Why is everyone talking about Nadal vs Federer and not Hamilton vs Raikkonen?
7th July 2008, 20:50 by Keith Collantine 52 Comments »
Lewis Hamilton won his home Grand Prix for the first time yesterday. You might have noticed.
But while the British media often get criticised (with some justification) for the hype they lavish on Hamilton, another sports story knocked him off the front page in many newspapers.
So why did the Roger Federer and Rafael Nadar tennis final at Wimbledon relegate home hero Hamilton in the sports pages?
It’s not just in the newspapers – my daily routine brought me into contact with many people who had something to say about the tennis and not much about F1. It might seem strange to foreigners that British people were discussing the fortunes of a Spaniard and a Swiss more avidly than a British sportsman triumphing at home.
So why is this?
From a journalistic point of view I think the fact the tennis finished several hours later than the British Grand Prix has a lot to do with it. News travels faster than ever in the internet age, and editors want the freshest content on the outside pages, which do the job of selling the newspaper.
Perhaps Nadal and Federer are particularly interesting personalities. I don’t know because I’m not interested in tennis.
Also I do think sports enthusiasts often have a snobbery about motor racing. Because the car plays such a large part in an individual’s performance – especially in F1 – some consider it not a sport at all.
The over-complexity of modern F1 rules have made this worse. Qualifying used to be about who could do the fastest individual lap – now it’s about the delicate balance between fuel strategy and one-lap performance. And as we don’t know a driver’s fuel load when he qualifies, no-one really knows what’s gone on until the race has finished.
Races are made more confusing by complex and uninteresting refuelling strategies. Teams going to great lengths to keep thier rivals (and consequently the fans) in the dark about what they’re doing.
These are all obstacles that prevent F1 from being accessible to ordinary sports fans. We can point at the sheer power of a Federer serve – which hit 129mph yesterday – with ease. Yet even those of us who follow F1 with a passion can’t say for sure if Lewis Hamilton’s win yesterday was down to incredible skill, or a set-up geared towards wet weather, or somewhere between the two.
Has Formula 1 become too opaque?
TommyB said on 7th July 2008, 21:19
I read the mail and it was Hamilton on the back page and small Wimbledon bit on the front.
To be fair it was the best game of Tennis I have ever seen in my entire life.
TommyB said on 7th July 2008, 21:21
I think its because it will be considered the greatest tennis game of all time to be honest Keith.
Maybe if it was Hamilton being world champion it would better it
KB said on 7th July 2008, 21:21
There was no gr8 battle in F1….there is probably still 5 drivers who can win the title, maybe more…therefore no Hamilton V Raikkonen
He won a race not a championship…..stay calm
The tennis was all about the big 2…..which might be the equivalent of a battle between Schumacher v Hamilton
ogami musashi said on 7th July 2008, 21:39
keith, two points:
1/
this is YOUR vision of F1. Not everybody finds fuel strategies and qualifying format boring.
Not everbody wants F1 to go back to what it used to be whatever the era you find it was the best.
I love the qualifying format of now and the recent races have been decent imho.
2/ has F1 became too opaque?
F1 is a complex sport, but no sport at high level is simple, not even tennis.
Football fans, Tennis fans, motorsports fans, all the same. You have the one that judge teams/sportsmen by their result without knowing the game and the one that are more into it.
Just look at the number of fan clubs forums and site on the internet about F1, there’s no problem at all for people to be entertained.
Maybe motorsport are more complex (and F1 especially) but that’s not so different from other sports, do you really believe you can say “nadal has a better tennis than federer” just because he won??
Keith Collantine said on 7th July 2008, 21:39
I’m not saying the tennis was bad or anything, I have no idea, I didn’t watch it at all (although I do work in Wimbledon!)
Craig said on 7th July 2008, 21:42
I agree – this was the Wimbledon final, games throughout the week (other than when Brits were involved anyway) did not get so much front page coverage.
The climax to the F1 season will hopefully get the same attention – depending on the outcome!
Mika said on 7th July 2008, 21:48
It was like Scheuy Vs Mika at Interlagos (last g.p) with just 10 laps to go and who ever wins the race wins the championship, but spanning for more than 5 hours.. The best tennis game I’ve ever seen (after Lendel, Becker, Edberg era, of course)
Nico Savidge said on 7th July 2008, 21:52
I’d say it was a difference in excitement. The Wimbledon final was called one of the greatest tennis matches ever – no such praise can be given to the British GP. Sure, if Raikkonen and Hamilton were dueling like Villeneuve and Arnoux on Sunday afternoon, people might have cared more. But the fact is, Wimbledon was an amazing match, and it blew F1 out of the water.
Daniel said on 7th July 2008, 21:53
Keith, for me the difference is that Nadal x Federer final yesterday made history, for several reasons:
Nadal is the first man to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon on the same year since Borg in 1980 (while the last british driver to win at home did it in 2000)
Nadal and Federer made their six Grand Slam Final, making them the greatest tennis rivalry in Tennis History, or at least in the Open Era (from 1968 on), while Hamilton, Raikkonen, Massa, Alonso or Kubica are still very far from being remembered for the greatest Formula 1 rivalry, like Senna and Prost.
Federer was frustraded in his attempt to become the first player to win at Wimbledon six times in a row since 1886…
So, the numbers involved in Wimbledon were much more important than those in Silverstone, even if the events themselves(I’m both a huge Formula 1 and tennis fan) was as exciting as the other…
Because of that, I don’t think it’s a reflex of a supposed loss of interest in Formula 1.
Quite simply, the 2008 Wimbledon Final was much more relevant to tennis history than the 2008 British Grand Prix was to Formula 1 history…
Alastair said on 7th July 2008, 22:11
I think there would have been a bit more coverage if Ferrari hadn’t got their weather predictions so completely wrong. Hamilton cruised home, Nadal fought like a lion. If Kimi had put on fresh inters there would have been a lot more action at the front than there was.
Alianora La Canta said on 7th July 2008, 22:17
More people follow the Wimbledon final than the British Grand Prix. Like a lot of people have said, the tennis match was more significant than the F1 race in statistical and general quality of play terms. Besides, F1 has many more major events than tennis – Hamilton could always win another race where there isn’t a clashing major sporting event.
doctorvee said on 7th July 2008, 22:17
Maybe it is just the fact that one of the events was the final match of the only major grass court tennis tournament which happens only once a year, whereas the other was just another of the dozen-and-a-half Grands Prix that happen every year. The tennis would have undoubtedly been the bigger story even if it was the most boring match ever. Even though I don’t like tennis that much, I can appreciate that it was definitely the bigger event.
Number 38 said on 7th July 2008, 22:22
“(Hamilton) won a race, not a championship…..stay calm”
Thank you KB.
Greg Beckett said on 7th July 2008, 22:26
Firstly I always read your website, hardly ever comment, but there’s always an array of brilliant articles, so keep up the good work.
However I think you’ve missed the point here. This was the pinnacle of tennis, two of the great modern players, the best by far playing now, duelling it out for what many consider the most prestigous competition. It was an absolute epic too, the rivalry between the pair is so compelling especially as there’s such a balance of power in the sport. 10, 20, even 30 years down the line, they’ll still be talking about this final and the similar one last year. It was a big win for Hamilton, but in even three-four years, the most that’ll be said about this race will be 1) his first British win and 2) as a reference to his rain driving skills. That’s where the difference lies for me really.
Keith Collantine said on 7th July 2008, 22:30
Maybe I’ve written this post badly or something but I think the point is being missed. The title is a literal question – I’m not trying to do tennis down or anything like that. I was wondering whether people generally find F1 harder to understand than tennis.
And I don’t understand the “stay calm” comment.