Finally, finally Roger has done it. After ending 2nd best 3 consecutive years, Roger Federer has won the French Open. Finally he has the full set of Grand Slam titles, becoming only the sixth man in history to achieve the feat. Also, with 14 grand slams he has now equaled Pete Sampras record as most number of grand slams held by an individual ever.
I still remember in the beginning of the year when Roger Federer lost the final of the Australian Open to Rafael Nadal, I hoped and wished he could beat Nadal in the French Open final. Although, I am really happy for him, I still feel that this victory was a little hollow because the opposition was not Rafael Nadal. Just not the French open, I would like to see Roger winning most of his grand slams against Rafael Nadal.
French Open is a different ball game all together and many greats have found it really hard to win the grand slam (all four majors). If someone performs exceedingly well in French they find it difficult to win either hard court or grass court.
If I look at the greatest ever players that have played the game, most of them have not been good clay court players. This is primarily because the great players are usually serve and volley players, players who would like to win quick points, who would like to hit winners down the line. However, French open doesn’t give you such chances. The clay court game is excruciatingly slow for the great players, it requires more physical strength than the skill of the game itself.
Personally, I don’t think so Roger is the greatest ever that’s played the game. I am not taking anything away from his achievements they are simply mind blowing. I am really happy that he won the French, otherwise the entire world would have done what they did to Pete Sampras “he was never able to win the French”, so that’s out of the question now. Then why don’t I consider him the greatest ever? ‘cos the fact is he never had great players playing during his prime time. I could only think of Nadal, but Nadal has much better win / loss record against Federer. The greatest ever, should be able to have a tremendous record against all opponents. Think of it, Nadal and Federer have played 7 times in a grand slam final, Nadal has won 5 times and Federer 3 times. Yes, Nadal won thrice in clay, still its 2 – 2 in other slams.
Just not Nadal, think of the time when Pete Sampras was playing and think of the players he had to compete with – Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Pat Rafter, Steffan Edberg, Boris Becker, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Michael Stich. I mean one could never predict a final of a grand slam, but these 5 years that Roger has reigned supreme, one can confidently say he would be there in the finals. Yes, Roger has been in 20 consecutive grand slam finals but were the opponents scary enough? There are ppl like Djokovic and Murry but they have never been threats, atleast they have not risen to the level of threats. Another strange fact is Roger has never lost a grand slam final to anyone else apart from Nadal.
Also, what does greatest ever mean? There would be someone for sure after Roger, after all who thought there would be a Borg after Laver, Becker after Borg, Pete after Becker and Roger after Pete. So I am sure there would be a XXXXX after Roger.
Roger is definitely one of the greatest that has ever played the game but not THE GREATEST that has ever played.
No comments:
Post a Comment