Federer Needs More to Be Greatest Ever

Posted Jun 09, 2009 1:02AM By Jay Mariotti (RSS feed)

Filed Under: Tennis

He dropped to his knees on the clay, the dreaded clay, and released years of agonizing pressure with a scream. Then came the tears, the long hugs and the lofting of a trophy toward the sky, all performed with a finality that puzzled me. Yes, Roger Federer at last had seized the French Open, the one crater on his Grand Slam resume. But he'd done so only after Rafael Nadal, his injured nemesis, was bounced in a fourth-round loss that ended his 31-match winning streak at Roland Garros.

This is akin to having a tryst with Angelina Jolie while Brad Pitt is in a coma. It's a bit misleading, wouldn't you say?

I won't be so crass to suggest an asterisk. In sport's age of corruption, the evil * is reserved specifically for steroids users. But why are so many tennis people having Nadal-related amnesia and declaring, point blank, that Federer now is the greatest player ever? Doesn't he have to beat Nadal at least once on the Paris clay, stlll a glaring bugaboo, before being declared the preeminent player of all time? Doesn't Federer need to win several more than his current 14 Grand Slam titles before he can separate himself definitively from players back in the pre-Open era, many of whom weren't permitted to compete in the major events for years because they were professionals?

"Now the question is: Am I the greatest player of all time?" Federer said rhetorically. "We don't know, but I definitely have many things going for me because I've finally won all four Grand Slams."

Almost arrogantly, that ignores the epic achievement of a old-schooler such as the Australian, Rod Laver, who won the true Grand Slam twice -- all four majors within a calendar year, which Federer has not done. Laver won 11 Grand Slam titles, leaving him three shy of Federer and Pete Sampras, but he surely would have won many more in his prime had he been allowed to play in the majors between 1963 and the advent of the Open era in 1968. "I don't think you can compare eras," Laver argued. "You can be the dominant performer of your time, but I don't think anyone has the title of best ever."

"What Laver did is godlike," said Andre Agassi, a tennis giant who clearly is in position to judge. "To win all of them in the same year twice -- how do you argue with that?"

You don't. Yet Federer and his boosters take a quantum leap anyway, as if not considering what happened as recently as January at the Australian Open, where he was such an emotional wreck in losing another big one to Nadal that he wept uncontrollably at the trophy ceremony and had to be consoled by the Spaniard. At that point, Nadal had beaten him five straight and won 13 of their previous 19 matches. Suddenly, we're forgetting all of that? Do we really think Nadal, at full health, would have lost to Federer in Paris? How do we anoint Federer as THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME when he has been on a lengthy death spiral against Nadal, whose most memorable triumph in the rivalry was the five-set classic in the Wimbledon final last July? There's a disconnect here that I don't understand. Why aren't people acknowledging that a very good reason why this is happening is because Nadal has knee problems?

"This could be my biggest victory, one that takes off the most pressure," Federer said. "Now, for the rest of my career, I can play relaxed and never hear again that I never won the French Open. I can go on with the rest of my career in peace knowing I don't have to worry about never winning here."

That may be true. But when the topic is history, we must be careful before issuing grand proclamations. I feel very uncomfortable crowning Federer when Nadal has been appreciably better in head-to-head competition. How can he be the greatest player ever when he hasn't been the greatest player in 2008 and 2009? Can we not make the argument that Nadal, who just turned 23 and is almost five years younger than Federer, is positioned to win the most Grand Slams of anyone? Agassi admits that Federer isn't nearly as dominating as he was in the pre-Nadal era, when he was so transcendent that he became buddies and endorsement partners with Tiger Woods.

"He's not quite the same player overall he was when he was dominating," Agassi said. "Might have lost a half step. Now, obviously, people always look good winning, but I thought Nadal started to get better and you could argue that Federer was losing an edge."

Point is, the only way Federer got his mojo back was when Nadal struggled at the French. Now there's a chance Nadal will be at less than full strength at Wimbledon, where he hasn't officially committed to defending his title because of knee issues. We expect him to be there, but he did pull out of the traditional Wimbledon tuneup this week at Queen's Club in London. "I have been having some problems in the past months with my knees -- that's no secret -- that did not allow me to compete always at 100 percent," Nadal said. "I need to work with my team to recover well, work on my physical condition to be at my top form and get ready for the grass to play at Wimbledon. I hope I can be ready to compete by then."

The announcement should come by Wednesday. If Nadal skips Wimbledon, Federer will have a golden opportunity to win his 15th -- again, because Nadal was absent. At first, Federer expressed concern about the injury, saying Monday, "I was surprised to see him pull out of Queen's, and now the debate that he might pull out of Wimbledon is quite frightening. I don't like to see it, because you want the best to be playing in the biggest events."

But then he seemed to take a shot at Nadal's injury credibility, perhaps a suggestion that his rival is embellishing the severity of the knee trouble after losing to Robin Soderling at Roland Garros. "It seems like it's not 100 percent serious, his knee injury. I only wish him the best and I hope it's not true that he will miss Wimbledon. I think it's a lot of speculation at the moment," Federer said. "He wasn't taping his knees here in Paris. He seemed fine -- [from] what I saw, anyway. I've played him so many times, I can tell when he's in pain and when he's not."

French Open Photos

©BAUER-GRIFFIN.COM ***NO CANADA*** Eva Longoria Parker and husband Tony Parker cheer in the stands while watching Roger Federer win his first French Open title at Roland Garros stadium. NON-EXCLUSIVE June 7, 2009 Job: 56918EW Paris, France www.bauergriffin.com www.bauergriffinonline.com [56922]

bauergriffinonline.com

PARIS - JUNE 08: Roger Federer of Switzerland poses with his French Open winners trophy at the Arc de Triomphe on June 8, 2009 in Paris, France. (Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images) *** Local Caption *** Roger Federer

Getty Images

PARIS - JUNE 08: Roger Federer of Switzerland speaks during a French Open press conference at the Park Hyatt on June 8, 2009 in Paris, France. (Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images) *** Local Caption *** Roger Federer

Getty Images

All of which sets up drama perhaps unprecedented in men's tennis. Oh, we've seen epic battles involving the likes of Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. And, of course, we've seen the contrasting personalities and games of Agassi and Sampras. But this? With advances in racket technology and physical training, you sense we're watching the game at its optimum level, even if tennis doesn't jazz the masses as it did 30 years ago. If Nadal plays at Wimbledon and beats Federer, the Swiss gentleman will lose the cachet he reclaimed in Paris. The sport will belong to Nadal again.

And my argument will look even better.

Federer is a class act, even when in those nauseating preppy sweaters. That's why people root for him. Sampras, who never even reached the French final, was quick to pronounce Federer the best ever. "I'm obviously happy for Roger," Sampras told The Associated Press. "Now that he has won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion."

Even with a 7-13 record against Nadal? "Roger's numbers are hard to disagree with," Agassi said. "And then you have a guy who's beaten him almost twice as much. Sounds like an Achilles' heel."

Also sounds like a reason to hold off on the coronation. Federer should be all about amassing major championships over the coming two or three years, aiming for a final number that history can't ignore. His buddy, Woods, won't be satisfied until he breaks Jack Nicklaus' career record of 18 golf majors. Come to think of it, 19 or 20 would be a fine number for Federer, who won our respect for the way he handled the idiot who emerged from the stands, tried to drape a hat on Federer's head and waved a Barcelona flag in his face. Given the horrid episode tennis always will live with -- the knife attack on Monica Seles by a crazed fan, who shockingly never served jail time while Seles' career never was the same afterward -- it's appalling that a good 10 seconds passed before security guards finally tackled and subdued the so-called Jimmy Jump, a professional prankster and intruder. Fortunately, Federer kept his cool and beat Soderling for the title.

"I didn't know what had happened until I heard the crowd react," he said. "So that gave me a fright seeing him so close right away. Normally, they look at you and say 'Sorry, I have to do this,' but this guy looked at me and I was not sure what he wanted. He seemed to want to give me something. It definitely threw me out of my rhythm. Maybe I should have sat down and taken a minute to reflect on what had happened: 'Was that real or what?' It was a touch scary."

Gilbert Ysern, new security director at Roland Garros, had a peculiar take. "It's always a shame when it does happen," he said. "You can't view it fatalistically, though. We will try all we can to find solutions before next year so it doesn't happen again. We already have strict security measures in place, but we will review them." It's 2009, guy. We view things fatalistically.

It's the latest chapter in one of the more puzzling careers ever enjoyed by a sports legend. I can't remember an athlete trying to make history when the precious present is holding him back. Federer got a reprieve in Paris -- a shot of rejuvenation -- but it will be forgotten if Nadal continues to school him.

"Roger has earned his place, his rightful place in the game. Winning here was just something that would have been a bit of a crime if he never did," Agassi said. "He's been the second-best clay courter for five years running, and if it weren't for one kid from Majorca, he would have won a handful of these things."

The kid from Majorca is Rafael Nadal. Every time he plays Federer from this point on, take my advice: Make a TV appointment no matter what time it is. These are the matches that will settle the wildest tennis argument in years. And don't be surprised if in 10 years, we'll be calling Nadal the greatest tennis player ever.

Imagine Roger Federer as an afterthought. To avoid it, he'd better win a few more titles, starting June 22 at the All England Club.

Fourteen is debatable. Nineteen is unassailable.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

6-09-2009 @ 1:36AM

jamyang said...

hey Jerk, whats your problem? Nadal lost fair and square, why are you trying to bring the knee injury in between?

Del potro has beaten Nadal and does that make Del potro a better a player? dont think so. I think you have not seen the coverage or the match that Nadal lost. He was playing his usual self and many commentators did not see any significant changes in his match, so dont try to bring some knee injury crap out of it. Remember, how cruel people were when Roger has Mono and lost the semis in AO 08 but Nadal didnt even get to the Quarters this time. So keel all these excuses to yourself. Man, why aren't there proper tennis writer around. And you forgot to mention that Agassi and Sampras do think Federer is the greatest ever. You could either be a Nadal fan or someone who doesnt follow tennis at all to write something like this. you should be grateful that i am even commenting on this. Such petty articles is best unheeded.

6-09-2009 @ 3:54AM

delawre7 said...

I am wondering why you place Nadal on such a pedestal when he hasn't even made a U.S. Open final, yet alone won a single one. Nadal is a great, great player, and the matches he has with Federer have been special to watch.

Nadal has quite a bit more work to do before he can be considered as great as Federer or Sampras. Federer has an amazing streak of 20 straight Grand Slam semi-finals, even when he was stuggling in the aftermath of Mono last year.

Nadal may be the best Clay court player ever. Federer to his credit, and on his least favorite surface, has been challenging him on it, that is why the head to head matches are so askew in Nadal's favor. When Nadal becomes more consistent and can produce greatness over the time Federer has, and on multiple surfaces, he will have a solid argument as well.

Federer has five straight Wimbledons to his credit, five straight U.S. Opens, three Australian titles, and now the French. I have some advice for Mr. Mariotti. Enjoy the Tennis produced from one of, if not the greatest player to play the game.

Allowing history to judge Federer's accomplishments rather than a journalist is the prudent course of action.

6-09-2009 @ 4:51AM

greatqb44 said...

This is akin to having a tryst with Angelina Jolie while Brad Pitt is in a coma

Uh,Not really .Try again trying to be hip ..but at least he got thru the entire piece without doing his Chris Matthews vibe and bootlicking Obama..again..

As for security..we are dealing with France here

6-09-2009 @ 9:04AM

demzrdopes said...

No, he needs to stop crying like a little schoolgirl.

6-09-2009 @ 9:45AM

Paul said...

Mr. Mariotti: I would tell you that Roger beat Nadal on clay the week before "The French Open," but that would not be good enough, for that was not a "slam." I would tell you that Nadal, albeit a great player, will rip his body up before he wins 12 majors; but you don't have the physiological intuition, nor the bio-mechanical wisdom to see why, or how that is happening before my eyes. I would say that Federer has a body that is designed to be able to move faster, more efficiently, more gracefully and put less stress on tendons, joints and ligaments so as to last another decade where he will win at least one more major, but again, I doubt you have the muscloskeletal understanding of what I am talking about. No, you are neither an athlete or a sports-writer with proper tennis knowledge. You are someone who hates a winner, but enjoys bringing one down. You really should think about changing from sports writer to playing "Around The Horn" full-time; sort of like Paul Lind was always on "Hollywood Squares" in its heyday. To be sure, this article is not impressing anyone who knows an ounce about tennis.

6-10-2009 @ 8:27AM

Irma-I Love You said...

Thank you Paul, was thinking of how to word it, but you hit it right on the nail. Wonder why they have people talking and analyzing a sport, also its players when they don't know a thing about it!

6-09-2009 @ 9:58AM

Will said...

First, best of all time is a stupid thing to talk about. Any top ten player of all time in tennis could beat any other top ten of all time in a match on any given day. Applies to all sports too. As for Federer, his losses to Nadal came in a down year. Every athlete has them. Tiger had a huge drought by many people's standards. Federer dominated Nadal in the second biggest clay event of the year. Federer did his part in the French, Nadal didn't. If it turns out his knees have no structural damage, then he needed to play through it and win. Plus tennis is match play. Federer has made 20 straight semis in majors. Would Tiger have all his majors if they were match play, one bad day and you're out? NO! Would Michael Jordan have all those rings if the title was decided the way the NCAA tournament is? NO! Federer is consistant and wins everything in his prime that he's expected to. He only loses to the best in his sport. Nobody else in sports does that.

6-09-2009 @ 1:02PM

david reisner said...

All these arguments about Nadal's absence ignore the stats related to who was present or absent when Sampras won his 14 or when Laver did his two Grand Slams. Perhaps the journalist's time would be well spent looking at which of laver's top competitors failed to reach the Finals when he won the GS. And let's not forget Borg, he typically skipped the Australian as it was at the end of the year. No doubt he would have picked up a few titles down under.

Further, what makes Fed so great is his movement and how he maintains his body. This is why Michael Jordan was so supreme - virtually no injuries. Nadal is unlikely to benefit in this way. And one more thing - Isn't it only natural for players in the twilight of their career to start to lose to top contenders ? If Nadal were born 5 years earlier, perhaps Fed would have been beating him all along.

I rest my case.

6-09-2009 @ 10:32AM

karl said...

Mariotti, another wanna be intellectual reporter that gives half of the story. He quoted Agassi several times but forgot the rest of that quote. Agassi said "ROGER FEDERER IS THE BEST OF ALL TIME"!!! so did Jonny Mac, Lendl, and Sampras himself. Mariotti who probably carried other kids' book to school, of course knows more than the tennis greats huh? Roger has a losing record vs. Murray too; does that mean Murray is the GOAT? Laver was great but 3 out of 4 of his slams were played on grass; perhaps Roger's best surface. Rafa is not in Roger's league on hardcourts, so that leaves Roger who plays great on all four surfaces. Borg, Sampras, Mac, Connors, Laver, Lendl, and others did not!!!

6-09-2009 @ 10:41AM

Gib said...

Jay, your take is always the same. Negative. If Rod Laver and Federer were both healthy and in their prime, Roger would clean his clock. Roger is definitely going to win at least one more slam, then what? You better start developing the negative strategy now....

6-09-2009 @ 10:47AM

HI CMA MAN said...

I do not think you can judge someone in tennis as "the best ever". Rod Laver is right when he said, "it all depends on the era". In past years tennis racquets were not as advanced as today's. I think we need to vote tennis players as the best in THEIR ERA. If it wasn't for Nadal, I would say, Federer IS the greatest player, because he would have won all 4 major tournaments at least 3 years in a row. But, as long as Nadal is around, Federer will have his hands full.

6-14-2009 @ 11:02AM

Roger&out said...

Andre Agassi is the ONLY mens tennis player to have won the Grand Slam on four (4) unique playing surfaces AND play both Rafa and Roger in actual matches. Agassi says Roger Federer is the best player he has ever played and the Greatest of all time. His opinion is as good as it gets, based on his "unique" achievements of winning on 4 different surfaces and having played both players. If Rafa was a better hardcourt player, perhaps it would be different, but currently he is not......END of STORY!!!!
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/agassi-believes-federer-is-the-best-of-all-time-506650.html

6-09-2009 @ 11:37AM

ltmenchen said...

Who ever wrote this acticle is an idiot. He tied Sampras and is still playing. These type articles should not be written.

6-09-2009 @ 5:29PM

cyndi said...

I totally agree. Do they write them just to get everyone all riled up?? Seems that way. Really annoying.

6-09-2009 @ 12:19PM

royvb said...

The writer has a point. But Rafa will not play long enough to establish his claim as greatest just because he owns a winning record over King Roger. I thought Andre's comment about an Achilles Heel was on point. It's a glitch that Roger has to either remove or live with - not being able to beat him. The Game evolves. Laver;s dual slams - as a pro AND as an amatuer will never be repeated. At the time, and in retrospect they are awesome still. But the Slams are now played on disparate surfaces and Rod did not have to contend with the rigors of playing a hard court game. Andre won them on all surfaces too.

And finally, there are those who would argue that technology has not moved the game to its "best level ever" - that it's too much dominating serve now, and less movement and strategy.

It woud be a shame to see Raja flash and fade because the technology of the game encouraged and caused his health problems with all the torque he is able to get on the spin of teh ball.

Very hard to peg a "best of all time" moniker atthis point.

6-09-2009 @ 12:35PM

krd said...

jay, you don't know much about tennis do you? perhaps federer should have dodged the clay-court seasons like mcenroe and sampras used to do. had he done that, he would have a winning record against nadal. since nadal won his 1st major, is federer to blame that nadal failed to reach the finals of the u.s. open, (ever) wimbledon in 2005 & 2006 and the australian open from 2006-2008? federer has held up his end of the bargain by reaching the finals of nearly all of the clay-court events. moreover federer has reached the semis of 20 majors in a row. no one else is even close. by the way, winning majors shouldn't dictate the greatest of all time. when emerson had the record at 12, no one was calling him the best of all time. i think it's the total body of work. federer has also won the year-ending masters at least three times. he's been in the finals of 15 out 16 majors. in a four year stretch he lost less than 15 matches and he played on all surfaces in nearly all major tournaments. considering his results over the last five years, his longevity has been amazing. nadal isn't going to reach 20 majors semis in a row. for him to be beaten on his best surface in the 4th round speaks volumes when compared to federer on his best "surfaces" grass and hard court. he won five in a row on both, and this despite the fact that the tennis powers that be slowed down the grass courts at wimbledon taking away a big chunk of what federer can do on grass, serve and volley. until nadal can produce a body of work like federer has, there is no comparison.

by the way, for nadal to equal federer's ongoing record of 20 semis reached in a row, he would have to reach the semis of the 2014 french and all the major semis subsequent to that. i'll be you right now, he won't.

as for nadal's injuries, they are part of the game. his body may be breaking down a bit, but that has to do with his style of play. that's federer's fault?

remember also that federer may be considered the 2nd best clay court player of his era, but you should know this era doesn't have the greatest clay court players. i don't think roger could have beaten lendl, vilas, wilander, pannata, or of course borg with any regularity on clay...not sure nadal could have either.

jay, you have to look at the entire body of work, and in so doing one does have to look at what laver did, but three of the majors were on slick grass courts, his favorite.

6-09-2009 @ 12:37PM

Asubrayan said...

You lost all your credibility as a so called sports writer based on the comments so far. Its ok to question., but to just to give one side of the story just to make your point reminds me of a school composition. You were obviously biased., and negative and we all can see that you are a Nadal troll. Sports and history is not about all your what ifs and buts... its about overall achievements. Nadal was not good enough to make it to the finals. Federer showed up for the battle and Nadal did not. History does not care about excuses and what ifs.

6-09-2009 @ 12:44PM

Ted said...

Jay, this is a stupid article. Let the guy enjoy his victory. Is he the best? Too subjective of a question. However, we can say he is one of the best ever.

6-10-2009 @ 6:05AM

louisjab said...

I think your article is flawed in many ways:

1- Federer has a losing record against Nadal, therefore, he cannot be thet best ever
R-1: This record is flawed because they met mainly on clay court because for many years Nadal was unable to reach the finals or the semifinals of any other slam than the French Open. It is a fact than Nadal is better than Federer on the clay court, which is his favorite type of court. But in the end, Federer has more Grand Slam titles than anybody else except for Sampras, and he is the only one that could do it on all 4 types of court.

2- Federer didn't beat Nadal, so the this French title isn't as big an accomplishment as it would have been if he did beat Nadal.
R-2:Maybe, but it isn't his fault either. You cannot choose your opponent, you can only beat them. This title is as good as any other title.

3- Nadal was hurt, so this return to greatness might be only temporary, Nadal will beat him again when he'll be 100% healthy
R-3: Again, this might be true, but injuries are part of any sport, and it shouldn't diminish the victories of those who are healthy at the moment. Getting in the "what if" in opening the door for too much suppositions.

4- Nadal is Federer main rival
R-4: Is he? really? In my book, rivals has to be reaching their peaks at the same time, or you are comparing a fading athlete with a rising one and in the long term, it is sure the rising one will win. Federer's peak was from 2003-2007 while Nadal was only a rising player at the time and mainly a clay court specialist. Nadal peaked when Federer's peak was finishing, as nobody would have imagined that Federer was gonna be able to play at the 2003-2007 level forever.

Finally, it's quite possible that in the long run, Nadal will have a more successful career than Federer, but no one can tell the future. At lot of people has said that Federer is the beat ever, but I haven't heard anyone telling that Federer is the best ever forever. Maybe someday, someone will come and beat all of Federer records. Maybe it will be Nadal, maybe it will be someone else, no one can tell. But right here right now, Federer's resume places him in front of everyone else.

6-09-2009 @ 12:58PM

crlocengr said...

I can't answer the "who's the best ever" question in any sport. One thing I can say is that I consider Federer the consummate gentleman/athlete of professional sports today. No foul mouthed tirades or disrepectful behavior either on or off the court. He always respects his opponent and gives sincere congratulations should he lose. Great player, yes. Class act, absolutely!

| 1 | 2 | 3 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments