the deep-rooted mental block – ‘I cannot beat Rafa’ – conspicuous in the tears.
Eight years later, the stage was set for a perfect revenge. For probably the last time, Federer gifted himself one more opportunity to re-stamp his authority which, according to his fans, had been usurped by Nadal.
The Swiss ace proved that getting older is not necessarily a liability. The refined and flawless backhands, the precise and lightning forehands, the aces at break points, and the early attacking returns that had until now eluded Roger in his matches against Rafa all clicked. The vintage Federer, to the delight of the tennis aficionados, was back.
It made this triumph perhaps the most gratifying of all.
I do not intend to go into the question of GOAT, but the genius on display at Rod Laver Arena, defying age, odds, and nemesis, certainly scores it as the greatest comeback.
express34texas
Guest
Sure, Fed has more variety than any other player out there probably, but he's always been an offense-first player, unlike Nadal, who still seems defense first. Fed doesn't have the consist firepower as Delpo, for example, but he doesn't wait and work the points if he can avoid it, unlike Murray, which was one reason why Murray lost to Zverev. Being 30 in tennis is old and most players have already retired. Being 35 in tennis is ancient. Sure, Djoker and even Nadal to a much lesser extent have more athleticism than Fed, which should be expected, but I don't think it's that big of a difference. Unlike a sport like basketball, which is a team sport and players can excel well past their primes like Kobe/Jordan on much less athleticism than they once had, tennis really doesn't afford players that opportunity, unless they have huge weapons like Delpo/Wawrinka. Fed has all the shots in the bag and lots of weapons, but I wouldn't say he has a huge weapon. Maybe still his serve, I suppose. A lot of guys can surely hit harder serves, but his still seems top 10 for sure. I still think he's extremely athletic, obviously less athletic than he once was, but it's relative.
Monisha Dikshit
Roar Rookie
Nadal was definitely the favorite to win this clash. Agree or not but Roger uses variety rather than brute force. And in this age of competing with younger players who are much more athletic than him and winning it is indeed an accomplishment. Nadal does get his due share when he wins.
Justin Ahrns
Roar Pro
Agree that this could well be Fed's biggest triumph. When all things are considered, the Aus Open in 2017 will go down as one of the greats!
express34texas
Guest
anon, you might be right about some of those things, but some of those things are valid points to remember. Almost nobody wins any GS after age 30, let alone 35. Even with Borg off the tour, McEnroe still never won a GS after 25. I admit it's going to be tough to reach Fed in reality or in perception, but look at what Fed has accomplished. Nadal has a long ways to reach Fed's accomplishments. Fed holds huge advantages in 4 of the top 5 tourneys(year-end final included), Nadal has a huge edge in just the FO. Clay is by far the least important surface, too. Sampras only reached the FO semis once, and he was mostly regarded as the GOAT before Fed came along. Nadal has greatly benefited in many more clay tourneys on tour and matches vs Fed on clay than grass tourneys on tour and matches vs Fed on grass. But, even with all of that, Fed's overall body of work is still much better. He owns a 12-4 advantage at the 2 most prestigious tourneys(Wimby/USO). Nadal needs to close the gaps in many areas before he's legitimately in the conversation.
clipper
Guest
Serena is clearly ahead of every female player today in every metric - GS's, weeks at No. 1, tournaments won, consistency etc, etc. Nadal is not ahead of Federer in any of those metrics, it's quite a different argument. I agree that Nadals squash like return was the shot of the night, but both had some great shots - Feds down the line winner after a 26 stroke rally was also a highlight, but one great shot does not prove or disprove any theory.
anon1
Guest
I think you're being fair in stating that no history was at stake and saying records wouldn't be rewritten. Because if Nadal won and found himself 2 majors behind Federer, found himself with the double grand slam, no-one would give him credit for being better than Federer. They'd say aha!! You're a 30 year old who beat a 35 year old coming off 6 months rest. They'd say aha!! Federer had a groin injury. They'd say aha!! You have won too many majors on clay (despite half the outdoor season being played on clay). They'd say aha!! But Roger is so effortless and skilled (despite Nadal playing the shot of the night). You run like a brute. Nadal, like Serena Williams is on a hiding to nothing because they can never do enough to be considered the best of all time.