Hyder Jawad looks back at Wimbledon and hails the beauty of Roger Federer at a tournament lacking drama...
Andy Roddick perhaps summed it up better than anybody else. After his defeat to Roger Federer in the Wimbledon final on Sunday, the American was asked where he would be going next. "Home, fast," Roddick said, as if to sum up the Federer domination.
Federer, of Switzerland, went "home, fast", too, but for different reasons.
The 2005 Championships were not of the vintage variety - there were only two really great matches - but they will be remembered for the man who took grass-court tennis to new heights. Federer is already the best player of all time and he is not close to his peak yet.
Three Wimbledon titles on the run is a special achievement and puts him in the same bracket as Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras but, unlike his predecessors, he is never burdened by the inconvenience of having to break sweat.
Federer begs to differ. "Playing at the level I am is very draining and it is hard to keep that up all the time," he said. But nobody believes him.
Certainly not Roddick. The world No 2, from the United States, is a great player with a superlative serve and is nowhere near Federer's standard. Federer won the final in straight sets, just as he won the semi-final against Lleyton Hewitt in straight sets.
If Roddick and Hewitt are the princes, Federer is the king - and is likely to be for a long time.
For once, the women's singles were more interesting. For the most part, we thought that Maria Sharapova would romp to successive titles but she was blitzed in the semi-finals by a rejuvenated Venus Williams. The second semi-final, between Amelie Mauresmo and Lindsay Davenport, was an epic that stretched over two days. It was the perfect prelude to the final.
When Williams and Davenport met in the 2000 final, it was relatively one-sided. Williams won easily. This time, we delighted in a rollercoaster affair that Davenport should have won but lost after letting a match point slip in the third set. Williams won 4-6, 7-6, 9-7 in a memorable match that, at two hours 45 minutes, lasted significantly longer than the men's final.
Williams was the first woman in 70 years to win a title from match point down.
Her revival this year was as surprising as the demise of her sister, Serena, who lost surprisingly to Jill Craybas in the third round. The sisters seemed to have grown bored with tennis, bored even with winning, and have recently cut isolated figures. The fashion world beckons.
Their father, Richard, is regularly seen milling around the Wimbledon grounds, looking like he earns $1 an hour at a Los Angeles branch of McDonald's.
Venus's march to the final kept Richard at Wimbledon for the full fortnight, giving us more opportunities to wonder how he gets into those tight shorts.
It was also the Wimbledon of Andrew Murray but, surprisingly, not of Tim Henman. While Murray held our attention for a week and reached the third round, Henman failed to make the second week for the first time since
1995.
Murray, who yesterday soared 99 places to No 213 in the world, was two sets up against David Nalbandian, the 2002 finalist, and seem-ingly set for a place in the last
16.
But Murray, still only 18, and with a victory over Radek Stepanek behind him, ran out of steam and lost in five memorable sets on a cold day on Centre Court. This was easily the best match in the men's singles but Murray took no solace in that.
Still, auguries are good. Murray is doing better at this stage of his career than Henman was at the same age. And Henman Hill has now become Mount Murray, if only for the next ten years.
So what of Henman? It would be wrong to read too much into his defeat in the second round to Dmitry Tursunov, of Russia. Anyone can have a bad match.
But while Henman will surely improve on this next year, his days of regularly reaching the semi-final are over.
You can even sense that "Henmania" is on the wane, for his matches do not generate anywhere near the atmosphere of old.
Murray is not set to take over yet but, in two years, the weight of a nation's expectations will rest on his shoulders, by which time Henman will probably have retired.
There were other reasons to remember these Championships. Marat Safin, of Russia, was the early star after defeating Paradorn Srichaphan and Mark Philip-poussis in the first and - horror of horrors - he admitted that he was taking a fancy for grass.
The quote of the Championships came from Roddick when, after defeating Sebastien Grosjean in the quarterfinals, he claimed that "when the final is so close, you can almost smell or taste it."
A journalist responded: "What does it smell like or taste like?"
"Chicken," Roddick said, without even the hint of a smile.
Mind you, the same Rod-dick, at the 2003 Australian Open, responded to a question by a female journalist by saying: "You're lovely. I can't take my eyes off you."
While Roddick provides the comedy, Federer proves the beauty. His mastery might not make for exciting matches - the last decent final was Ivanisevic-Rafter in 2001 - but he ensures that we remain privileged for being alive to watch him.
But Wimbledon needs drama and there has not been much of that in recent years. There are no more bad guys, few arguments and too many people who want the experience, rather than the tennis.
There is no tournament like it in the world. It is still the best and always will be. But spending two weeks at the All England Club makes me wish I was born a generation before and was able to witness the Borg-McEnroe-Connors rivalries. The play-ers are better now, but are not as exciting to watch.
