LONDON -- Sunday saw two major finals at two iconic venues reach thrilling conclusions within minutes (and just eight miles) of each other.
At Lord's, hosts England won a dramatic super-over shootout to clinch their first ever Cricket World Cup, beating New Zealand in a stunning climax.
Meanwhile, at Wimbledon, the longest men's final in history was decided by the first ever fifth-set tiebreak in the championship's long history, with Novak Djokovic eventually emerging victorious against Roger Federer for his fifth SW19 crown.
But... which final was better? ESPNCricinfo editor Andrew Miller was at Lord's, while ESPN senior writer Tom Hamilton was at Wimbledon -- here's their views on a one-city afternoon to remember:
Why was your final the better of the two?
Andrew Miller at Lord's: Wimbledon is an annual fixture. Djokovic and Federer, while astonishing freaks of nature, have won 13 of the last 17 titles between them, and will probably be back for more in 2020. England, by contrast, had never won the World Cup in 44 years, hadn't hosted it in 20, and had the weight of national expectation on their shoulders. And they only went and coped with it in the most freakish circumstances that one could ever hope to conceive.
Tom Hamilton at Wimbledon: What more do you want? Two of tennis' greatest ever players going toe-to-toe with only a hair's width deciding the fate of a championship, following a gruelling near-five hour stretch of adrenaline-fuelled tennis in one of the world's greatest sporting arenas. The debate over tennis' GOATs will go on, with the moniker forever passed around, but this Federer-Djokovic final will stand the test of time as one of tennis' greatest ever matches. And all that with the fifth-set tiebreak coming into play for the first time ever. Goodness knows how much it costs to get one of those hotly-sought-after Centre Court tickets, but this was one of those games where you will be able to say in years to come 'I was there' as Djokovic lifted his arms to the heaven to salute Wimbledon title No. 5.
How much attention was being paid to the 'other' final at your venue?
Miller: There was undoubted interest in the early stages of the match -- one senior cricket editor was rumoured to be streaming the match live into his phone -- and at one set all, with the Lord's match still at a slow-burn stage, there was obvious chatter. But by the time England's run-chase had started to kick off, I literally didn't give it another thought. I'm not sure I even found out who had won until approaching midnight.
Hamilton: Wimbledon does its utmost to preserve its oasis of tennis serenity with no other sports being broadcast at the venue. They did it last year when England men's football team progressed to the World Cup semifinal. And it was the same approach this year with them showing neither the Lionesses' run to the Women's World Cup semifinal, nor England's charge to the pinnacle of cricket. It was only in the media centre where you could catch the cricket action and when Federer-Djokovic was finished, punters were straining to see through the tinted media office windows. When England were finally crowned World Cup winners, there was a discernible roar which infiltrated this small corner of tennis heaven.
How rare is the finish you witnessed?
Miller: It was so rare that a) it took until midway through the England innings for the broadcasters to bring up the possibility of a Super Over -- it hadn't been used in the previous 11 World Cups. And it was so, so rare that b) it wasn't until New Zealand's batsmen emerged from the pavilion to chase England's total of 15 that the notion of "boundary countback" was mentioned. Most of the press, let alone the spectators, had to clarify exactly what that entailed.
Hamilton: We are used to seeing Federer involved in epic five-set matches, but this was the first time a Wimbledon final in the Open era has been decided by a fifth-set tiebreak. Wimbledon only brought the ruling in ahead of this year's championship. Djokovic was the first man in 71 years to win the championship after having faced match points (Federer had two at 8-7 in the fifth set). It was the longest men's Wimbledon final ever, clocking in at four hours 55 minutes and when you consider this is the 133rd men's final in the championship's long and illustrious history, then you get what a big deal this is.
Allegiances aside: Fast forward 10 years - which final ages better?
Miller: The cricket, obviously. This was the greatest World Cup final ever witnessed in any sport, and quite conceivably the greatest finish ever witnessed in any cricket match full stop. The Wimbledon final, by contrast, wasn't even the greatest Wimbledon final involving Roger Federer
Hamilton: Okay, okay -- Federer-Djokovic will go down in Wimbledon history as one of the great finals, but England's win in the Cricket World Cup will make a far larger impact on the sport. When England won the 2005 Ashes, the sport went berserk in the U.K. -- similar to rugby in 2003 when the men won their World Cup -- so if you're looking at legacy, there is a good chance the feats by the men's cricketers will be more spoken about. What doesn't help today's epic Federer-Djokovic final is that lingering memory of the 2008 epic between Federer and Rafael Nadal. For sheer drama alone, that just edges the 2019 version and so with England winning their first ever Cricket World Cup, that will stand the test of time a little more prominently.