Opinion - Editorials   

Is Federer the greatest?

Roger Federer demonstrated that his feet were not of clay when he ended, in the final of the Hamburg Masters, Rafael Nadal's record-breaking run of 81 successive victories on the surface. The upset, which comes at a time the French Open is about to get under way, raises an intriguing question. Can Federer finally win on the slow and demanding red clay at Roland Garros? This isn't merely a question about a tournament. The answer has a direct bearing on a debate that has consumed the tennis world for a few years now: is Federer the greatest tennis player of all time? Of course, winning the French Open will not conclusively settle the question. But it will take the fluid and free-stroking genius a good way closer to the label. It will leave the 26-year old just three short of Pete Sampras' record 14 Grand Slam tournament wins — and with more than enough time to surpass it. It will make him, after Don Budge and Rod Laver, the third player to hold the four major titles — the Australian Open, U.S. Open, French Open, and Wimbledon — simultaneously. It will also set him up nicely for what is regarded as tennis' greatest achievement: a calendar year Grand Slam. No other male player has come close since Rod Laver did it in 1969.

Like batsmen who are judged by their performances on different cricket pitches, tennis players are assessed by their accomplishments on varied surfaces. With its slow high bounce, clay is a merciless surface. It favours those who top spin the ball, play the percentages, and have great reserves of strength and patience. Despite dominating men's tennis for much of the 1990s, the great Pete Sampras could do no better than reach the semi-final of the French Open once. The list of tennis greats who failed to win at Roland Garros is long and revealing: it includes John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg. It is a measure of Federer's genius that he has been able to perform well on clay despite having a game that, on the face of it, is quite unsuited to the surface. His drives from the backcourt tend to be flat. He hits the ball on the rise, goes for winners, and makes the occasional foray to the net — tactics that would ordinarily spell disaster on clay. In the last two years, he reached the semi-final and final of the French Open, losing both times to a rampaging Nadal. The muscular Spaniard is likely to be his biggest stumbling block once again. But in a sense Federer's opponents are no longer his contemporaries. His real opponents are Laver, Sampras, and the challenging surface at Roland Garros. Remember this. Federer is no longer playing for the here and now — he is playing for the title of the greatest in tennis history.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Worst in history
Is Federer the greatest?
A party's need for renewal and three options
Farming — it's what they do
Bush may turn to U.N. in search for Iraq solution
The six-day war Israel won is still going on
Corrections and Clarifications
UPA's performance
Gorakhpur blasts
Pathetic plight
Court directive
Last lions

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu