Federer not yet best ever
Posted: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:19 PM
In the aftermath of Rafael Nadal’s Australian Open victory has come the anticipated analysis of the balance of power in tennis. And the place, both present and future, in which Roger Federer belongs.
There are 2 questions:
1) Is Federer the best player of all-time?
2) Is Federer done as a top threat to win majors? Which can be rephrased -- will he break Pete Sampras’ record of 14 Grand Slams? Federer has 13.
Addressing the first question is of little interest to me but I acknowledge its relevance in the world of chat rooms, talk radio and other areas where arguments reign.
My problem is in trying to compare players from eras that differ dramatically in both surface and equipment. How can anyone intelligently compare Rod Laver, playing with a wood racquet and on two Slam surfaces (clay at the French Open and grass at the other Slams), with Nadal, who is using modern racquet technology and playing on four Slam surfaces (the Australian is much slower than the U.S. Open hard courts)?
Could anyone ever have imagined that the U.S. Open on a hard court would be considered a faster surface than Wimbledon? Could anyone have imagined that the Australian Open, an event many of the greats of past eras skipped altogether or played sporadically, would become a must-play championship? There is no resemblance between the game of the 1960s and 1970s and the game of today.
So allow me to attack this issue from a slightly different angle. Let’s look at Federer in areas that don’t relate to equipment and surface.
His biggest similarity is with Sampras. Both dominated Wimbledon, both excelled at the U.S. Open and both had a barrier at the French Open. Both had astoundingly long reigns ranked No. 1.
Two differences: Sampras had the better of his main rival (Andre Agassi) while Federer has come up short overall against Nadal and Federer has proven himself the No. 2 player at the French Open, reaching three finals and only losing to Nadal, the greatest clay-court player of all time, (yes, I will make that judgment now) while Sampras was never a threat at the French Open, only once reaching the semifinals.
Sampras’ barrier was a surface, not a player. Borg is like Federer in that he had an event (U.S. Open) and a player (John McEnroe, who denied Borg in his last two major finals) to overcome. Can Borg, dominant at two Slams, receive a nod over Federer despite never winning the Australian or U.S. Opens?
The other greats in the conversation (Johnny McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Agassi and Ivan Lendl) don’t have the numbers to match Federer, Sampras and Borg or the quality of Rod Laver, who achieved a calendar year Grand Slam in 1969.
So if Federer’s career were to end today, perhaps the answer would be the rival. Sampras bowed to no man while Federer is clearly stymied by Nadal. It’s a nitpick for Nadal has much tennis to play before his career matches Federer’s. But in such arguments, picking nits is often as sensible an approach as any.
My take is that the answer to whether Federer is the greatest player ever is directly tied to question No. 2. Is Federer’s reign atop the sport ending?
There are two facts that continue to dominate my thinking: 1) Federer has played in 14 of the last 15 Slam finals. He has played in the last four, which ties Laver and Agassi for the second longest streak in the Open Era. The longest streak is Federer’s 10, which ended at the 2008 Australian Open. 2) Federer has reached the semifinals in the last 19 Slams. The next longest streak in the Open Era is 10 by Ivan Lendl.
So here are two achievements, unprecedented in modern tennis history that are STILL ACTIVE. Federer’s excellence is such that he has not merely surpassed but blown away the previous record holders.
How can anyone look at these feats and definitively declare Federer is done? He has one problem -- Nadal.
The problem is significant. And there is ample reason to wonder when Federer can win Grand Slam title No. 14. Patrick McEnroe is one of the wisest and rational voices in tennis. I read his post-Aussie comments that Federer “succumbed to the pressure. The guy (Nadal) is in his head and it’s going to be hard for him to come back from this.”
Hours after the still unmatched Wimbledon final, Johnny McEnroe offered his concern that a loss like that could take a year off Federer’s career.
Federer is hardly done but at 27 we watch him more closely now than ever before. He has been remarkable in his avoidance of injury (the one area in which he outshines Nadal) and has spoken of his desire to play into his 30s. Sampras won his last Wimbledon one month shy of turning 29 and his last major at 31. Agassi was still a threat in those years and we know that Nadal must prove that he can hold up to be the long-term rival for Federer.
Patrick McEnroe said he believes Federer “needs a coach…but he’s so stubborn.” If he wants to pass Sampras and earn the unofficial greatest player ever honor, Federer needs to decide if he can slay Nadal on his own. For Federer must find a way to take Nadal down in at least one major to silence the one doubt about the Swiss ace that exists in the minds of all: greatest ever?
