Roger Federer is undoubtedly the greatest tennis player of his generation. With 10 Grand Slam championships and over $30 million in prize money, who would argue?But if he wants to go down as the greatest of all time, I hope he's hungry. Because he's not there yet.
Like in other sports, it's a little difficult to use statistics to determine greatness in tennis. Andy Roddick hits a faster serve than anyone in history, but his equipment also beats the crap out of those wood sticks players used to use.
So we move to the next criteria, which is championships.
In team sports, this is still a tough call, because some players are part of a great supporting cast. Bill Russell was part of a Celtics dynasty that won 11 championships, but I'm not prepared to call him the greatest basketball player of all time.
Because tennis is an individual sport, judging greatness by championships is easier, but not as easy as you might think.
In his first seven Grand Slam victories, Federer triumphed over exactly one all-time great, and that an aging Andre Agassi in 2005. The others were a parade of pretty good players (Marat Safin, Mark Philippoussis and Lleyton Hewitt) that your kids will never hear about, and a very talented one that practically worships the ground Federer walks on (Roddick).
And then came Rafael Nadal.
After reeling off seven career Grand Slams outside of France, Federer first reached the French Open finals in 2006. Thanks to Nadal, that spring also marked Federer's first loss in a Grand Slam final.
And while Federer edged Nadal in the Wimbledon final a month later, Federer looked like the one with something to prove.
You see, Nadal is a player unlike any other that Federer had faced before 2006: he's fast, strong, and creative, not to mention gutsy. Nadal wants it, and he's not afraid to take it from Federer or anyone else.
So while others may measure greatness strictly by the number of championships won, in my books there's a deeper level of complexity. To be the greatest of all time, you have to have an archenemy, a nemesis. And you have to beat him. Think Michael and Magic, Schilling versus the Yankees.
Rafael has done his part in history just by showing up. And if Roger Federer wants to go down as the greatest tennis player of all time, the next two weeks at Roland Garros would be a great time and place to do his.
Like in other sports, it's a little difficult to use statistics to determine greatness in tennis. Andy Roddick hits a faster serve than anyone in history, but his equipment also beats the crap out of those wood sticks players used to use.
So we move to the next criteria, which is championships.
In team sports, this is still a tough call, because some players are part of a great supporting cast. Bill Russell was part of a Celtics dynasty that won 11 championships, but I'm not prepared to call him the greatest basketball player of all time.
Because tennis is an individual sport, judging greatness by championships is easier, but not as easy as you might think.
In his first seven Grand Slam victories, Federer triumphed over exactly one all-time great, and that an aging Andre Agassi in 2005. The others were a parade of pretty good players (Marat Safin, Mark Philippoussis and Lleyton Hewitt) that your kids will never hear about, and a very talented one that practically worships the ground Federer walks on (Roddick).
And then came Rafael Nadal.
After reeling off seven career Grand Slams outside of France, Federer first reached the French Open finals in 2006. Thanks to Nadal, that spring also marked Federer's first loss in a Grand Slam final.
And while Federer edged Nadal in the Wimbledon final a month later, Federer looked like the one with something to prove.
You see, Nadal is a player unlike any other that Federer had faced before 2006: he's fast, strong, and creative, not to mention gutsy. Nadal wants it, and he's not afraid to take it from Federer or anyone else.
So while others may measure greatness strictly by the number of championships won, in my books there's a deeper level of complexity. To be the greatest of all time, you have to have an archenemy, a nemesis. And you have to beat him. Think Michael and Magic, Schilling versus the Yankees.
Rafael has done his part in history just by showing up. And if Roger Federer wants to go down as the greatest tennis player of all time, the next two weeks at Roland Garros would be a great time and place to do his.
6 comments:
i agree, if federer wants to go down as the greatest, he has to win the french. and if he wants to win the french, he has to do it soon. the french open is the most grueling of the slams and as federer ages, his chances diminish. i know nadal is the king of clay, but im rooting for federer to make history and go down as the greatest tennis player ever
Who is considered the greatest ever, anyway? Sampras? Aggasi? McEnroe? Maybe I should watch tennis more. You play at all these days?
Greatest ever? Tough call. Sampras, Laver, Fred Perry, not to mention Borg and McEnroe. I'm not an expert on tennis of the pre-1990s, so I'll have to abstain from a definitive answer on this one...
Unless Federer handles Nadal in the French Open final!
i gotta go with sampras as the greatest ever. laver and borg were phenomenal players but i dont think anyone has achieved what pete did.
on a side not, how about we build some clay courts in america because we SUCK on that surface (roddick and blake out in the 1st round)
You can go with Sampras if you like. He certainly established some dominance over Agassi, and even though I prefer the Pirate to the stoic Sampras, you have to hand it to him.
Sampras never won the French, though, and that's why, in my books, he's not the greatest of all time. Come to think of it, maybe he should be the one to install all of those clay courts in the US! :-)
i actually like watching agassi play myself, but 14 grand slams speaks for itself
Post a Comment