Seventy three years. That is how long it has been since there has been a British winner of the men’s singles title at Wimbledon.

Fred Perry was the last man from Britain to succeed at the All-England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, winning in 1936.

Since then there have been various players of differing standards who have been touted as potential champions.

Roger Taylor–no, not the drummer in Queen–reached the semi-finals in the 1970s.

The following decade, John Lloyd twice won the Wimbledon mixed doubles title with Wendy Turnbull, but he never went past the third round in the singles.

Around the same time, an interesting character called Christopher ‘Buster’ Mottram briefly shone as the number one male British player, peaking at a world ranking of 15th.

But ‘Buster’–who was known to have strong right-wing views–only reached the last 16 at Wimbledon on one occasion.

Much was expected of Andrew Castle in the mid-eighties, but he never achieved his full potential before becoming better known as a TV presenter on GMTV.

Jeremy Bates took on the mantle of the great British hope, twice reaching the fourth round at Wimbledon, before a genuine contender, Tim Henman, took centre stage.

With strong backing from his supporters on ‘Henman Hill’, plucky Tim threatened to go all the way, reaching the semi-finals at Wimbledon on four occasions.

In truth, however, he was just not quite good enough to deliver the victory British tennis fans so desperately craved.

The spotlight is now of course very much on Andy Murray, the Scot who is known as ‘Britain’s Andy Murray’.

Currently ranked third in the world, Murray’s best performance at Wimbledon came last year when he reached the last eight.

He was also a losing finalist in the US Open last year and there are high hopes that he will be the one to end Britain’s long, barren run at Wimbledon.

Could it be this year? If it is, Murray will be a shoe-in for the British Sports Personality of the Year award.

–Nick Johnson, Red U.K. Editorial Staff

McEnroe and Borg never did it quite like this. Even McEnroe said as much during NBC’s Wimbledon wrap up.

As you have already read countless times from many more respected and qualified pundits, yesterday’s Wimbledon’s men’s final was an awe-inspiring, monumental, epic, and death-defying (I may have said that last one) thing.

The world’s greatest rivalry finally supplied a match worthy of being remembered forever.

It was easily the universe’s most breathtaking seven hours (including rain delays) since the last Lord of the Rings movie.

And to simply label it as one of tennis’ greatest ever matches would be a disservice—it was one of sport’s greatest ever moments.

Like with any all-timer, the ramifications have been swift and wide-ranging.

Namely, it’s already being suggested that, besides a spectacle of unimaginable proportions, the end of an era (the Federer reign) was witnessed yesterday. Where Roger Federer’s progress on clay has failed to eclipse that of Rafael Nadal’s, Nadal has done what many deemed impossible and beaten The King of Grass in his own castle to become The Boss.

Fair point.

Nadal’s double body blows in 2008 to Federer’s supremacy are impressive and unprecedented since Roger’s ascent, but in light of Nadal’s coronation, a few troubling questions and facts remain.

Such as, how many times has Rafa beat Roger for a U.S. Open or Australian Open title? Zero. How many times has Nadal beat anyone for a U.S. or Australian title? Zero. How many times has he even played for one? Zero.

Were people ready to say Phil Mickelson was better than Tiger Woods when he won the Masters and PGA Championship?

Perhaps Mr. Federer deserves a little benefit of the doubt. Appearing in 12 of the last 13 grand slam finals, seventeen straight grand slam semifinals and 231 consecutive weeks at number one (all unparalleled feats) would seem to warrant it.

Besides Nadal, the only thing to beat Federer since 2004 has been mono.

It would be hard to argue that Nadal isn’t in the advanced stages of banging down the door to Federer’s penthouse, but it would be as hard to find proof that Roger is ready to move out.

What if Roger again wins the U.S. Open?

Will people be willing to ignore Federer’s overall all-surface superiority (without further evidence he is still the world’s top grass player) for Nadal’s clay dominance and Wimbledon dramatics?

Nadal and Federer are obviously the world’s top two players, and with a cartoonishly weak field of challengers (Really? Novak Djokovich is the best we’ve come up with?), they will be for some time.

Just don’t be so quick to assume the order now goes Nadal one, Federer two.

Nadal displayed grit for the ages yesterday, but Federer brought to life one of sports oldest clichés with his stirring comeback: never underestimate the heart of a champion.

This losing thing appears to be as tough for him (he cried) as winning is joyous for Nadal (he cried too). Federer’s elderly age of 26 is usually around when tennis players begin the slow ride to the bone yard, but it has been proven safe by now to throw conventional wisdom out of the window when it comes to Switzerland’s greatest export since the army knife.

Federer may be wounded, but if anyone can suture it up (with the world’s greatest pocket knife, perhaps?) and dominate some more, it is King Roger.

Nadal is moving in, but the penthouse is plenty big for two.

–Patrick Daugherty, RED Editorial Staff

If you’re confused by tennis, right now isn’t a good time to understand it. Heck, even people who do follow tennis are having a hard time understanding Wimbledon this year, and I can’t blame them.

If you take a look at the semifinal bracket, it’s hard to tell what’s going on.

A majority of the world’s best tennis pros have looked anything but professional at the All England Club so far, leaving some to complain the sport’s biggest stars can’t deliver a pizza-and even if they could, people would be bored with predictability.

There’s just no way to please everybody, but still, the women’s field at Wimbledon is pretty historic even if it is confusing. Not all history is pretty, you know.

Of the top 16 seeds on the woman’s side, half were kicked to the sidelines in the first week, and the first and second seeds took a hike after the third round. That, by any other sports standard, would be a mind-blowing upset leading to a lot of money changing hands in Vegas.

Actually, it’s a mind blowing thing period. The highest ranked player left in the women’s field is fifth seed Elena Dementieva, and the last time in history the top four players have been knocked out this early was, well, never.

So, what does it all mean? Are the most talented female tennis stars in the world simply overrated? Is the ranking system flawed? Why are the people who are supposed to be winning losing? More importantly, why is this upset of upsets, this shock of shocks, being discussed with an air of disappointment?

No, the world’s best players are not overrated, and no, the ranking system isn’t flawed. What we are experiencing in women’s tennis right now is a changing of the guard, and change is good.

I’m not surprised that some people are complaining about how Wimbledon is unfolding, but I am a little disappointed by it for one reason.

Zheng Jie.

Zheng Jie is ranked 133rd in the entire world, and she’s defeated two top 16 opponents including first seeded Ana Ivanovic.

If the nature of sports is surprise and excitement (and it is), then Zheng Jie rocking the boat at Wimbledon should be the reason why we watch this stuff in the first place.

Nobody seemed to get mad at Stephen Curry and Davidson College when they surprised everyone in last year’s NCAA tournament, but somehow, the philosophy of rooting for an underdog doesn’t translate to tennis.

It’s not exciting. It’s just weird. And that’s just wrong.

So as we watch the semifinals, keep this in mind. For the first time that anyone can remember, Wimbledon is truly up in the air, there isn’t an established world number one, and every single athlete is going to have to fight for it.

That’s the way it should be.

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff.

It’s pretty easy to see whom the media is rooting for at Wimbledon, and it isn’t the world No. 1 men’s tennis player. I doubt they’re fully aware of it–and if they are they’d never admit it–but they’re hoping world No. 2 Rafael Nadal beats the tar out of Federer in the finals.

Why? Because it’s a bigger story than Federer winning his sixth straight at Wimbledon. Sure, it’s been 122 years since anyone claimed Wimbledon six times in a row, but look at it another way. Which of the following has more historical significance: the Roman Colosseum, or the fall of Rome itself?

That’s the sort of weight Federer has on his shoulders while running around Wimbledon’s grass. He’s actually reached a point in his career where losing is a bigger story than winning.

Some of the precursory Wimbledon commentary from this past weekend almost has an anarchistic fire and brimstone quality to it. As if, directly following Federer’s defeat, four horsemen will appear from a sudden gaping fissure in the grass of Centre Court.

ESPN ran a story claiming that a “Federer loss would disrupt tennis’ world order” and that, in reference to Federer, “Mortality is universal. At some point, we must all face the abyss.”

Yikes. Is this tennis or a Cure concert?

I think that might be a little heavy. Sure, it’s a major tennis event, but if he loses it’s not going to disrupt the world order of tennis. It will change the rankings and we’ll have a new No. 1, but an entire world order? That sounds too catastrophic for sports.

If Federer loses Wimbledon (he won’t) then I’m sure he’ll be crushed. The world, however, in tennis or in general, will be just fine.

But since I’ve gone so far as to predict Federer winning this thing, I suppose it’s only fair I tell you why.

Nadal beat Federer like a rug at the French Open; so it’s true that more and more players see Federer as human. But Federer has never been good on clay, so technically his loss wasn’t a surprise. The manner in which he lost was shocking, but not the result.

Even so, that is no reason at all to assume Federer is washed up, let alone that he’s going to lose Wimbledon.

Nadal might be the most dominant player on clay in the history off the game, but Federer is the most dominant on grass. Period. His last five Wimbledon’s prove that.

Also, let’s not forget that Federer is the most dominant overall force in tennis since Pete Sampras. And until he loses (not before) there is no reason to think otherwise.

That said, I do think Federer’s dominance in tennis is waning. He’s 27 years old, which is plenty young if you’re dating, but in tennis years that’s getting up there. There will certainly come a day when Federer loses the crown, and it may even be sooner than we think, but that day isn’t coming in July.

Federer might have stumbled, but you don’t get to be the kind of player he is by letting a stumble get you to. He is simply moving on to the next phase of his already stellar career. The part where he has to silence the doubters and remind everyone that he’s still the best, no matter what the circumstances.

Plus, there are plenty of people he can call for support. Didn’t a good friend of his just win the U.S. Open at Torrey Pines on a torn knee and a broken leg?

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff.

Before he won the U.S. Open, Roger Federer took plenty of opportunities to go on the record and predict himself to win. He did. This morning I read an article that called Roger Federer psychic, which is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard all week. Yes, I know it’s only Monday.

Psychic predictions, you see, are only impressive when they are improbable, which is the only thing Federer’s 12th Grand Slam title was not. In fact, there are now three things in this world a person can always count on: Death, Taxes, and Federer.

Without a doubt Federer is unstoppable, unbelievable, unmanageable, uncontrollable, unforgettable, uncanny, and other adjectives as well. But for me, the best thing about Federer is his attitude. Not only is he the best, the guy knows he’s the best.

Right before he walked onto the court, Federer said of Djokovic, “It’ll be interesting to see how he handles the final.” Smug. I love it.

In fact, now that Federer, only 26, is unquestionably going to blow Pete Sampras’ record of 14 major titles out of the water, I would like to see him blow his ego up even more. Not only would that be fun to watch, but since whomever is responsible for marketing the sport of tennis is obviously incompetent, it would be a great way to draw attention to the game.

All Federer has to do is keep winning, and keep talking. No problem. It’s going to be a long time and plenty of more titles before Federer crumbles.

“New guys challenging me — this is my biggest motivation out there,” Federer said. “Seeing them challenging me, and then beating them in the finals.”

Indeed.

–Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff.

The U.S. open kicks off today, and if I’ve learned anything at all from my past attempts at preview and prediction columns, it’s this: Don’t get cocky. The last time I tried to get optimistic about a major sporting event was the PGA Championship, saying there was no way for anyone to be certain of an outcome.

I’ve learned my lesson.

The U.S. Open men’s bracket has128 players. Only a few names are worth mentioning, and two of them are “Roger” and “ Federer”. If you take the time to look at the men’s bracket, you’ll find that in the first four rounds of play the best possible seed Federer could face is J. Ferrero, seeded 21st.

Maybe, just maybe, Federer could see a match against Andy Roddick in the quarterfinals. Roddick is a solid player, but the Tiger Woods-like domination Federer is enjoying (those two are friends, you know) pretty much guarantees him a spot in the finals against the most dominant player on the other end of the bracket, Rafael Nadal.

If anyone holds the coveted secret to beating Federer, it’s Nadal. He’s already defeated Federer twice, and one of those was in the final round of the French Open.

That’s the match you don’t want to miss.

In the women’s bracket, things are a little scattered. Last year’s winner Maria Sharapova is seeded second, but hasn’t exactly been on a hot streak lately. Most of the smart money is on first seeded Justine Henin, but overall the women’s bracket has a lot more variables than the men’s.

Fifth seeded Ana Ivanovic and third seeded Jalena Jankovic have been mentioned frequently in plenty of insider tennis blogs, and some are saying this is the year for one of them to break out.

Personally, I’m leaning towards Venus Williams. She’s coming off her fourth Wimbledon title and hasn’t taken the U.S. Open since ’01, but her record in New York is always better if she wins Wimbledon going in.

There. I played it safe this time, and now that I have, I’ll just sit back and brace myself for the most surprising upset in the history of tennis.

By Joey Alfino, RED Editorial Staff

Five sets. Two tiebreakers. Three hours, forty-something minutes. A four-time champion against a relentless young challenger. It was the third-longest Wimbledon men’s finals ever, and this one was a classic.

In the end, Roger Federer won his fifth straight Wimbledon over Rafael Nadal in front of the only other man to have accomplished the feat in the modern era, his countryman Bjorn Borg.

Borg sat in the royal box and said after the match, “records are meant to be beaten.” Next year, Federer will have that chance. As it is, he hasn’t lost in 34 matches at Wimbledon, with 54 straight victories on grass courts.

The Queen of Grass was also crowned Sunday, as Venus Williams easily schooled Frenchwoman Marion Bartoli, a surprise finals contestant in her own right.

Venus came into the tournament seeded 23rd, and squeaked out her early matches despite numerous errors. As the tournament went on, however, she looked more and more dominant, finally earning her fourth Wimbledon championship.

With the victory, the Williams sisters have now won six of the past eight Wimbledons, with Serena beating her older sister in 2002 and 2003. Venus has only lost to Serena in Wimbledon finals appearances.

RED

In addition to the $100 million sliding roof being installed at the All England Club, they might want to think about adding some waterslides.

We always expect rain at Wimbledon, but this year has been a wash. There were rain delays in seven of the first eight days. The wacky weather has frustrated players and led to some strange matches.

Take Rafael Nadal’s near-weeklong match against Swede Robin Soderling. They had just warmed up last Saturday when rain delayed their match. The next day was Wimbledon’s traditional “Middle Sunday” day of rest (during which the weather, of course, was brilliant).

Monday? Rain-delayed in the fifth set. Tuesday? Four more interruptions before play was again suspended. Nadal finally put Soderling away on Wednesday, with both players grousing at each other like an old married couple. Five sets. Five days.

Serena Williams, on the other hand, may have had her tournament saved by the rain. Hobbled with a tight calf against Daniela Hantuchova, a rain delay gave Serena a two-hour reprieve, after which she breezed through the third set.

As for Nadal, he may now have to play three matches in three straight days to keep the tournament on schedule…

Weather permitting, of course.

RED

Yesterday, Switzerland’s Roger Federer ambled into the All England Club’s historic Centre Court to kick off the tournament known worldwide as the pinnacle of tennis. The roof was gone. The grass was wet. He was playing Teimuraz Gabashvili.

Undaunted by all that, Federer won the match and made the first step in seeking his fifth straight Wimbledon title. For comparison, Pete Sampras won seven, but only four in a row. John McEnroe and Boris Becker could only muster one back-to-backer. This is a big deal. My money is on Federer to become the first player since Bjorn Borg to accomplish the feat.

Besides Federer’s historic run, the biggest news at Wimbledon this year may be the venue and tournament themselves. The center court is getting a facelift and a new roof is under construction. It’s on target for 2009, but this being 2007, the court looks a little choppy. Not to mention, everyone got wet.

They’re trying out a new electronic line-calling tool in the Centre and No. 1 courts too, called “Hawk-Eye.” Players are able to argue calls using instant replay, and it remains to be seen whether Hawkeye will appeal the decision to Col. Potter.

Another major change not just for Wimbledon but all of sports is that the women’s purse for the first time equals the men’s. The winner of each gender will receive 655,000 British Pounds, which is good for about 14.2 million Pesos today.

Which of course begs the question, does Serena Williams really need another 14.2 million Pesos?

RED

Get Red exclusively in Pocket Express - just go to Sports and look for Red’s new commentary under Tennis.

Well, there’s a lot happening at the French Open this week. All but one American men’s contestant has been eliminated, reminding me of the music they play on “The Price is Right” when the little hiker falls of the cliff…Na-na-nuh-nehhhhhhh…

Most of the usual suspects are still around, though, including the always-compelling Roger Federer. Maria Sharapova has made it past the first round, a pleasant turn of events for male viewers all over the world.

And in an interesting side note, Venus Williams recorded the second-fastest serve ever hit by a female player, and the fastest in a “main-draw” match, meaning it was hit by somebody who’s, umm, somebody.

Clocking 206 kilometers per hour, which as you may know is European for 128 mph, it is thought that the serve generated a rash of UFO sightings all around the French capital.

It’s not the fastest women’s serve ever though, as Brenda Schulz-McCarthy hit one 130 miles per hour last year in Cincinnati. But of course that wasn’t a “main-draw” match.

At any rate, it just goes to show how women’s tennis in the United States is still light years ahead of the men.

RED

Get Red exclusively in Pocket Express - just go to Sports and look for Red’s new commentary under French Open.