Does Federer Really Have to Hurry Up?
In today's Washington Post, very good staff writer Liz Clarke delivers an excellent summary of yesterday's U.S. Open final between Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. (Shame on the Post, by the way, for letting coverage of the first game of the Skins' season to push a piece on the premier U.S. tennis event to the third page of the section. That's provincial for even a regional newspaper.)
Clarke runs down the key moments of the match in a tight narrative. But when she pulls back to discuss the larger arc of Federer's career, she retreats into some received tennis wisdom that actually has no basis in fact. At issue is a milestone. Federer now has won 12 majors, just two shy of the all-time record of Pete Sampras. Federer is 26 and has won the last four U.S. Opens. His victory over Djokovic was a straight-set affair.
Yet Clarke writes this: "If Federer is to surpass Sampras's mark of 14 Grand Slam titles, he'd better do it soon. At the rate Djokovic is improving, Federer's perch atop tennis may not be safe much longer."
Hmmm, seems I've heard that logic before. Oh yeah, Rafael Nadal was going to unseat him anytime soon. Now it's this guy.
Well, here's what's really going on: The people who say this stuff—sportswriters, broadcasters, experts—are staked some way in the sport and feel compelled to pump up the drama.
But there's none here. The only conclusion reachable from RF's summer '08 romp—he won Wimbledon, too—is that he'll dominate the sport for years. Every time an opponent comes close to him, he shows a level of perfection that's never been seen before. He's got the serve, the strokes, and he doesn't choke, ever. The more key the point, the better he plays.
And no matter how much older and more prepared his rivals become, it's that last attribute that they will never develop.
2:35 pm
The tennis gods are rather tough on aging. Agassi kept winning into his late 20's and early 30's, but few do. Sampras had won 10 of his 14 Slams by Federer's current age, and three of the remaining ones were just at Wimbledone -- the one exception was his remarkable last run at the US Open 6 years after his last win there.
The gap between the top players is remarkably small, and just a small decline in performance can change results. I'm not expecting Federer to struggle in 2007, but it's going to happen at some point, and may be a lot sooner than some expect.
2:41 pm
waaah! Why don't people like Tennis as much as football!? Boohoo I want to be the popular one!
5:37 pm
Thank God Wemple isn't the Post's sports editor.
2:26 am
Roger doesn't need to hurry up, he doesn't even need to dominate or be the world number 1 or even do a calendar Grand Slam to surpass Samprass, mathematically he can win a slam here and there for the next 5 or so years, or even have 1 French title and he'd walk away from the game with more slams than Pete.
Is Novak the real deal? Not sure yet I can remember so many tennis writers queuing to inaugurate Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick as successors to Pete’s throne (and that was when they had a slam each) yet the hype fizzled, the brains crumbled and reality settled in. As for Nadal his very physical game is in serious trouble of self-destructing from wear and tear in the next couple of years.
Roger's game is so layered he can lose speed and even a couple of his shots and still come out on top, he doesn't have to revolutionise his game the way Andre had to!
8:50 am
Of course Federer doesn't need to hurry. He's got four more Wimbledons before he turns 30, and who's going to beat him at Wimbledon? He's more automatic than Sampras (born in DC, by the way) was at the AELTC, which is saying a lot. Sampras won his final Wimbledon at 28, and his final Slam (the '02 Open) at 31.
As for young Djokovic, he has mucho game, but any time I hear someone anoint Up and Comer X as the next threat to Federer's dominance (including Nadal; it's too bad he was gimpy at the Open because a Nadal-Federer final would have gone a long way in answering just how assured Federer is of breaking Sampras' record), I can't help but think of Yevgeny Kafelnikov.
In 1994, after a young Kafelnikov lost to Sampras 9-7 in the fifth at the Aussie Open, Sampras claimed that Kafelnikov was not only the best Russian he'd ever played, but also had the "best groundies I've ever faced." This was coming from a guy who beat down Agassi, Courier, Lendl, and other bashers. Kafelnikov ended up winning two Slams (an Aussie and a French) before retiring and becoming a pro poker player. He was a solid player with guns off both sides, a plus serve, and a dependable return, but none of the sublimeness of a Sampras or Federer.
Kafelnikov, by the way, finished his career 2-11 against Sampras. Few, if any, of Federer's challengers are even at the level of Kafelnikov in his prime, and that's where their ceilings are, if not below it. Andy Roddick: still only halfway to Kafelnikov's Slam total. James Blake: will be lucky to reach Kafelnikov status. Andy Murray: ditto. Marat Safin, the only guy with the game to beat Federer on any surface but never got his head straight: three Slams and on his way off the tour. Djokovic: too early to even call him the next Kafelnikov.
This isn't meant to disparage anyone. They're all great players and Kafelnikov had a great career. Any of them can catch Fed on a bad day at a non-Slam and notch a W. But none of them are one of the GOAT, and that's what it takes to dethrone the king. For the foreseeable future, the tour will remain Federer's private game reserve.
3:25 pm
Huan, if you ever start a blog about tennis, I'll bookmark it.