Andrew Burton — Tennis With An Accent
The 2023 Wimbledon Gentlemen’s Singles final between Novak Djokovic and Carlos Alcaraz lived up to the hype: a battle between the generations, a multi time champion bidding for his 8th crown and fifth in succession, and a rising star hoping to become the youngest male player to win the singles title in decades. The highest ranked player against the best grass player.
When it was over, one journalist and podcast host called the second set of the match “the best set I have ever had the privilege to describe.” An even more illustrious commentator, and former Wimbledon champion himself, John McEnroe, was even more emphatic: “It’s one of the all time great matches I’ve had the pleasure to see and call.”
As I sometimes say, I’m going to put my cards on the table. This was my tweet in response to McEnroe’s encomium:
Let’s not take time out for humor here. We didn’t see both players playing consistently well in the match. It was enjoyable, it was dramatic at times, it had some enjoyable rallies – but we’re way, way below an all time great match.
There have been 20 Wimbledon ATP finals since the start of the Big 4 era, from 2003 to 2023 (the 2020 Championships weren’t held during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic). There have been six such final Sundays that went to a deciding set in that period. How do they stack up?
Quickly: what makes a great match? For me it’s sustained high quality of play, for which you need two very good players both playing well at the same time. Winners and forced errors dominate over unforced errors, there’s a contrast in styles of play, moments of high tension resolved by courage and skill rather than frailty. The match context – a major final, records at stake – is a cherry on top, not the cake itself.
Here’s my own ranking in reverse order: I’d love to hear yours.
2009 Federer d. Roddick
Much at stake: the third final between the two players (2004, 2005), a chance for Federer to eclipse Pete Sampras’ 14 major titles, or for Roddick to avenge a string of defeats in major semi finals and finals and finally gain a Wimbledon crown his serving prowess had seemed to foretell.
It would be the longest final in the Open Era for games played, ending in the evening sun at 16-14 in the final set, but it was an attritional match rather than exhilarating swordplay. Although Federer outaced Roddick the American was the only player to break serve in the first four sets, with Federer riding his luck in tiebreaks, especially in set 2. Roddick had chances in the deciding set at 7-7 15-40 but Federer escaped: eventually mental fatigue seemed the decisive factor in the 30th game of the set.
2023 Alcaraz d. Djokovic
The changing of the guard? The passing of the torch? After the match few people would be so definitive. Djokovic came in as the favorite for most commentators, though IBM’s Watson favored Alcaraz (AI, anyone?) Djokovic stormed through the first set, then Alcaraz sensibly changed his gameplan, mixing in high margin heavy topspin with attacking drives and his signature drop shots – clay on grass, I called it.
For many commentators, the match turned in three points, with three backhands in the second set tiebreak . Twice Novak tamely patted rally balls into the net, then his opponent stabbed a return winner into the deuce corner. There was still lots of tennis to play, but there was parity in the scores. In my view, neither player reached his best level at any point in the match, and there was no sustained period when both played at a very high level. This isn’t to denigrate Alcaraz’s achievement, or Djokovic’s effort – just to say that if you appreciate fine wine, it was DOC, not a first growth Bordeaux.
2007 Federer d. Nadal
I’m going to be honest – I haven’t watched each match all the way through twice in compiling this list. My memory of this match is that Nadal was a much tougher opponent for Federer than the 2006 version, and we’ll come on to the 2008 version later.
I think the 5th set of the match is better than the 2023 final’s fifth set. Nadal had momentum going into the final set, and he twice had Federer on the ropes early, with 15-40 advantages in two games in succession (1*-1 and 2*-2). Federer made an incredibly brave second serve, a wide slice ace to deuce, to get past one of the break points. In the sixth game of the set Federer turned the tables and outmaneuvered Nadal before crunching an inside-in winner to lead 4-2. Then he sealed victory with a flurry of attacking shots in the next two games.
2014 Djokovic d. Federer
This was the second meeting between the two players on Wimbledon grass, Federer having edged a tight contest in 2012. By the end of set 4 it looked like Djokovic, 2 sets to 1 up, was poised to lift the crown for the second time. However, Federer saved three match points and edged past his rival in a tiebreak to set up the decider.
At 4-4 Federer had the faintest glimpse of an opening, but unusually for him he emulated his opponent’s patented Djokosmash. In the next and final game, Novak calmly engineered a 15-40 opening, and a deep return set up an off forehand winner into the ad corner.
Was it a good match? Novak himself told press afterwards:
“Sincerely, this has been the best quality Grand Slam final that I ever been part of. I’ve had a longest final against Nadal in the Australian Open 2012. But quality‑wise from the first to last point, this is definitely the best match.”
The conventional wisdom was that time was running out for his opponent, already 32 years of age. Here’s a sample of Federer’s press conference:
Q. Rightly or wrongly, many tennis fans will be wondering whether that could be the last time they see you in a Wimbledon final. Do they have a point, or does a performance like that give you renewed belief in yourself as you go into the 30s?
ROGER FEDERER: You could have asked me exactly that question in 2003.
You don’t know. Totally the unknown. That’s the disappointment of an Olympic result, of a World Cup result, Wimbledon result, whatever it is. You’ve just got to wait and see.
As it happened, Roger had three more Wimbledon finals in time: a four set loss to Djokovic next year, a straight sets victory over Marin Cilic in 2017, and …
2019 Djokovic d. Federer
An unusual hybrid fifth set – the first Wimbledon ATP final to be decided by a tie break, a never to be repeated 7 point breaker at 12-12 (all future contests will be 10 point breakers at 6-6 in set 5).
Five years on from their previous five setter, and 8 and 9 years on from two US Open semifinals (why are you including this detail – Ed; You’ll see – Andrew), Federer was to play the Roddick role from the 2009 final, while Djokovic donned Swiss shoes. Roger earned breaks to win sets 2 and 4, while Novak took sets 1 and 3 in tiebreaks.
The 5th set was an epic: Djokovic earned an early break to take the lead, and as he had in the 2017 Australian Open Final against Nadal Federer broke back to even the score. At 7-7 Federer flashed a BH CC pass past his opponent to break serve. Serving for the match, he reached 40-15 up – an ominous scoreline for Federer fans, who remembered semifinal defeats in New York from 2 match points up in 2010 and 2011 (oh I get it now – Ed).
It was not to be. A rushed Federer forehand error and a precise Djokovic CC FH pass erased the championship points, and two points later they were back on serve. The two players split the next eight games, and as he had in sets 1 and 3, Djokovic locked down his play in the deciding tiebreak, conceding no unforced errors in any of the busters.
2008 Nadal d. Federer
The mountaintop, according to the conventional wisdom (I still maintain that their 2006 Rome final was the highest sustained quality match I saw played).
You can write books about this match, and Jon Wertheim and John Carlin did. Nadal had been nipping at Federer’s heels at Wimbledon and in the ATP rankings for years, and now he was poised to overtake his rival, who put up an epic resistance in defense.
The 4th set tiebreak isn’t the most celebrated breaker in Wimbledon finals history – that honor surely goes to the 1980 Borg-McEnroe battle (also won by the eventual defeated player) – but I urge you to watch it to compare the quality of play to the hype around the recent contest’s second set tiebreak. Two points in particular have attained legendary status: the 7-7 point where Rafa rips a lethal curling forehand past a despairing Roger, then a championship point saving payback backhand pass by Roger from outside the ad sideline.
The 2008 championship match finished in the evening gloaming, with the reigning champion dethroned. The 2023 championship match also saw a defending champion toppled, and a Spanish youngster lying on his back, triumphant. Was the 2023 final “one of the all time greatest matches?” Honestly, no.
Recency Bias is a cruel mistress:
Recency bias is a cognitive bias that favors recent events over historic ones; a memory bias. Recency bias gives “greater importance to the most recent event”, such as the final lawyer’s closing argument a jury hears before being dismissed to deliberate.
My old friend Pete Bodo described the defeated Federer as a “Spartan in a Cardigan,” and he posed these questions in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 contest:
Will [Federer] prove, like Bjorn Borg, to be too brittle, and too tired of the pressure of his position, to continue playing with his customary degree of desire and focus? Or will he find a way to draw emotional fuel from this loss for the final phase of his career, with such enormous honors at stake?
I haven’t spoken to Pete in a while: I’m sure he has been as astonished and delighted as I have that both Federer and Nadal went on to compete in more than a decade of extraordinary-level finals, and they were joined (some might say surpassed) by Novak Djokovic in a two-decades-long super rivalry.
So the hardest thing to predict remains the future. It’s easier to assess the past, which is what I’ve tried to do here. What’s your ranking of the Alcaraz-Djokovic 2023 Wimbledon final? Transcendent, superb, or – like me – pretty good, a (just minor) classic?
Tennis with an Accent 