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?
5 comments:
I think the sole reason why Federer actually broke down was because he realised that Nadal has gotten under his skin now ...I Think he could see his own END too ... which ever Grand slam final he reaches from here onwards Nadal will be there to tear him apart... and we all know its the French open next , where Federer stands absolutely no chance .. I for one think it's CURTAINS for Federer.
But answering your question "can Federer be considered the greatest?" yes I think he still can , and just because he cant conquer his nemesis does not belittle his achievement of singularly ruling the tennis world for the greater part of this decade.
One quick correction - Federer never got to match point in that epic Wimbledon final last year.
Greatest of all time is by definition a very subjective title in any sport. And in tennis particularly, where like for like stats can only be measured from 1968 onwards (with the advent of the Open era), it really means we are trying to identify the greatest of our generation.
The best benchmark remains Grand Slam victories. Consider this - Laver won 11 slams, and did not compete in slams from 1963 to 1968 when professionals were banned from playing in the grand slams! He won his first grand slam in 1962, and his second in 1969. Give him two slams a year in the 5 years he couldn't play, and he would be at 21 slams for his career. Give him one a year for this period, and he would still have 16.
So, if grand slam wins are the benchmark, Laver is clearly the best of all time. There are many other Laver stats that are unmatched (most tournaments won in a year, most matches won in a year, winning record against every major opponent, two calendar year grand slams etc etc)
Now to the current two greats - Roger and Rafa.
Roger's record, I feel, is greatly misunderstood. He has 13 slams, and will win a few more. There are two belimshes on his card - not winning the French and a losing record against Rafa.
He is considered by pretty much everyone, Rafa and Toni Nadal included, to be the most complete player to ever play the game. Players from the last two generations also consider him to be the most talented shot maker and the most graceful mover on the court they have ever seen.
So it is easy to understand why so many consider him to be the greatest of all time. Most complete player, longest streak as #1, best grand slam win-loss record ever, most consecutive semis or better at a slam, most grand slam finals in any 5 year stretch of grand slam history, great sportsman, most grand slams won (he'll be there by the end of this year) and you can go on and on.
He may never win the French, and that is why I don't think he should be considered the greatest ever.
His record against Nadal (6-13) should be analyzed as follows:
On clay, nadal leads 9-1
On grass, federer leads 2-1
on hard, they are 3-3
In grand slams:
On clay, nadal leads 4-0
on hard, nadal leads 1-0
on grass, federer leads 2-1
There is very little to choose between them on surfaces other than clay. I think Federer's biggest mistake over the last four years has been playing a full clay court season. He invariably makes it to finals, and loses to Nadal (who is clearly superior on this surface). And with every loss, Nadal's mental advantage becomes stronger.
This year federer will play a limited schedule during the clay court season, and that will help him come into Wimbledon fresher, and not bring him head to head with Nadal on clay very often.
Federer, if he maintains a winning record against Nadal on surfaces other than clay, can still be called the greatest player of our generation. A losing record against Nadal, because of the clay court dominance of Nadal, would not disqualify him from being a candidate for the greatest of our generation. However, never winning the French would make many, including myself, question whether he is the greatest of our generation or not.
I also think Nadal has a chance to become the greatest player of our generation. Becker considers him to be the best player he has ever seen. But, long way to go. He has had 4 great years, and 6 slams to show for it. He needs 4 more strong years to come close to Federer or Sampras. And Federer is not done yet!!!
The greatest player of all time is Rod Laver in my books. The greatest player of our generation is the title up for grabs, and we should be delighted that we are watching Federer and Nadal at the same time. One of them will qualify for this title in the next three years. Let's enjoy their rivalry in the meantime, and look for any opportunity we get to watch them play against each other.
It's an interesting discussion, but comparing players across eras is simply more conjecture than anything else.
Laver was clearly the greatest player of his era -- though he faced far fewer competitors than Federer and Sampras.
similarly, it's pretty clear that Sampras was the greatest player of his era.
What now comes into question is whether or not Federer is the greatest of his era. Or, if the recent trend continues, will he be eclipsed by Nadal?
"which ever Grand slam final he reaches from here onwards Nadal will be there to tear him apart... and we all know its the French open next , where Federer stands absolutely no chance "
LOL. Stick to your day job.
It is really very intresting discussion...........
Get More
Post a Comment