Sunday, June 08, 2008
Federer sets a standard so high, it’s unreachable
It happened no less than a half hour after Federer’s most lopsided and listless loss yet to Nadal: 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 in a grand slam final on the clay court of Paris: the first news story in a string of others questioning Roger’s history-making credentials in tennis.
Was the match devastating for Federer fans? Absolutely. Did it show that Roger had almost no answers to Nadal’s prowess on clay? No doubt it did. Does it mean that Federer is waning? Certainly not.
Can Federer still take the mantle of greatest ever if he never captures the French?
Quite simply, yes.
The only other sportsman who could possibly vie for that prestigious label with Roger Federer is the phenomenal Pete Sampras, and Sampras’ best showing on the red clay of Roland Garros was a semi-final match against Yevgeny Kafelnikov the eventual champion in 1996. True, Pete has two additional grand slam titles but few have any doubt that Roger is going to equal that record, if not surpass it.
And as for Federer’s record at the French Open, the Swissman has come close to winning the championship 3 times in a row – and by close I mean, he would have won it if not for a player who goes by the name of Nadal and grunts and grinds on a tennis court and wears down his opponents with brute power alone. There is no denying the fact that Federer is the second best player on clay, and has been consistently so.
I don’t mean to take anything away from Rafa’s game: the guy has excellent prowess for clay court tennis, but unfortunately for him clay court tennis isn’t all; in fact, many would agree that the French Open is probably the least celebrated of majors.
As for the lopsided Roger-Rafa record of now – ahem 6-11 - let me remind everyone that Nadal’s best performance at two of the majors in the past 3 years has been a quarter-final or worse, and his best showing was a semi-final appearance at Melbourne earlier this year. With the exception of the latter (duly blamed on a case of mono) and one other time each at Melbourne and Paris, Federer has been at the final of every grand slam tournament for the past 4 years. And he won 11 of the 14 finals he showed up in (the 3 unsuccessful attempts being at Paris).
So, here is a guy that is dominating the tennis world in a way that is unprecedented in the history of the sport, and quite possibly all sport. No one has so much as come close to questioning his invincibility on grass or hard courts in the past 4 years, he is two shy of Sampras’ record of most majors won, has been #1 in the world for 4 consecutive years, and has not only appeared at every major in the past 4 years, without excuses of injury or illness, but has gotten as far as the semi-finals in all of them.
So my question to those who are writing Federer off just because he cannot right his record with Nadal: if Rafa doesn’t even play well enough to meet Federer at either of the majors played on hard courts, most of which Federer has gone on to win, how is their win-loss record telling in any conceivable way? Ranked number 1 & 2 they can only meet in the finals, but Nadal is usually taken out much before that.
Also, the ATP tour has more clay court tournaments than grass-court ones (a whopping 24 to a meager 6), which skews the record even more in Nadal’s favor. This is notwithstanding the fact that grass is the turf of choice for the sanctum sanctorum of the sport itself, one I’m looking forward to: ahh, wouldn’t the soothing green grass of Wimbledon be a welcome reprieve from the jarring red clay of Roland Garros! ¶ 11:14 PM
Was the match devastating for Federer fans? Absolutely. Did it show that Roger had almost no answers to Nadal’s prowess on clay? No doubt it did. Does it mean that Federer is waning? Certainly not.
Can Federer still take the mantle of greatest ever if he never captures the French?
Quite simply, yes.
The only other sportsman who could possibly vie for that prestigious label with Roger Federer is the phenomenal Pete Sampras, and Sampras’ best showing on the red clay of Roland Garros was a semi-final match against Yevgeny Kafelnikov the eventual champion in 1996. True, Pete has two additional grand slam titles but few have any doubt that Roger is going to equal that record, if not surpass it.
And as for Federer’s record at the French Open, the Swissman has come close to winning the championship 3 times in a row – and by close I mean, he would have won it if not for a player who goes by the name of Nadal and grunts and grinds on a tennis court and wears down his opponents with brute power alone. There is no denying the fact that Federer is the second best player on clay, and has been consistently so.
I don’t mean to take anything away from Rafa’s game: the guy has excellent prowess for clay court tennis, but unfortunately for him clay court tennis isn’t all; in fact, many would agree that the French Open is probably the least celebrated of majors.
As for the lopsided Roger-Rafa record of now – ahem 6-11 - let me remind everyone that Nadal’s best performance at two of the majors in the past 3 years has been a quarter-final or worse, and his best showing was a semi-final appearance at Melbourne earlier this year. With the exception of the latter (duly blamed on a case of mono) and one other time each at Melbourne and Paris, Federer has been at the final of every grand slam tournament for the past 4 years. And he won 11 of the 14 finals he showed up in (the 3 unsuccessful attempts being at Paris).
So, here is a guy that is dominating the tennis world in a way that is unprecedented in the history of the sport, and quite possibly all sport. No one has so much as come close to questioning his invincibility on grass or hard courts in the past 4 years, he is two shy of Sampras’ record of most majors won, has been #1 in the world for 4 consecutive years, and has not only appeared at every major in the past 4 years, without excuses of injury or illness, but has gotten as far as the semi-finals in all of them.
So my question to those who are writing Federer off just because he cannot right his record with Nadal: if Rafa doesn’t even play well enough to meet Federer at either of the majors played on hard courts, most of which Federer has gone on to win, how is their win-loss record telling in any conceivable way? Ranked number 1 & 2 they can only meet in the finals, but Nadal is usually taken out much before that.
Also, the ATP tour has more clay court tournaments than grass-court ones (a whopping 24 to a meager 6), which skews the record even more in Nadal’s favor. This is notwithstanding the fact that grass is the turf of choice for the sanctum sanctorum of the sport itself, one I’m looking forward to: ahh, wouldn’t the soothing green grass of Wimbledon be a welcome reprieve from the jarring red clay of Roland Garros! ¶ 11:14 PM
