The mark of a true champion
Posted on 05/07/2010As a former world No. 1 and three-time Wimbledon champion, Boris Becker is qualified to comment on Nadal's qualities as a champion. It remains to be seen just how good Nadal will be, but in his column in The Telegraph, Becker knows that grinding out results when you are not at your best is the sign of a great player.
Rafael Nadal was good yesterday, but not great. If he is honest with himself he would admit that he was not at his best.He won not because he was much better than Tomas Berdych, but because he had been in that situation before, he knew what to do, and because he has a ‘B’ – or even a ‘C’ – game. He made a lot of unforced errors on his forehand, but what did he do? He took off some speed, played the ball into the middle, and put the pressure right back on Berdych.
But that, of course, is the key to winning a major tournament, and the reason that Nadal is such a great champion. It is impossible to play seven straight matches at your best. You do what is necessary to win each point, and it does not always have to be a magical forehand winner. That is what sets champions apart from finalists. Nadal finds a way to win — scrambling, fighting, putting the ball back one more time. It is not down to technique, but attitude, and it just goes to show the kind of player he is.
Still, I was disappointed by Berdych. I had expected more from him.
He was given a number of chances, especially in the second set, but he could not convert. We have been waiting for the big breakthrough from the Czech, and there was something in the air this time around, but it seems as though he still does not believe that he belongs at the peak of the game. The core essence of the result was that he was overwhelmed when it mattered, at the latter stages of each set.
It is understandable. The world does not watch you when you play in Milwaukee, but it watches you on the Centre Court of Wimbledon, and as a player you can feel it. Everyone around you is nervous, and whether good or bad, it effects you. Some players thrive on the big stage, others have to put themselves in situations like yesterday over and over again to learn from it and get better. Berdych has the game, now he has to get consistency, to be a regular player in the big finals.
Winning Wimbledon does not happen by luck. You have to earn it, and it starts with adopting the right game strategy. This has to be the first time in the history of a Wimbledon final that there was absolutely no serve and volleying.
That is why Nadal has now won eight grand slam titles, and why he will go on to win plenty more. Roger Federer has 16, of course, and there is still a long way to go, but it is certainly possible that Nadal can catch him. Judging by the way that Nadal changed his schedule this year, not playing too many weeks in a row, it looks as if he has an eye on just that. To have a long career, to still be playing at the age of 28 or 29-years-old, that is what he has to do. Play less.
But he should not be thinking about breaking records, or even the US Open, right now. He has to savour the moment. He is the Wimbledon champion, the French Open champion, and the World No 1. If I was him, I would take a few weeks off, go back to Majorca and be with my girlfriend and my family and enjoy it. Because where he was coming back from, from his knee injuries, very few people still believed in him. He has achieved what they had thought was impossible.
Bring in the penalty goal
Luis Suarez's deliberate handball on the goalline to prevent an almost-certain goal, with Ghana missing the subsequent penalty has prompted debate - is the man a hero or a villain? Neutrals may feel a sense of injustice at Uruguay's progress to the semi-finals at the expense of the Black Stars and former international referee Graham Poll in The Daily Mail has called for penalty goals to be introduced to beat 'cheats' like Suarez.
FIFA make every player wear a 'fair play' badge and yet a cheats' charter exists which Luis Suarez of Uruguay exploited to help his side reach Tuesday's World Cup semi-final against Holland.The penalty, the final act in extra time, was missed and Uruguay won the subsequent shoot-out. Referee Olegario Benquerenca would have been relieved to spot the handball, but in the dressing room afterwards his team would have discussed the sense of injustice.
The clause in law under which Suarez was dismissed was the denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity. This carries a one-match ban, leaving Suarez free to play in the final should Uruguay beat Holland.
The problem is that Ghana were denied a goal, not just the opportunity to score one. A penalty goal in these circumstances would be appropriate.
The denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity was seen in the Paraguay v Spain quarter-final, when Antolin Alcaraz brought down David Villa. No striker converts every chance, so awarding a penalty seems fair. Referee Carlos Batres failed to dismiss the Paraguay defender, but it was only an opportunity denied and not a certain goal.
Back to Suarez, who many argue merely acted instinctively. If that is true then awarding a penalty goal and a yellow card seems more appropriate. Then the wronged team would not be denied a goal and the instinctive act less harshly punished.