Was Nadal v. Federer at Wimbledon better than Woods v. Mediate at U.S. Open?
Already the sports reporters are suggesting that Rafael Nadal's 5-set victory over No. 1 Roger Federer, ending his streak of 5 straight Wimbledon wins, in what was the longest finals ever at Wimbledon will go down as the BEST finals ever in the history of Wimbledon.
When the 5-sets were 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7, with the World's No. 2 player over the World's No. 1 player (who had not lost a set at Wimbledon this year), well, it's hard to disagree.
My question is this: how will history rank Nadal-Federer Wimbledon 2008 against Tiger Woods-Rocco Mediate at the U.S. Open 2008? Which "major" victory will be considered as the greater victory in their respective sports? It's true Tiger was playing with a torn ACL, but it's hard to overlook the fact that Nadal v. Federer involved No.2 versus No.1 in the finals, plus the already storied rivalry Nadal and Federer have built up. So dear reader, you tell us which was the more historic major victory this year.
4 Comments:
I argue Nadal beating Federer is the more significant of the two, given Federer's dominance at Wimbledon. Whereas Woods' winning on a bum leg was impressive , the magnitude of the victory in the context of his career pales vs. what a Wimbledon means for tennis and Nadal individually. As for which was better, the level of play during yesterday's Wimbledon Final was of unquestionably higher quality than the golf played by Woods and Mediate.
Well I think u cannot compare two vastly different sports and argue what is better. Both Sports have different concentration levels and skill levels so I think the best way to look at it is Nadal vs Federer Final with the past final of McEnroe and Borg from which I think this one was the best !!
No issue with the US open final tho It was one of the best final rounds I have witnessed in a major tournament.. Woods was awesome he like Federer is the Best in his Game (tho Nadal is fastly becoming a threat to R Fed ) no one is there to challenge Woods and his victory was more sweet given he was playing with an injury.
~Peace~
Yes! And i don't even like tennis.
No offense to Mediate, but the tennis was all about the two greatest players in the world battling it out in an epic duel. It was also about the young pretender coming and trying to take the crown of the king of the sport. It was simply fantastic viewing.
The golf of course was also great viewing, and a wonderful battle. What it did however was merely confirm that Tiger is the best, and far better than anyone else.
I wish Tiger had an up-coming rival in the same way that Federer has, or in a similar vein to Arnie and Jack. That really would be something.
The Open was better in my opinion. Nadal has been like kyrptonite for Federer in the past. Even during the pre-Wimbledon coverage, some "experts" were predicting that Federer wouldn't win if he faced Nadal. No one predicted that a 40+ year old Rocco Mediate, who hadn't won on tour in half a decade at least, would make that type of run against Woods. Yes, the loss stops Federer's streak at four straight at Wimbledon, but the loss wasn't that shocking. Federer has lost three straight to Nadal at the French Open (I realize its a different surface). My point is, the match-up wasn't Phil vs. Tiger which is exactly what happened at Wimbledon. The Open was a match of an obscure, past-his-prime player, who nearly beat the greatest ever.
Post a Comment
<< Home