Swiss magician Roger Federer treated us to an astounding display of tennis last night, overwhelming world number one Novak Djokovic to reach his eighth Wimbledon final.

Just try and stop him… Picture: AFP

It has been years since Federer took to a tennis court with such irresistible skill and intensity. Djokovic, who has been nigh unbeatable over the last several seasons, was made to look decidedly second best.

A victory for Federer in Sunday’s final would hold seismic ramifications for the sport. Roger’s glory days were supposedly behind him, consigned to our memories by the seemingly impenetrable dominance of his younger rivals.

The last nine major tournaments have all been won by either Djokovic or Rafael Nadal, both of whom are currently peaking in their mid-twenties. Federer, at 30, is approaching the age at which lesser players normally begin to consider retirement.

But should he claim his seventh Wimbledon crown tomorrow night, Federer will regain the world number one ranking. He will also build upon his existing record as the winner of more Grand Slam titles than any other man in history.

Such a triumph would be an immense boost to Roger’s already impressive legacy, which has been tarnished somewhat in recent years by the Swiss maestro’s inability to overcome Nadal and Djokovic.

He has a chance to change the narrative. A win at Wimbledon, and perhaps another on the equally fast courts of the US Open later this year, would show the world that he is still capable of mixing it with the very best.

Judging by the intensity of his performance in last night’s semifinal, Federer understands this all too well. There is no real shame in losing to the next generation of superstars. All champions grow old.

But to stand above Nadal and Djokovic at the pinnacle of the world rankings once again would be a truly remarkable feat for a man who, by all rights, should be well past his prime by now.

There is still some ambiguity surrounding Federer’s reputation as the greatest male tennis player of all time. A few more major titles will remove it.

First things first though. Federer will face an equally desperate opponent tomorrow night in the form of Andy Murray, who has at last managed to reach his maiden Wimbledon final with the deadweight of British hopes on his back.

The home fans will be firmly against Roger, who has undoubtedly grown used to his status as the perpetual crowd favourite over the years. It will be interesting to see whether the Swiss is bothered by this.

More significantly though, if there is anyone on the planet to whom a triumph at Wimbledon would mean more, it is Andy Murray. The much-maligned Scotsman is three good sets away from finally banishing his Grand Slam demons, in front of his home crowd no less.

It should be quite a match. No two men have ever been so desperate to taste victory at Wimbledon.

Regardless of the result, we should enjoy the peerless talent of Roger Federer while we still have the chance, because his retirement looms ever closer on the horizon. Hopefully tomorrow night will herald the beginning of one final renaissance.

Most commented

32 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Go fed says:

      02:47pm | 07/07/12

      No matter who wins it will still end ENGLANDs drought.

    • Billy B says:

      02:20pm | 08/07/12

      Go fed - “No matter who wins it will still end ENGLANDs drought”.  You ignorant person, you mean Britain’s drought.  You cannot call Andy Murray an Englishman.  He absolutely resents being called an Englishman.  He is SCOTTISH and BRITISH but NOT ENGLISH.

    • Anjuli says:

      02:54pm | 07/07/12

      Hope Fed wins the final ,just to watch him play ,always with grace none of the antics others have.

    • Pedro says:

      03:11pm | 07/07/12

      Fed Express. Best player ever.
      The only way he gets beaten us by machines who grind him down (and bore us in the process). His all round game (OK a little dodgy at the net) and tennis brain make him superior to the dour Scot in all departments - except youth and perhaps overall fitness.
      A win will be one for the ages. We may never see another in Feds’ class ever again as we now seem doomed to having tennis robots who scramble to get the ball back until finally the other person makes an error. Yawn.
      I want to see Feds crush the Scot. But a Murray choke in straight sets will be just as satisfying. His coach is Ivan Lendl -a classic tennis bore who eschewed grass. I think he said it’s for cows.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      11:42am | 08/07/12

      >> Fed Express. Best player ever. <<

      Sure he is. Let me know if he ever wins ONE grand slam.

    • Mick says:

      02:53pm | 08/07/12

      @Austin Umm… already won 16?  More than any other bloke, ever?  Must be some amnesia youve got.

    • LJ Dots says:

      06:50pm | 08/07/12

      Mick, I think Austin is referring to a Grand Slam, ie winning all 4 major titles in one year - Wimbledon, US, French and Australian Open. Rod Laver did it twice over 7 years which I suspect is Austin’s point.

      Not to take anything away from Federer though, he’s a great player and is deservedly ranked in the top 5

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      07:36pm | 08/07/12

      @ Mich Umm the 16 would be grand slam titles. Winning all four in a year is a grand slam.

      Next time get a mate who understands tennis to explain it to you.

    • Mick says:

      09:25pm | 08/07/12

      Ahh I see.  Easy mistake to make, you have to admit, mixing up ‘grand slam’ with ‘grand slam’.  Still, not sure about that reasoning.  Back in Laver’s day three of the slams were on grass.  And for the French he wasn’t up against the best clay court player of all time in Nadal.  You can defs make an argument that Laver was the best though, I will admit.

    • LJ Dots says:

      08:10am | 09/07/12

      Good point about the surfaces at the time. Wikipedia shows the succes rate on grass as Federer (90%) and Laver (80%) so who could tell what the records may have been if they had switched eras.

    • Caedrel says:

      10:45am | 10/07/12

      You are sadly mistaken if you thought Ivan Lendl “eschewed grass”... he wanted to win Wimbledon so badly he even skipped the French one year to try and do it. His natural game was no good on the stuff, but he worked hard enough and wanted it enough that he at least made the final.

    • Little Joe says:

      03:11pm | 07/07/12

      Ken Rosewall       - Won Australian Open when 37 years 8 months
      Martina Navratilova - Won Wimbledon when 33 years 9 months
      Andre Agassi         - Won Australian Open when 32 years 9 months
      Chris Evert           - Won French Open when 31years 6 months
      Pete Sampras       - Won US Open when 31 years 1 month (17th Seed)
      Jimmy Connors     - Won US Open when 31 years

      I do hope that he wins but it won’t be that unremarkable.

      Ps. Martina Navratalova won the Australian Mixed Doubles when she was 46yo in 2003. ABSOLUTE LEGEND!!!

    • stephen says:

      10:09am | 08/07/12

      I’ll bet the ironing board in the changerooms was getting a workout.

    • basmati says:

      10:07am | 09/07/12

      Yes, Navratilova = legend.
      It’s quite amusing to see all the fawning about Serena William’s fifth Wimbledon singles title. Martina has nine.

    • pa_kelvin says:

      03:52pm | 07/07/12

      Maybe it’s the Stilnox that seems to be all the rage at the moment,or maybe he’s still a champion!!!

    • Roger, over and out !! says:

      04:25pm | 07/07/12

      Will Andy Murray be the the first British Wimbledon men’s singlesChampion since Fred Perry , the greatest tennis player of all time?
      Will Andy Murray be the first British Wimbledon singles Champion since Viginia Wade in 1977?
      Or will the great Roger Federer of Switzerland just slaughter Andy Murray like Roger Federer always does?Roger , over and out !

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      02:03pm | 08/07/12

      The Britz have been waiting 74 years for a British singles champion at Wimbledon.

      At the moment Andy Murray is British, but I think in Monday’s English papers, he will be the ‘Scottish Tennis player’ oncemore.

    • Roger, over and out !! says:

      04:29pm | 07/07/12

      Roger Federer will defeat Andy Murray !
      Roger, over and out !!
      Why? Wimbledon Final Experience !

    • Mick says:

      04:42pm | 07/07/12

      Would be great to see Rog win at wimbledon again.  Like old times.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      09:34pm | 07/07/12

      Federer v Nadal = 18 - 10 to Nadal

      If he isn’t the best player of his generation how can he be the best of all time ?

    • Budz says:

      09:44am | 08/07/12

      Just because he has a bad head to head doesn’t mean that Nadal is the better player. You know that you can find a stat to prove anything. Firstly a lot of their games have been on clay, which Nadal is clearly better on. Secondly, when Fed was at his peak, Nadal wasn’t good enough to make it far enough in those tournaments to play Fed. If Nadal had made it to more Wimbledon and US Open finals back in the day, the head to head would be much closer.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      11:41am | 08/07/12

      Hey Budz,

      If, coulda, mighta, shoulda, nearly. Whatever. 

      Nadal 18 Federer 10. 

      The guy that wins most of the time is the better player. Simple as that.

    • John Hertford says:

      03:12pm | 08/07/12

      @Austin - your ignorance is only matched by your continuing transparent and typically unsuccessful propensity to tear down the tall poppy again.
      In terms of the guy winning the most times meaning the most, how many Grand Slam finals are we talking about - and who has won the most?

      Head to head is absolutely meaningless in the history of a career when it comes to Grand Slam titles won. In that respect, Nadal can only look at and wish what could have been, while Federer has the record firmly in his keep.

      As well, I’ll take one of the greatest ever players - Rod Laver’s - opinion over yours anyday. He has always been regarded as the greatest of all time, previous to Sampras & Federer, and when he says Federer is the greatest of all time, where does head to head even enter into it? Quite simply, it doesn’t because it is immaterial.

    • John Hertford says:

      03:14pm | 08/07/12

      @Austin - your ignorance is only matched by your continuing transparent and typically unsuccessful propensity to tear down the tall poppy again.
      In terms of the guy winning the most times meaning the most, how many Grand Slam finals are we talking about - and who has won the most?

      Head to head is absolutely meaningless in the history of a career when it comes to Grand Slam titles won. In that respect, Nadal can only look at and wish what could have been, while Federer has the record firmly in his keep.

      As well, I’ll take one of the greatest ever players - Rod Laver’s - opinion over yours anyday. He has always been regarded as the greatest of all time, previous to Sampras & Federer, and when he says Federer is the greatest of all time, where does head to head even enter into it? Quite simply, it doesn’t because it is immaterial.

    • Rose says:

      03:16pm | 08/07/12

      I absolutely hate the “greatest player of all time” and similar monikars, they are unprovable and unnecessary. We can easily check out the greatest player at any given time, they are the ones who have won the most in that period, but all time, using what measure? We will never know if Bradman could’ve stood up to modern day bowlers, or whether tennis players of the 50s, 60, or 70s could’ve matched it with the current champions.
      Budz is right, it’s all a case of “If, coulda, mighta, shoulda….”, how about we just enjoy sportspeople while they are playing at the highest level and leave comparisons and all time rankings to bored journalists with nothing else to amuse themselves or make themselves seem relevant?

    • Owens says:

      03:24pm | 08/07/12

      No…  Head counts only work when players are about the same age and in the same part of their career. Federer was middle aged when Nadal came on the scene. Makes a difference in the stats. Its likely in the future some young player who is nowhere near as good as Fed or Nadal will have a 5 -0 against them simply because they will be veterans.

    • Budz says:

      07:03pm | 08/07/12

      @Austin: That head to head is almost in reverse the number of Grand Slams they have won!

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      07:43pm | 08/07/12

      @ John - so Laver is modest. One of the great things about him, what’s he supposed to say I’m the best ?

      The 6 or so years that Laver couldn’t compete in major tournaments was a handicap Federer will never have.

      Laver still managed to rack up 2 Grand Slams against Federer’s Nil.

      @Owens Nadal’s first win against Federer was in 2004 - Federer was 23 then. That’s “middle aged” to you ?

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      07:33am | 09/07/12

      Hey Budz,

      Yep good point, Federer is better than just about any other player of his generation - bar Nadal who he consistently looses to.

    • London Calling says:

      10:27am | 08/07/12

      I am fan of Federer, gracious, stylish and very, very skilled.

      However, just for one time, I would love for Andy Murray to win, but don’t think Andy has that ‘in for the kill’, like Rog.

      Hope Andy proves me wrong.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      12:45pm | 08/07/12

      It doesn’t really matter who wins. It will be simply great to see the “Two Gentlemen of Tennis” play that match.
      No childish screaming at the umpire, no pathetic smashing of tennis racquet by an arrogant, spoilt Australian brat, no kicking, no tantrums just good competition.
      When it is all boiled down professional tennis is a Spectator Sport. People pay a lot of money to get in. They don’t want to have to hear the screaming & pig-like (apols to All Pigs) grunting by, in particular the Female players. The don’t pay to see arrogant, spoilt prima donnas of either gender and their infantile histrionics. The old saying “Three Strikes & you’re out” should be applied to Professional Tennis players with one difference: ” One strike & you’re out”.
      One grunt, one word of abuse, one thump of a racquet on the court & that’s it. You have your win & all your appearance money forfeited.
      We have never seen such behaviour from Federer or Murray so why should we have to put up with it from those who will never, ever be as good as they are?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter