Does the French Open victory make Roger Federer the greatest tennis player of all time ?06.09.09

A lot of people seem to think so, including Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras.

But if being the winner of the maximum number of grand slam titles was the criterion of all time greatness, then Margret Court Smith should be the greatest women’s player of all time. And we all know that she is not even guaranteed a position in the top five.

If being the winner of the maximum number of grand slam titles coupled with the distinction of having completed a career grand slam puts Federer above the likes of Sampras and Laver, then why wasn’t Roy Emerson anointed as the greatest player of all time when he held the same distinction; he happened to complete the career grand slam twice and held the distinction of having won the maximum number of titles for a long time.

Federer’s case is also weakened by the standard of competition in his era. His only contemporary who will qualify as an all time great is Rafael Nadal. The likes of Sampras, Laver and Borg had to compete against a larger group of well accomplished adversaries.
And the clincher against Federer is his haplessness against Rafael Nadal. No other claimant to the title of ‘greatest player of all time’ has been subject to such humiliation at the hands of a fellow player as has Federer against Nadal. Sampras and Laver had positive records against all their peers.

This fallibility becomes all the more important in judging Roger’s greatness because Nadal is the only great player whose career overlaps significantly with that of Federer.

The title of best men’s tennis player of all time is still open to debate. Roger has a strong case but his imperfections are significant enough to delay his coronation.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Point Of Viewwith 8 Comments →

Was Graf- Seles a precursor to the Federer- Nadal rivalry?04.05.09

Doesn't this rivalry look similar to the one below. If not for the stabbing there would have been craying at some point.

Doesn't this rivalry look similar to the one below. If not for the stabbing there would have been crying at some point.

Luckily for Nadal, there's no lunatic like Parche to end Federer's misery

Luckily for Nadal, there's no lunatic like Parche to end Federer's misery

Guess which tennis players we are talking about

A sublime and graceful champion with a complete stranglehold on the game, worthy of being called the greatest ever. Was most dominant on the Wimbledon grass and most uncomfortable on the Parisian red clay. Ended the Wimbledon reign of the player with the maximum All-England titles. Blessed with an all-round game based on a splendid forehand and a practitioner of the single-handed backhand.

The player’s reign at the top was ended by a feisty baseliner with a double handed backhand -someone who had become a French Open champion while still a teenager. The two players had a storied rivalry giving tennis fans many memorable matches. The old champion held sway on grass whereas the new one was at their best on clay and getting better on grass. The younger player seemed to have his celebrated opponent’s number, enjoying a substantial edge in their rivalry. A lot of it had to do with the player’s supreme mental strength. The older champion, having conquered everything before running into the young conqueror, was almost driven to despair by his repeated failures.

Current tennis fans would identify the players as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. But go back to the early nineties and the story will remind you of Steffi Graf and Monica Seles. Although it has never been mentioned or written about, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the two rivalries are remarkably similar in almost every aspect.

The players seem to have followed almost the same career paths. They share the same strengths and weaknesses and had comparable playing styles. And to add to that their rivalries followed identical paths. The first one started with Seles’ win over Graf at the 1990 French Open – Similar to the way Nadal and Federer kicked off at the 2005 French Open. Seles first established herself as the queen of clay before she conquered the hard courts. While Graf continued to dominate the former Yugoslavian on grass, Seles was improving rapidly on her least favourite surface, making the finals in 1992.

The Fedex-Rafa rivalry has also played out similarly. Nadal has gone on from the 2005 triumph at Paris to become arguably the best player on clay, ever. He has also improved by leaps and bounds on other surfaces and holds grand slam titles on three surfaces at the time of writing. Roger dominated him on grass initially but Nadal improved enough to break through that bastion as well –winning Wimbledon in 2008.

Seles had a vice like grip over Graf, grinding her into submission time and time again. Rafa enjoys the same dominance over Federer. He plays memorable matches with the Swiss where he almost always comes out on top, thanks to his indomitable spirit. Both Steffi Graf and Roger Federer seemed totally powerless against an opponent who had fewer tennis gifts but far more in terms of desire. Both rivalries came down to a battle of the mind and each time the older player crumbled in the face of their relentless rival.

In addition to the mental warfare, there is another key common component to both rivalries. It is the fact that Seles and Nadal were both left handed and had double handed backhands. On the other hand, Graf and Federer were righties who employed a single handed backhand. To understand the full implication of this dynamic, please read Paul Fein’s brilliant analysis of the same in the Sportstar (the second week issue of February 2009).

Although Fein is referring just to Federer and Nadal, his arguments are universal and holds true for the Seles –Graf rivalry as well. In brief, Fein proves that a left hander enjoys an inherent advantage over a righty when serving and receiving serve. More importantly, he disproves the long held notion that the lack of power in the single handed backhanded is compensated for by its better reach. He also argues and proves through examples that the single handed backhand is less reliable and more prone to errors, especially when under pressure. That is primarily the reason why Federer’s game has often cracked in key situations whereas Nadal’s has held firm. In another time, the same paradigm would have explained why Seles made fewer errors to regularly beat Steffi Graf.

With so much in common it is difficult to understand why no one pointed out the obvious similarities?

One possible reason could be the fact that the first rivalry was cut short by Gunther Parche. The stabbing in Hamburg changed the trajectory of the Seles – Graf rivalry and it never played out in full. Monica was never the same player again and Steffi Graf re-established herself as the undisputed number one player in the world. Because of its short duration, Seles-Graf is not even mentioned as one of the great tennis rivalries. The lasting memory is the stabbing and the tennis that preceded it is generally a blur. Had it lasted for two more years, then things would have been very different. Comparing the Graf-Seles rivalry with Federer -Nadal would have been far more obvious.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Point Of Viewwith 14 Comments →

So where does Roger go from here?06.16.07

This comes a little late. It’s been a week since Rafael Nadal vanquished Roger Federer on the red clay at Roland Garros. Roger had raised hopes of a gladiatorial contest after taking the second set but there was only one winner from there on. Nadal was always in control and the normally composed Federer was hopelessly error prone and crumbled under the relentless onslaught of his Spanish adversary.
The French Open remains the Gordian Knot for Federer. He has now been a runner-up twice to Nadal and their head to head record continues to blot his impressive resume. The biggest concern for his supporters would be the fact that he is back to square one as far as untying the knot is concerned.

For most part of the season though, there was hope. Federer had claimed after losing to Nadal at Monte Carlo, that even in defeat, he had gleaned valuable information about beating his nemesis. What followed in the wake of the the boast , appeared to be a watershed event in his pursuit of Nadal. Federer dumped his coach, Tony Roche, and staged a remarkable comeback win over Nadal at the Hamburg Masters. It appeared he had finally unearthed the secret of beating Rafael. The debacle at Roland Garros shattered any such notions.

So where does Roger go from here?
Does he join the list of Wimbledon greats never to have won the French? The likes of Sampras, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe and Connors. Or does he cut the knot like Alexander to cement his legacy as the greatest player of all time.

The good news is that Roger differs from all the aforementioned players in the sense that his failing at the French is not a capability issue. Those guys were never very good on clay, even though McEnroe and Edberg came within a set of the French Open title. He has been the second best player on clay the last two years; second only to the Great Rafael Nadal – a player who could potentially become the all time greatest player on clay. And as he showed at Hamburg, he has all the weapons to beat Nadal as well.

The disturbing part is that, while Nadal transforms into a fearless warrior when he faces the Swiss champion, Federer becomes a victim of his own talents. Accustomed to dismissing opponents with the minimum of fuss, he loses himself in a dogfight, almost looking disinterested when the going gets really tough. And until and unless he can learn to grit his teeth, get the adrenalin pumping and be prepared to die fighting on court, Nadal will continue to have the upper hand.

But how does Federer get there?
He needs someone who can work with the mental side of his game. Not someone to teach him about forehands and backhands, he knows all about it. He does not need a traveling psychologist or mind trainer or anything. He needs to be with a guy like Brad Gilbert or Jimmy Connors; guys who can teach him how to fight. Or even someone from outside of tennis. Say someone like Steve Waugh. It might sound preposterous but so was Alexander’s method of untying the knot. And unless he learns to fight, the smart money would be on Nadal ending Federer’s dominance on non-clay majors, rather than the other way round.
Bookmark and Share

Posted in Uncategorizedwith 2 Comments →

Has Roger Federer lost his mojo?05.14.07

Roger Federer has been the dominant tennis player over the last 4 years. He has been near about invincible on every surface, save for the times he has played Rafael Nadal on clay. He has come tantalizingly close to remedy this blemish, and experts had predicted that 2007 could be the year when he finally made the breakthrough against Nadal – a win which would open the door to a triumph at Roland Garros, anointing Federer as probably the ‘greatest player of all time’.

Federer’s perfect start to 2007 (he comprehensively won his first 12 matches, outclassing the field at the Australian Open), had the tennis fraternity licking their chops in anticipation of the battle royale on clay. Then unexpectedly, the champion’s game went off the boil and it has been a struggle for him ever since. Federer lost twice to unheralded Argentine Guillermo Canas on hard-courts, to Nadal on clay and then on a half-clay, half grass court and last week got beaten in straight sets by Filippo Volandri. He has gone winless for 4 tournaments, his worst streak in the last 4 years. Meanwhile, Rafael Nadal has stretched his unbeaten streak on clay to 76!!!. Are we seeing a change of guard here?

There is enough historical data, which justifies the doomsday predictions for Federer. Tennis today is a ‘very young’ man’s game. Federer is already 26. John McEnroe (7 majors), Mats Wilander (7 majors) and Bjorn Borg (11 majors) won their last grand slam title before turning 25. McEnroe and Borg were strongly positioned in the ‘greatest player’ debate before their careers nose dived abruptly. Wilander dominated 1988 winning three grand slams (his competition that year included Lendl, Agassi, Becker and Edberg) and never won anything again.

Federer has always toyed with his opponents; hardly moving out of first gear and still doing enough to win most matches comfortably. Supremely confident, he is unique in not even having a full time coach. Now the cracks are showing in the cool demeanour. His sacking of part-time coach Tony Roche in the midst of his greatest slump is either the astute decision of a self-assured man or the knee-jerk reaction of a man losing his touch. You can take your pick.

The Swiss maestro stands on the brink of being the next burn out victim of Tennis. Wimbledon and the smell of grass might restore the flagging confidence. Roger Federer could repair his bruised psyche and go on to become the greatest player never to have won the French Open (provided he substantially exceeds Pete Sampras’ haul of 14 grand slam titles). Greatest Player Ever ? That my friend, will depend on whether he has the gumption to stop Rafael Nadal from winning a third consecutive French Open title.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Uncategorizedwith 2 Comments →

A sporting fantasy comes alive05.04.07

Nadal on Clay vs Federer on Grass

Nadal on Clay vs Federer on Grass

In a unique experiment to determine the best men’s tennis player in the world; Rafael Nadal – the king of clay, with a 72 match unbeaten run on the surface, squared off against Roger Federer; the champion on grass, with a 48 match streak of his own. They played on a half -clay, half-grass court – thereby creating a neutral ground for a fair contest. The critics’ weren’t too impressed and the match, which was won by Nadal in a third-set tiebreaker, did little to settle the original debate. Well, damn the critics. This was a dream come true for fans like me, who always cook up such fantasy exercises (although we rarely get to see them), and I well and truly believe that they make the game richer and so much more fun.

Another such attempt, which immediately comes to mind was the ‘Battle of the Sexes’ matches, in tennis again. In part III, Jimmy Connors played Martina Navratilova with the handicap of being allowed just one serve per point and having to cover a larger court widened by half of each doubles alley. Just for the record, the ‘man’ still won.

Tinkering comes naturally to us. I remember trying to improvise the rules in the playground, when, as kids we struggled to form two decent well matched sides; the group consisting of friends and cousins of different age groups. Such variations brought the game alive and made it fun for all involved.

The mother of all such fantasies would be bringing players of different ages together. Just imagine, if the advancement of modern science can pit Bjorn Borg against Rafael Nadal, or have Brett Lee bowl to Vivian Richards, or have Maradona play against Pele.

The purists and traditionalists will call for a ban on such events and label them as ‘gimmicks’. But after the ‘traditional’ fare we witnessed in the football and cricket world cups, I’d still settle for the ‘gimmicks’.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Uncategorizedwith No Comments →

  • Subscribe

          
  • Twitter Updates

    • Follow me on Twitter