Roger Federer has finally won the French Open, the one Grand Slam tournament title that had eluded him for so many years. In doing so, he also achieved a total of 14 Majors, which ties the all-time record held by tennis legend, Pete Sampras. With all the class Federer has shown over playing career, perhaps humility is one trait he has not quite mastered, as he had these words to say in his post match interview with John McEnroe:
“Now the question is, am I the greatest of all time? We don’t know, but I definitely have many things going for me because I’ve now finally won in all four Grand Slams.”
If Federer is indeed to be considered the best player to ever play the game of tennis, it would be nice if he realized that such a title is not self appointed. He should simply worry about winning, and let the resume speak for itself.
The question should be asked though, does this French Open win mean as much as it could have had he gone through Rafael Nadal to reach it? Unlike the sport of golf, where one man plays against an entire field of professionals to win a tournament, tennis is a sport of head-to-head matchups. Federer played seven matches over a two week span, six of which were against players ranked out of the top 10 in the world. There are three men on the ATP who have shown that they can beat Federer consistently: third seeded Andy Murray, fourth seeded Novak Djokovic, and of course the world number one, Rafael Nadal, and he did not have to face any one of them en route to the 2009 French Open title. Instead his toughest opponents were unseeded 31 year old, Tommy Haas, and the 21 year old underachiever Juan Martin Del Potro, who each stretched him to the limit in grueling five setters. Both were gutsy victories by Federer, but both matches were ones in which Federer was considered an overwhelming favorite.
At the end of the day, Federer’s consistency over the years has brought him to this peak, and one can take nothing away from his victories. However, this win would have meant a lot more were it over the insurmountable Rafael Nadal – the man who caused Roger to weep openly in defeat at the Australian Open earlier in 2009; the one opponent who holds a winning record against Federer in Grand Slam matches, with 6 wins and 2 losses. If Federer cannot beat the best of his generation like the great ones before him have, is he truly the best ever?
“Now the question is, am I the greatest of all time? We don’t know, but I definitely have many things going for me because I’ve now finally won in all four Grand Slams.”
If Federer is indeed to be considered the best player to ever play the game of tennis, it would be nice if he realized that such a title is not self appointed. He should simply worry about winning, and let the resume speak for itself.
The question should be asked though, does this French Open win mean as much as it could have had he gone through Rafael Nadal to reach it? Unlike the sport of golf, where one man plays against an entire field of professionals to win a tournament, tennis is a sport of head-to-head matchups. Federer played seven matches over a two week span, six of which were against players ranked out of the top 10 in the world. There are three men on the ATP who have shown that they can beat Federer consistently: third seeded Andy Murray, fourth seeded Novak Djokovic, and of course the world number one, Rafael Nadal, and he did not have to face any one of them en route to the 2009 French Open title. Instead his toughest opponents were unseeded 31 year old, Tommy Haas, and the 21 year old underachiever Juan Martin Del Potro, who each stretched him to the limit in grueling five setters. Both were gutsy victories by Federer, but both matches were ones in which Federer was considered an overwhelming favorite.
At the end of the day, Federer’s consistency over the years has brought him to this peak, and one can take nothing away from his victories. However, this win would have meant a lot more were it over the insurmountable Rafael Nadal – the man who caused Roger to weep openly in defeat at the Australian Open earlier in 2009; the one opponent who holds a winning record against Federer in Grand Slam matches, with 6 wins and 2 losses. If Federer cannot beat the best of his generation like the great ones before him have, is he truly the best ever?
Photo: Courtesy Reuters
0 comments
Post a Comment