The greatest ...
Look, I love Roger Federer. There's really nothing wrong with him except a very occasional slight smugness, he seems a fine person, he's obviously the most graceful sportsman ever, a pure joy to watch, he took his sport to a new level, he deserves to bask in the acclaim of his vast vast army of fans (albeit his mild smugness seems to reflect on them and magnify thirty-fold, such as every oleaginous SW19 We Love You Roger slightly lessens my affection for the man himself), 17 Grand Slams, even if that's all he gets, will probably never be beaten. Hell, he's even a big cricket fan. What's not to love? There may well be a strong argument for suggesting he's the greatest sportsman of the modern era, if not of all time.
Yet, he's not, is he? Not by the measure of pure fierce indomitable will-to-win, of besting the best, of staring into the abyss and coming out stronger, of draining every last drop from his talent. There are a few, not damning, but pertinent facts about Federer's career which say that he is a man at his best when on top, that when challenged, he might not have melted, but he didn't thrive.
Just look at the Murray and the Djokovic matches at this year's Wimbledon. Against Murray, he was flawless, magnificent. Against Djokovic, he was patchy and missed his chances. Yes, ok, Djokovic is a better player than Murray, but not by that much on a match-by-match basis. And yes, ok, you're allowed to play better one day than another, of course, but, by the highest standards, it was a disappointing final performance.
And there are a few of them. Here's a thing - Federer's record in 5 set matches is 23-19, only a little better than 50%, which suggests that he's not necessarily at his best when he's in a war. Contrast that with Murray, whose 5-set record is 17-7 - and he lost 3 of his first 4, and since then, the losses have been twice to Djokovic, once to Nadal. What does that tell you about Murray? It tells you that he wins almost every match he ought to win. If he loses, it's to someone who's better than him, or someone playing above themselves, or he's having a flat out bad day. Murray doesn't choke. If it's there to win, on nearly every occasion of his Grand Slam career, he'll win it. It's just his misfortune that there are three guys who are, on average, better than him, so it hasn't been there to win as often as it would have been in other eras.
While Federer might look back on several matches with regret - losses to Del Potro and Djokovic, even to Murray. And as for Nadal, well, Nadal flat-out bested him. When was the last time Federer beat Nadal in a Major? 2007. And Djokovic ... 2011.
And, yes, his prime was earlier, but you could hardly say, watching his utter magnificence vs Murray on Friday, that he's not still capable of his highest standard.
The fact is, several of his 17 Grand Slams were, by the standards of the extraordinary last 6-7 years, a little cheap.
Who were his 17 wins against?
Phillipoussis
Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Agassi (a faded Agassi)
Baghdatis (seriously ...)
Nadal (still young)
Roddick
Gonzales
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Soderling
Roddick
Murray
Murray
The true golden age began, you could say, when Nadal beat him at Wimbledon in 2008 - since then he was just won 5 Majors, 3 of them against poor Andy Murray (who, though he has a good overall record against Federer, has also brought the very best out of him in the last few years).
You knew Djokovic was going to beat Federer this year, even though Federer started better, played better shots, broke first, had break points throughout the first three sets. There's something about Federer which doesn't like to be challenged, whereas Djokovic, Nadal and even Murray, thrive and prosper in the challenge.
It's a horrid thing to say about one of the finest, in every sense, sportsmen of all time, but Roger Federer is just a little bit of a flat-track bully.
Yet, he's not, is he? Not by the measure of pure fierce indomitable will-to-win, of besting the best, of staring into the abyss and coming out stronger, of draining every last drop from his talent. There are a few, not damning, but pertinent facts about Federer's career which say that he is a man at his best when on top, that when challenged, he might not have melted, but he didn't thrive.
Just look at the Murray and the Djokovic matches at this year's Wimbledon. Against Murray, he was flawless, magnificent. Against Djokovic, he was patchy and missed his chances. Yes, ok, Djokovic is a better player than Murray, but not by that much on a match-by-match basis. And yes, ok, you're allowed to play better one day than another, of course, but, by the highest standards, it was a disappointing final performance.
And there are a few of them. Here's a thing - Federer's record in 5 set matches is 23-19, only a little better than 50%, which suggests that he's not necessarily at his best when he's in a war. Contrast that with Murray, whose 5-set record is 17-7 - and he lost 3 of his first 4, and since then, the losses have been twice to Djokovic, once to Nadal. What does that tell you about Murray? It tells you that he wins almost every match he ought to win. If he loses, it's to someone who's better than him, or someone playing above themselves, or he's having a flat out bad day. Murray doesn't choke. If it's there to win, on nearly every occasion of his Grand Slam career, he'll win it. It's just his misfortune that there are three guys who are, on average, better than him, so it hasn't been there to win as often as it would have been in other eras.
While Federer might look back on several matches with regret - losses to Del Potro and Djokovic, even to Murray. And as for Nadal, well, Nadal flat-out bested him. When was the last time Federer beat Nadal in a Major? 2007. And Djokovic ... 2011.
And, yes, his prime was earlier, but you could hardly say, watching his utter magnificence vs Murray on Friday, that he's not still capable of his highest standard.
The fact is, several of his 17 Grand Slams were, by the standards of the extraordinary last 6-7 years, a little cheap.
Who were his 17 wins against?
Phillipoussis
Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Agassi (a faded Agassi)
Baghdatis (seriously ...)
Nadal (still young)
Roddick
Gonzales
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Soderling
Roddick
Murray
Murray
The true golden age began, you could say, when Nadal beat him at Wimbledon in 2008 - since then he was just won 5 Majors, 3 of them against poor Andy Murray (who, though he has a good overall record against Federer, has also brought the very best out of him in the last few years).
You knew Djokovic was going to beat Federer this year, even though Federer started better, played better shots, broke first, had break points throughout the first three sets. There's something about Federer which doesn't like to be challenged, whereas Djokovic, Nadal and even Murray, thrive and prosper in the challenge.
It's a horrid thing to say about one of the finest, in every sense, sportsmen of all time, but Roger Federer is just a little bit of a flat-track bully.
Comments
Post a Comment