Proverbial

A reader writes to Andrew Sullivan in regards of Roger Federer being the “greatest tennis player of our lifetimes”:

With no one to challenge Federer it’s irrelevant whether he’s just better than the field or he’s pushed the game too far too fast. In either case, with no one to challenge him, it’s less meaningful when he wins every tournament.

It seems that the more Federer wins tournaments and just demolishes whoever gets in his way, the more people resort to this sort of magical nostalgia to make it seem less of an accomplishment. The fact is that only people who have no knowledge or passion for the game of tennis would indulge in such nonsense, because it’s really easy to know how well he plays: just watch it. It’s not about how many tournaments he’s won, it’s about how he’s done it.

But lets put that aside for a moment, and focus on this guy’s arguments. First, that Federer has no one to challenge him. Last time I checked, Nadal’s record against him was 6-2, having never lost to him on clay (on which he’s actually been undefeated for well over 60 games, shattering Guillermo Villas’ previous record of 53) and even getting a win on hardcourt.

Nadal also got to last year’s Wimbledon’s final - the last place you’d imagine to see a player whose specialty is clay -, losing to Federer on 4 sets. It’s true that the Swiss only lost five matches in 2006 (four to Nadal, one to Andy Murray), but it’s not like he’s unbeatable, specially on clay.

Which brings us to the whole “we don’t even start on the abundance of hard court tournaments which have made his somewhat-less-impressive work on clay so much less of a liability” criticism. Let me see if I can get this right: if Federer isn’t challenged, his wins mean nothing; but that he’s been less dominant on clay than other courts, also make his accomplishments less of a feat.

Am I the only one seeing the lose-lose proposition in here? If Federer wins this year’s Roland Garros, preferably over Nadal, and eventually goes all the way to winning the Grand Slam, it won’t mean anything ’cause that’ll be only because he wasn’t challenged. On the other hand, if he loses the French Open, it’ll mean he’s not such a good player after all (nevermind that most of the “great ones” never won the four tournaments, and only Rod Laver did it in the same year).

I think it’s really telling how, all of a sudden, no one has any gripes with the idea of Sampras being the best tennis player ever, regardless of having never won Roland Garros (does anyone remember all that controversy anymore?). And how they remember that all the greatest players in history had real rivalries, but don’t think Nadal - such an oustanding player on clay and who’s even reached the Wimbledon final -, with such an oustanding record against Federer is not really enough of a competition. By the way, how come no one ever mentions Rod Laver’s greatest rivals when he was winning two Grand Slams?

Federer is not one of the best players of all time because of his numbers, it’s the other way around. Anyone who understand tennis knows that, for example, he’s a more complete player than Sampras ever was. He has a tremendous serve, a monstrous forehand and volleys as well as anyone on the tour. He doesn’t need to stick to one game strategy, he can adapt it in accordance to who he’s playing, which is why he’s more dominant than anyone has ever been.

And in the end, when he wins another tournament it will matter. If he wins Roland Garros, gets a Grand Slam or more, and completely shatters Pete Sampras’ records, it will matter. Because he’ll make impossible plays, he’ll put on a hell of a show, and he’ll win for the simple and beautiful reason that he’s the best.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see Andy Murray, Rafael Nadal and everyone else getting even better and making Federer’s life even more difficult. The more sets we see these guys play, the more amazing plays they make, the better. But it is just plain silly to try and say he’s not on par with Sampras, Laver, Agassi or anyone else just because he seems unbeatable.