Would Tiger Woods be considered the best of all time if he consistently lost to Phil Micklson, even if he inevitably overhauls Nicklaus' 18 majors? Can an athlete be considered the greatest of all time if he has an overwhelming losing record against the second best of his era?
Its a vexing question (thanks OS) to ask of Federer, who at 27 is already the most accomplished (well almost) as well as the most lyrical player anyone has ever seen. Sampras won 14 grand slams at the age of 31 having contested 52 grand slams. Federer has still only played 39. There are few detractors of Federer's claim to greatness- even Sampras and Laver have hailed him. But the question that now hangs over his legacy like a scimitar is: does he have a mental frailty dealing with Nadal?
And it is indeed a mental thing. Federer reached the Australian Open finals breezing over his opponents and serving like the champ he is. He sent down twice the number of aces as his opponent in downing Roddick- one of the most formidable servers in the game today. Yet, when it came to Playing Nadal, his first serve- a barometer of confidence- betrayed him. He only got in half of his first serves (52%). In the fifth set, when you expected Nadal to start feeling the effects of his epic semi-final with Verdasco and his body to run out of electrolytes, it was Federer that became flat.
I have been a big admirer of Federer (Federer Made me Fail the Tebbit Test), but even I can sense that the gap between him and Nadal seems to be growing into a chasm. And the chasm is not in the quality of the game. It is entirely mental. When you see Federer play anyone else, the elegant single handed back hand cross-court is serene, the inside-out forehand is unstoppable, and the killer serves are on tap. When he plays Nadal, and especially when the stakes are high, he seems to get thrown off his game. He got crushed in the French Open, flubbed a match point in the Wimbledon epic, and could not serve to save his life when it got to set 5 of the Australian Open. You can almost read his mind in the changeovers- "can I really beat this guy?"
Federer is considered for the title of greatest of all time because he measures up to the yardstick most used for tennis (or golf)- number of grand slams won. At 13, he is one shy of the all time best. Nadal has only got to 6 majors so far, but can Nadal be measured by another yard stick? Can he be measured by by Federer? Can he be measured against the contender for the title?
I have been a big admirer of Federer (Federer Made me Fail the Tebbit Test), but even I can sense that the gap between him and Nadal seems to be growing into a chasm. And the chasm is not in the quality of the game. It is entirely mental. When you see Federer play anyone else, the elegant single handed back hand cross-court is serene, the inside-out forehand is unstoppable, and the killer serves are on tap. When he plays Nadal, and especially when the stakes are high, he seems to get thrown off his game. He got crushed in the French Open, flubbed a match point in the Wimbledon epic, and could not serve to save his life when it got to set 5 of the Australian Open. You can almost read his mind in the changeovers- "can I really beat this guy?"
Federer is considered for the title of greatest of all time because he measures up to the yardstick most used for tennis (or golf)- number of grand slams won. At 13, he is one shy of the all time best. Nadal has only got to 6 majors so far, but can Nadal be measured by another yard stick? Can he be measured by by Federer? Can he be measured against the contender for the title?
The two of them have now won 18 of the last 21 grand slams between them. They also collectively possess the longest winning streaks on each of the three surfaces- Federer on grass (65) and hard courts (56), Nadal on clay (81), and it has been the other man that ended each of those streaks. Previously on this blog, Nadal did not even make the list of the top 17 greatest tennis player of all time? (See Greatest Tennis Players of All Time- A Numerical Approach). Since then, he has taken his grand slam total to six, a number surely to go up. He has put together the longest ever 81 match unbeaten streak on clay. He has also beaten Federer at the peak of his game again and again, and on different surfaces. He still has ways to go, but is he rather than Federer, shaping up to be the best tennis player of all time?