Good for him! He has played great the last two summers on hard courts!
Congrats to JMDP. I thought Federer would win this match rather easily. I am happy for JMDP, and even happier that i got to see the last 2.5 sets after my local CBS affiliates started to carry the match.
Congrats to JMDP!
I hope he doesn’t pull an Ivanovic and completely disappear after this. I know Nadal and Federer are still going to be around, so I won’t fault him for not winning another major soon, but I hope to see him in the running at least for a while.
I suspect I won’t be disappointed though. 
The first two sets were painfully unwatchable, and Federer continued to play badly for the rest of the match. The Argentine kicked it up a notch in the third, but I wouldn’t classify te final as anywhere near the quality of the Federer-Djokovic match.
The Roger/Novak match was definitely not a nailbiter. I was saying that I don’t consider a nailbiter to be a great match, but instead consider a great match to be one where both players play great. It doesn’t matter if it’s a straight set victory or a 5th set tiebreaker. The closeness of the match rarely enters the equation for me when it comes to judging a great match.
If two players play great and it goes down to a tiebreaker / extra games in the fifth set, then it’s an historic match. But if I can only choose one, i’ll choose great play over a close match every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Word.
There are three scales that determine my enjoyment of a tennis match: the skill of the tennis, the entertainment value of the tennis, and drama.
-
The skill is basically how well both players are playing, how well they’re serving and hitting their shots, how well they’re strategizing and constructing points. Winners/errors falls under this category. Aces and return aces belong here.
-
The entertainment value of the tennis basically means how fun the tennis is to watch. Long rallies are a key feature here, as well as great court movement and flashy shots (between the legs Federer, anyone?). The whole dynamic with drop shots, lobs, sprinting passing shots, volleyball exchanges, etc. falls under here. Aces certainly do not, for they are very boring, despite being a great display of skill.
-
Drama basically relates to how important the players are treating the given point, the given game, the given set. This is usually created by a close nailbiter match, as every point becomes significant, but it also comes into play when the players don’t like each other, or maybe when one player’s making a comeback (even if it’s probably futile, like down two sets and two breaks in the fifth). A side manifestation of drama is the tantrums and gamesmanship, though if it reaches the level where you’d get thrown out of the match (like Serena’s would have, if she hadn’t been down match point), then it’s too much.
The first two categories are far more important to me than the last one. They often go hand-in-hand, but sometimes the players are so precise and smart with their shots that they keep hitting aces or winners far too early in the point to create great rallies, which detracts a bit from the pure entertainment value of the tennis, at least for me. However, I can still admire them and it’s still compelling to watch; I’m just not having as much fun.
Drama is basically the icing on the tennis cake, but really, you can’t have the icing without the stuff underneath. I remember some of those ridiculous Russian women’s matches where it was a nailbiter match, but for all the worst reasons. They kept making double fault after error after error, and it was like a perverse game of who could lose the match first. Add in some tantrums, and it was dramatic all right, but it was awkward and annoying to watch.
Nadal - Monfils was the champion of #2 this tournament, and probably my favorite match in this Open. The skill level dropped off after a while as they got tired, but they still kept producing amazing exchanges.
Federer - Djokovic was the champion of #1. Just great tennis skill at work, and fortunately, they provided some awesome rallies as well. But both were so on the ball that they were usually ending the points quite early, taking advantage of high balls, short balls, and weak hits with no mercy. The closest thing to a two-sided tennis clinic the tournament had.
The final was frustratingly inconsistent, with so many high-drama points being decided by awful errors. Both players showed signs of magic, and Del Potro’s forehand kept getting better as the match progressed, but in the end, it was just a very good match, not a great one.
I find long rallies boring unless there’s a lot of running. A long back and forth rally to the same spot each time is boring to me, so if that’s the choice I’d rather see an ace. If the rally is mostly to a few given spots with periodic switching between them, also boring. A running rally, OTOH, where one or both players is forced to run the whole point, is riveting.
With that caveat in mind, I agree, Windwalker.
Justine Henin officially coming back. This makes me happy and I’m not entirely sure why. I only got to see her in a few tournaments before she stopped playing. I just like her quiet and reserved style I guess. Her demean is a nice break. 
Also, I want to direct attention to this thread by Windwalker asking for tennis racquet (doesn’t look spelled right to me but I honestly have no idea how it’s spelled now that I think about it) suggestions.