* !101869519
*
by Pete Bodo
Just a quick note on yesterday's post: I'm astonished when comment posters suggest that matches between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are ever anything less than critically important - least of all to the two players.
I don't give a dang if you fall prostrate before the altar of Federer or of Nadal; the bottom line is that every time these two men meet you are watching history being written, and history will be making judgments about both men independent of how around-the-bend you, personally, are on either of them.
Furthermore, both players know it, even if you don't want to acknowledge it. To imagine otherwise is not only to misunderstand the nature and meaning of sports, it also cheapens the record of both men and demeans them, because then Federer vs. Nadal might just as well be, oh, Vince Spadea vs. Andreas Seppi. Both players deserve better. They have earned the right to be viewed differently than the others. Each man is lucky as all get-out that the other exists, because otherwise one or the other might conclude that there's nobody else worth beating out there.
If and when Federer and Nadal meet again, Federer won't be thinking "it's all gravy" and Nadal won't muse, "I own this guy on clay." Trust me on that one.
No matter how many titles or records either man accumulates, all bets are always off when they play and every time they play it matters; that fact exists independent of our prejudices. Every match they play until the end of their main-tour careers will be like the first—or fourth, or sixth, or 27th—time they met. So suck it up and get used to it. Stop whining about what does or doesn't matter. Federer vs. Nadal will always matter. Thank your lucky stars for it, and let the chips fall where they may.
Anyway, note also that Wimbledon awarded its wild cards the other day. Let's take a quick look:
Men, main draw:
1 - Teimuraz Gabashvili, (Rus, ranked No. 115): Excellent choice, based on TG's performance at Roland Garros. No horse-trading or hanky-panky in this one.
2 - Nicolas Keifer, (Ger, No. 154): This is one of those vote-of-confidence handouts. I wish they actually printed up wild cards, with a message on each. This one would read: For services previously rendered. And that conforms to the original idea behind awarding wild cards.
3 - Jamie Baker, (GBR, No. 268): Baker hasn't even been past the second round at a Challenger since April, and he's ranked no. 254. Can't quite figure out why he got the nod in the first-round along with these other guys, unless somebody at the conference table said, "We'd better award at least one to one of our own, or else there'll be hail to pay in the newspapers. . ."
4 - Andrey Kuznetsov, (Rus, No. 277): What's wrong with awarding a former Wimbledon singles champ a wild card? Nothing. Kuznetsov, whose currently living in Challengeristan, won the boy's singles title in 2009. I like the decision.
5 - Kei Nishikori (Jpn, No. 345): Another good decision based on the original intent of the wild card system. Nishikori, a promising young player, is battling back to main-tour status following serious injury.
6 to 8: To be announced, which suggests some that a few other boys from the UK are in the running. Call it the Race to Doom.