The five key components to a classic tennis match

As you may have seen from the Tennis Channel documentary, various feature stories and the ESPN broadcast, it's the tenth anniversary of the best tennis match of the 21st century (so far). Federer vs. Nadal at the 2008 Wimbledon Final has achieved "legendary status." It is one of those legendary sporting events that have been chronicled so heavily they defy description.For those lucky enough to enjoy Wimbledon hospitality this year[note]Yeah we on that sponsored content to pay the bills, folks[/note], hopefully you'll get to see a great tennis match. But what exactly makes a great tennis match, anyway? Somehow we just decide certain matches are good, like the 2008 Final or the 2017 Australian Open Final. I've tried to describe what classic tennis matches usually have.

1. Match point(s) are saved

For all the talk about the actual tennis, the scoreline of a great tennis match is often the basis for a classic. Because tennis' scoring system is so unique, probabilities can swing massively depending on a match situation. There's nothing more dramatic or destiny-changing, however, than saving multiple match points. In the famous backhand pass that Federer saved in the tiebreak of the 2008 Wimbledon Final, he probably changed his odds of winning by 40% in one shot alone.Thus, the best tennis matches often feature dramatic match points saved. For example:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk7EQ2UebagThe drama of nearly winning a match only to have it ripped away is some of the best you can find in sports.

2. Contrasting styles of play (but not too much)

There's a reason John Isner hasn't been involved in too many instant classics in his career. I mean, there's one, and that's only a classic because he couldn't break serve 68 times in a row. Isner, Milos Raonic and Ivo Karlovic types don't often play classic matches against each other because their playstyles are too boring. Also, when they play each other or other big servers, the matches are often snoozefests. Similarly, when two baseline grinders play a match, it can often become just as dull.Therefore, it's pretty clear that contrasting styles play a big factor. Federer/Nadal or Serena/Kerber matches are entertaining because the styles are so different. However, it only goes so far. John Isner vs. Dudi Sela isn't that fun.

3. Dramatic Tiebreaks

Tiebreaks are fun. There's a reason the Next Gen Finals wanted as many tiebreaks as possible. Not all classic matches need dramatic tiebreakers, but it would help significantly. The best moments from matches often occur in tiebreaks. Take the Del Potro/Nadal match from yesterday, which featured an epic 9-7 tiebreak in the second set. Many great matches have long and stupidly exciting, knife-edge tiebreakers.

4. Length

A classic tennis match needs to have a certain length and depth to it. It can't be a 90-minute straight sets win. That seems to easy. At a minimum, the match needs to either have a lot of point or stretch over the minimum number of sets.There are some decent straight sets matches (Del Potro vs. Djokovic in the 2016 Olympics, Pliskova vs. Williams in the 2016 US Open) but there are far more drawn out marathons that I don't need to mention. Length is generally good. I feel like, except for rare cases (I'm look at you again John Isner), the longer a tennis match is, the more compelling it gets.

5. Moments of Greatness

A classic tennis match also needs to have moments of sheer brilliance. It's one thing to have a long match with tiebreaks with ordinary tennis. It's quite another to have absolute madness occurring on court.

If a tennis match doesn't have some absurd level of play, it's probably not a real classic.Thanks for reading this #sponsored content.