Quantitiy versus quality

It's interesting to note that Serena Williams remains number two in the ladies' rankings, despite being the reigning champion in three of the four Grand Slam singles events after her 7-5, 6-2 victory over sister Venus yesterday.

Dinara Safina retains her status as the women's number one, at least according to the official rankings, on the basis of her overall record over the past twelve months, as well as decent runs in the Grand Slams - finalist in Australia and France, semi-finalist at Wimbledon - which have marked her out as a consistent performer, although not actually a winner as such.

And therein lies the point. Safina, like Jelena Jankovic last year, has ascended to the top of the rankings without ever having won a major.

How?

The ranking system rewards achievement in terms of quantity and consistency of performance; it does not reward 'winners', as such. That's not to say Safina hasn't done well over the past 12 months; she has, reaching ten finals (winning five) in the past year. But she has consistently failed to win the big matches against the big players at the big tournaments. Her Grand Slam final record makes for sorry reading: played three, lost three, all in straight sets. Indeed, she has been obliterated by both Williams sisters in majors this year: 6-0, 6-3 by Serena in the Australian final and 6-0, 6-1 by Venus in her Wimbledon semi-final. In particular, in the latter match last Thursday, her body language throughout the second set gave the impression of a player who knew she was outgunned and resultantly couldn't be bothered.

Safina's performance in these big matches throws her number one status into sharp relief. She may have more ranking points than anyone else, but you would not back her to win a match against either Williams sister, or indeed a major final against anyone. (Two of her three Grand Slam final defeats have come against Ana Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova, neither of whom have a reputation for either consistency or mental toughness.)

So, while the official standings state that Dinara Safina is the top-ranked women's player in the world, nobody really believes she is anywhere close to being the best player.

There's a big difference between the two. It's a shame the ranking system doesn't reflect it.

Feat of clay

Without meaning any disrespect to Robin Söderling, he was really the least significant of Roger Federer's opponents at Roland Garros yesterday.

In no particular order, Federer was also battling:
- Pete Sampras, whose record of 14 Grand Slam singles titles he was attempting to match
- Andre Agassi, the only man in the past 40 years to win each of the four Grand Slam tournaments
- Rafael Nadal, the Spaniard who had taken not only his number 1 ranking but also his aura of invincibility
- The Spanish spectator who decided to run onto the court and (non-violently) accost Federer early in the second set, an event which visibly unsettled him for a few minutes afterwards
- Himself, and the combination of weighty expectation and self-doubt which have hung over him since his defeat to Nadal at January’s Australian Open

In reality, despite his hugely impressive fortnight's work, which included that stunning defeat of Nadal, Söderling’s best chance was that Federer would beat himself. In nine previous meetings – all defeats - he had only managed to take a single set off the Swiss.

Federer serenely raced through the first set 6-1, and despite his equilibrium being upset by the unwanted intruder – it took security an unforgivably long 18 seconds to stop him – he duly stepped up a gear in the second set tie-break, firing down aces on all four of his service points and winning three times against the Swede’s serve. In that moment, the championship was effectively sealed.

This was a good but by no means perfect display from Federer – if anything, his performance over the two weeks at Roland Garros has been the poorest we have seen from him at a Grand Slam tournament in the last five years – but it was still more than enough to deal with Söderling. Only once, serving for the match at 30-30, did he momentarily betray the immense pressure he must have been under, miscuing a chest-high volley which had more chance of hitting the Eiffel Tower than the baseline. But that was no more than a hiccup, and he closed out a 6-1, 7-6, 6-4 victory, achieved in under two hours.

With that, Federer became the sixth man – and, alongside Agassi, only the second since Rod Laver in 1969 - to have won each of the four Grand Slams, a feat which eluded even Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Becker and Edberg. It was his 14th Grand Slam singles title overall (tying Sampras for the all-time record), in his 19th final (tying Ivan Lendl’s record).

Equally notable is Federer’s sheer consistency. He has contested the final of all but one of the last 16 Grand Slam men’s finals (his one aberration being the 2008 Australian Open, where he lost to eventual champion Novak Djokovic in the semi-finals). In a men’s field which boasts arguably greater strength in depth – and, in the form of Nadal, a nemesis every bit his equal - than at any time in the past 50 years, that is a remarkable achievement.

Now unshackled from the fear of failing to fulfil his destiny, don't be surprised if he wins both remaining majors – Wimbledon and the US Open – this year.

Roger Federer may be number two in the current ATP rankings (which only take into account results over the last twelve months), but- if we didn’t know it already – he really is the number one player of this - or indeed any - era.

As the French would say: chapeaux.

Better than backgammon

I have to admit, I’m not a big fan of Eurosport. Their production quality is reminiscent of those old daytime soaps where the entire set wobbled whenever a door was closed. As for their scheduling, ‘random’ is the most generous description I can offer. Programmes frequently start late, overrun, move without warning or sometimes disappear completely.

The Giro d’Italia is a good example of this. Through 21 days of racing, I religiously set my Sky+ box to record the highlights every evening, only to discover on at least five occasions that I had missed at least half the programme due to a combination of late starts and the EPG not being updated accordingly. (On one evening, I was less than amused to discover the slot had been switched for a programme of backgammon highlights. Thanks for that.)

Having said that, Eurosport is the only channel in the UK carrying Giro coverage, so I suppose I shouldn’t complain too much. And, through fortunate happenstance, the broadcaster yesterday gave us live pictures of two pieces of tremendous sporting drama, less than an hour apart.

Giro d’Italia, Rome

Denis Menchov was the last rider down the start ramp in yesterday’s 14.4km time trial around the streets of Rome, which concluded the Giro. Starting three minutes behind Danilo di Luca and nursing a meagre 20 second lead, it’s hard to know what must have been going through the Russian’s mind.

Certainly, he will have been receiving constant updates on the Italian’s progress through the time-checks, and as he passed through the first one himself five seconds slower than di Luca, no doubt his already fast-beating pulse will have quickened further. The news that light rain was falling over parts of the circuit won’t have helped, either. The cobbles that comprised long stretches of the course are difficult enough to ride in damp conditions on a standard road bike; on a racing bike, with its super-skinny tyres, it becomes close to impossible to corner at any speed whatseoever.

So Menchov will have been relieved to know that, as he started on the long, cobbled run to the finish, he had not only regained the early time losses to di Luca, but had indeed extended his advantage. And, of course, it was at that moment, on a straight stretch of cobbles, that his bike slipped away from underneath him, sending him sliding painfully across the road for at least ten metres.

In the long moment that followed, we wondered if Menchov had suffered an injury serious enough – fractured collarbones are not uncommon – to deprive him of his first Giro win inside the final kilometre. Fortunately, he was quickly back on his feet, while a mechanic in his following team car quickly jumped out, whipped a spare bike off the roof rack and gave Menchov a quick push start once he had climbed into the saddle – all done with the smoothness and efficiency of a Formula 1 pit-stop.

Bloodied but unbowed, Menchov continued on to the finish, to discover that he had triumphed by 41 seconds overall. It was the right result, as even di Luca would recognise, but a dramatic coda on the end of what had already been a tight, eventful race.

Roll on the Tour de France in July, by which time the ever-improving Lance Armstrong (12th overall in Italy) may just be in a position to challenge defending champion Carlos Sastre and 2007 winner (and Astana teammate) Alberto Contador for podium honours.

French Open, Roland Garros, Paris

Before yesterday afternoon, Rafael Nadal, the world number 1 and four-time defending champion, had a career record of 31-0 at Roland Garros, which included a run of 32 consecutive sets won, dating all the a back to the 2007 final.

Robin Söderling, the Swede seeded 23 (and ranked 25th in the world), had never previously ventured beyond the third round of any grand slam singles, and is regarded as something of an indoor specialist.

So, naturally, in one of those wonderful reversals of logic that only sport can provide, Söderling won, 6-2, 6-7, 6-4, 7-6. I turned over after the cycling to watch the fourth set, and while it was clear that Nadal was marginally below his best, it was also apparent that Söderling’s ultra-aggressive approach was paying huge dividends and filling him with confidence rather than trepidation. For every fizzing winner that Nadal fired across the net, Söderling had an answer. And in the decisive fourth set tie-break, there was only ever one winner as the Swede dismantled the defending champion’s serve, breaking his first three service points before emphatically closing out the match.

It was a stunning display of clay court tennis, from both players. And on a weekend where world number 4 Novak Djokovic also took his leave of the tournament, the happiest men in all of Paris – after Söderling - must surely have been Roger Federer and Andy Murray, for both of whom the draw has now opened up. Several dangerous obstacles remain – most notably del Potro, Davydenko and Gonzalez (who Murray faces next) – but all of a sudden the prospects for a British Grand Slam singles winner are significantly enhanced. Fingers crossed.

So, thanks to Eurosport for providing an hour of high sporting drama yesterday. However, I'll still be watching the Tour de France on ITV4 come July. I simply couldn't face another hour of televised backgammon ...

Where now, Roger?

And they say lightning doesn't strike twice.

Seven months after Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer combined to produce arguably the greatest men's final in Wimbledon history, the same two players served up arguably the greatest men's final in Australian Open history early today.

As at Wimbledon last July, Nadal ultimately triumphed after five enthralling sets of a match which swung first one way and then the other. Federer, nervy at first, produced some of his very best tennis in winning the second and fourth sets. Nadal, drawing on reserves maybe even he didn't know he possessed after a draining five-hour semi-final against Fernando Verdasco, took everything the Swiss threw at him and kept coming back stronger. Punch and counter-punch; break points which were hard fought for and then repelled as much by force of will as strength of shot. It was not until the final set when Federer visibly began to tire that we could begin to say with any kind of confidence who the likely winner was.

Where now for Federer who, utterly distraight, was in tears after the match? At 27, he is five years older than Nadal, who still, frighteningly, may still be a year or two short of his ultimate potential. He has lost his number one ranking to the Spaniard; his aura of invincibility at Wimbledon has been shattered; he remains one Grand Slam singles title short of Pete Sampras's total of 14, a record which would quantify his claim to be regarded as the finest tennis player ever. If he is to match or beat Sampras's mark, you can't help but feel it needs to be this year or never. To win the French Open in June is unlikely, as Nadal reigns supreme on clay. Wimbledon is, of course, a more likely hunting ground for him; better still, the US Open is the one title he still holds, and the only one Nadal has not yet won.

Much though I admire Rafael Nadal and see him as the dominant force in tennis for potentially years to come, in my heart I desperately want Federer to win at least one more Slam. He is possibly the last of the great artists - Andy Murray has (as yet unfulfilled) potential to succeed him - in a sport increasingly dominated by power and fitness. And, like Nadal, he manages to be both a fearsome competitor and yet a gracious gentleman in defeat; having lost five of seven Grand Slam final meetings with Nadal, he is becoming increasingly accustomed to the latter.

Tennis has benefitted enormously by having the careers of these two great players overlap so considerably; it is a rival as fierce and contrasting as Borg-McEnroe, but one which has sustained greater longevity. When it finally ends, the sport will be greatly impoverished by its loss.

I'll root for both Nadal and Federer, but for now at least I want Federer to win just that little bit more. The only thing is, such is the psychological hold Nadal appears to have over him, I just can't see where number 14 is going to come from.

The athlete and the artist

The streak ended at 41, but Roger Federer did not allow his run of consecutive wins at Wimbledon to end without a titanic struggle.

Pursuing his sixth consecutive Wimbledon title, Federer found himself face-to-face with Rafael Nadal for the third year running. Not since Borg/McEnroe in the early 80s has there been such a sustained and starkly contrasting rivalry between two players at the very pinnacle of the sport.

Nadal is the great athlete, all bulging muscles and ferocious competitive intensity, with an effective monopoly on clay courts. Federer is the consummate artist, perhaps the last true one in the modern men’s game: his competitive fire burns no less brightly but his muscles are all on the inside, an unprepossessing physique masking a devastating array of tennis shots, in particular a forehand which frequently seems radar-guided, a total package which has rendered him effectively invincible on grass.

Anyone who watched the final – and there were 12.7 million UK viewers at its peak – will know that Nadal took the first two sets despite Federer having more breakpoint opportunities and that, after a rain delay, Federer exhibited a true champion’s heart by repeatedly facing down a series of crises – 0-40 down on his serve midway through the third set, 2-5 and then two championship points down in the fourth set tie-break, 15-40 and 0-30 down in consecutive service games early in the fifth – with a series of blistering aces and winning shots.

A lesser mortal than Nadal – that’s pretty much everyone – would have crumbled in the face of such repeated disappointments. He had put Federer right up against the wall, only to see the Swiss retaliate with possibly his best tennis of the tournament. And yet it is an indomitable spirit as much as his physical and technical skills that makes Nadal such a unique player. In the fifteenth game of the final set, Nadal repeatedly pushed Federer to the brink – three times he engineered a break point only to be firmly repelled, one a passing shot under extreme duress which may well have been the best single stroke of the entire tournament – before finally, almost incomprehensibly, he secured the precious break which allowed him to serve out a 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 9-7 victory.

At 62 games and 4 hours 48 minutes, this was the longest men’s singles final ever at Wimbledon. However, the story of the match extends far beyond a single day and mere statistics. Trace a line backwards which begins with the recent French Open final, where Nadal crushed Federer for the loss of only four games (the worst defeat ever for a reigning world number one in a grand slam final). Follow it through the 2007 Wimbledon final, where Nadal stretched Federer to the limit, squandering four break points in the fifth set before succumbing to a defeat which left him in tears in the locker room afterwards. And stop at the 2006 final, where Federer gave the Spaniard, still a novice on the surface, a masterclass in grass-court play in a four-set win.

With each passing year, Nadal has gradually added artistry to his athleticism: a greater variety of serve, solid volleying technique, the blocked service return. With each passing year, he has been better equipped to challenge Federer. And now he has finally defeated the master – and deservedly so.

Ultimately, Nadal won Wimbledon because he was able to learn from Federer’s artistry and ally it with his unparalleled athleticism.

It was an honour to watch Sunday’s match, even from a distance. But it has been an even greater privilege to see Nadal’s development over the past three years into a player who is truly capable of winning all four Grand Slam events, a feat which has been beyond Federer and, indeed, all male players with the exception of Andre Agassi over the past 40 years.

If that isn’t a scary enough proposition, bear in mind that Nadal only turned 22 last month. He is only going to get better.

Wizards of Oz

Maybe Andy Murray will now feel a bit better about his shock first round exit to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga last week, for the Frenchman (a modest 38th in the rankings and, trivia fans, second cousin to Newcastle footballer Charles N'Zogbia) defeated Rafael Nadal 6-2 6-3 6-2 this morning to reach the final of the Australian Open, denying us the resumption of the titanic Federer-Nadal rivalry.

Is it just me, or is tennis in general in pretty rude health at the moment?

If you are attracted by the ultimate battle of wills of two competitors at the very top of their games, then look no further than the men's game, where Roger Federer and Nadal repeatedly stand toe-to-toe against each other on all surfaces, neither giving the other any quarter. Nadal has the edge on clay, Federer on the faster surfaces - although the gap between the two narrows with every passing year, as evidenced by last summer's five-set Wimbledon final, a match as memorable as the great McEnroe-Borg finals of 1980 and '81.

Never in living memory has the men's game been so thoroughly dominated by two players. Between them, Federer and Nadal have won the last 11 Grand Slam singles titles - Federer leads 8-3 - dating back to the 2005 French Open, including four head-to-head battles during that time. And what sets this rivalry apart from McEnroe-Borg is the fact that both players are so strong on every surface: McEnroe always struggled on the clay of Roland Garros, while Borg was 0-4 in finals at Flushing Meadows and never passed the third round in Melbourne. And with Federer still only 26 to Nadal's 21, there is every chance the pair can continue to dominate for the next two or three years.

Behind them, youngsters such as Murray and the Serb Novak Djokovic are waiting impatiently in the wings. The 20-year old Djokovic, who awaits Federer tomorrow, is already the world number three, having reached at least the semi-finals in each of the last four Grand Slams. When Federer finally hangs up his kit bag, Nadal will certainly not have it all his way.

The women's game, on the other hand, can boast the kind of strength in depth it was so often accused of lacking back in the days when first Steffi Graf, then Monica Seles and the Williams sisters steam-rollered all before them. There have been eight different winners of the last 16 Grand Slam singles titles, with only world number one Justine Henin (5 wins) claiming more than two - and even she was unceremoniously dispatched by Maria Sharapova in their quarter-final earlier this week, losing a set 6-0 for the first time in nearly six years. And there is no questioning the depth of talent in a field which includes a nice mix of established and rising stars such as Svetlana Kuznetsova, Jelena Jankovic, Ana Ivanovic, Daniela Hantuchova and Marion Bartoli.

With Ivanovic facing Sharapova in Saturday's final, the total could rise to nine different winners in the last 17 Grand Slams. Compare that to the men's game - just four Grand Slam winners in the last 16 tournaments - or to football's English Premier League, where only four teams (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Blackburn) have claimed the league title in the past 15 years. If you want unpredictability and a deep, competitive field, then women's tennis is where it's at.

Dominant champions or wide-open competition: whatever you want, the professional tennis circuit currently has it all.

Is this really equality?

It was announced today that Wimbledon will for the first time this summer offer the same prize money for female players as it does for the men.

So we now have parity in financial terms. But does this really represent true equality?

In modern times, there has always been a natural inequality at the four Grand Slam tournaments (Wimbledon, and the Australian, French and US Opens), by virtue of the fact that men's matches are played to a best-of-five sets format, whereas the ladies play best-of-three. This means a one-sided ladies' match can be over in 45 minutes - and rarely lasts more than two hours - whereas a men's match can go on for four hours or more, and rarely lasts less than two hours.

Put another way, the winner of the women's singles title at this year's Wimbledon will play a maximum of 21 sets (and a minimum of 14) in the tournament, whereas the men's champion will play a minimum of 21 (and a maximum of 35) to win the same prize money.

It's not the fairest and most direct of comparisons, but one could say that this is equivalent to a women are being paid the same for a three-day week as their male counterparts are for a full five-day week.

In the workplace, there is certainly no reason why women should earn less than men. However, sport is another matter, where commercial drivers dictate the size of the prize. In virtually all other sports it is normal for female players to earn less (usually far less) than males. This is simply because interest in women's football or golf or cricket is tiny compared to the men's equivalents - and consequently attract smaller audiences and commercial revenue. For women's tennis, this is emphatically not the case. Viewing figures for women's tennis are comparable to men's. And Maria Sharapova is every bit as popular and marketable as the likes of Roger Federer. So in the case of tennis, there is no overriding financial reason why women shouldn't have the right to earn as much as the men.

So, the question is: why don't women play best-of-five in the Grand Slams? Play the same amount as the men - earn the same amount as the men. It seems like a simple equation, doesn't it?

After all, in many other sports, women compete over the same time-span as men: ladies' golf tournaments are frequently played over 72 holes, women's football matches last 90 minutes, and so on.

Historically, the biggest argument against five-set women's tennis was the physical capability of women to play longer matches in tournaments. This may have been the case in the past - as it was in athletics as 30 years ago, where women could not compete in endurance events such as the 5,000 metres or marathon - but is not necessarily so today. Now, top players like Amelie Mauresmo or Venus Williams possess just as much strength and stamina as their male counterparts, in a way that was perhaps not the case 30 years ago.

So why don't women play over five sets at Wimbledon? Or, at the very least, play the ladies' final over the longer span?

It's a question which has been argued circuitously (and inconclusively) by wiser and more knowledgeable minds than mine. But while I applaud the equality in prize money which Wimbledon has finally bowed to today, I find myself scratching my head at the inequality this appears to have created for the men's game.