Post a Comment        E-mail To A Friend        Join The List

Assessing Roger Federer: How Good Is He?

by Christopher McIntosh
07/06/2009

He's the best who ever lived.

And he's still got maybe five more years to go.

Roger Federer seems to be the subject of immense debate after his [insert cliche here] victory over Andy Roddick on Sunday clinched his 15th grand slam victory placing him one ahead of Pete Sampras to give him sole possession of the all time record for grand slam victories.

If majors are the measuring stick everyone seems to use, then why is it the case that this has caused such consternation among the tennis congnoscenti? I understand the desire on the part of champions not to criticize their own contemporaries and the simultaneous desire not to undermine their own achievements. After all, to admit that Federer is the best ever is to explicitly forfeit your right to that claim--and in many cases the right to say that you went toe-to-toe with the best and won (see McEnroe, Borg, Laver, et al).

If this didn't clinch it for him, I don't know what will. Federer was all but dead and buried nine months ago. Nadal had defeated him at the French Open in a beat down of epic proportions, losing only 4 games in 3 sets and then gone on to prevail in what is generally considered the greatest match of all time on Federer's home court, center court at Wimbledon. Federer went down two sets to love to a man who appeared to own him. Then fought off match points to win the next two sets in tie breaks and only eventually succumbed in a 9-7 fifth set thriller that defies summarization. Suffice it to say it was one of the greatest sporting events I've ever seen in my life. And I've seen more than my fair share.

Federer went on to win the US Open later that Summer, but didn't have to play Nadal so people wanted to put an asterisk on it. He then lost *another* five set match final to Nadal in Australia--a match so gut wrenching that Federer, the picture of calm (in the latest incarnation at least, as a young' un he wasn't so even keeled) dissolved into a mess of tears and everyone heralded it as the ending of Federer the Great. There was even talk as to whether this 27 year old would even win another major.

Fast forward to yesterday. The man who had been in five French Open finals, lest we forget and had a 119 match winning streak against players not ranked in the top 5 in grand slams, won a Nadal-less French Open final to secure a career Grand Slam. Asterisk? Who'd he beat in the final? Some guy named Soderling, notable for only one reason. He was the only player at the French to beat Mr. Nadal. So maybe we shouldn't be so quick to put an asterisk by this one.

And then came this one. Federer's box had a who's who of tennis gathered to watch a coronation. Number 15. Ready to seal the greatest number of grand slam titles, if not necessarily the title of greatest ever on the court he's owned for 7 years. Sampras. Laver. Borg. Nastase. Even McEnroe was in the TV booth calling the match.

Roddick was 2 for 20 against Mr. Federer. Lost in the 2003 and 2004 final. If Federer had been a better soccer player, Andy might have five to seven grand slams himself. As it was, he was sitting on one.

Little did anyone know that when the wisecracking, acerbic, strangely handsome man who bore a striking resemblance to the guy you saw in the frat basement every Saturday night actually took the court, he was about to play the match of his life.

First set, Roddick. Second set, Roddick goes up 6-2 in the tiebreak. Four shots at putting arguably the greatest player ever down two sets and making the luminaries who showed up for a coronation look kind of silly.

But Federer showed why he's, well, Federer. Six straight points. Yes, Roddick blinked on a backhand volley at 6-5, but that happens. I'm not even sure it was a mistake. It was a tough shot even if he had been fully committed to it, but he wasn't even sure he was going to hit it until a gust of wind caught it in midair.

7 all. Federer finishes it off. Game, set, match, right? Roddick gave it his best shot and got counterpunched with a stiff right to the jaw that stunned him so badly he walked to the wrong end of the court on the changeover after the set was over.

Then Federer did it again. Both held serve. Or should I say, Roddick continued to hold serve at a 100% rate and it led inexorably to a tiebreaker and despite Roddick's shockingly good record in tiebreaks, Federer, as he is wont to do, won.

Two sets to one. Time to get the engraver out. I know I did. I left the room and went to go do something else.

Then my wife yelled at me, "hey, you might want to see this". And in the understatement of the year, I did. Roddick hadn't just gotten back in the match, he'd immediately gotten back in the match with an early break.

And held serve. Again. And again, And again. Roddick, 6-3.

Federer time, right? Wrong. Roddick refused to give in. He held serve. And held serve. And *held* serve.

Roddick had played out of his mind for four plus sets. Service winners were inevitable. Forehands we expected. Touch volleys we didn't. Backhand winners down the line, we *really* didn't. The mental toughness, that we didn't expect either. I, along with everyone else, not least of all Federer, waited patiently for Roddick to return to Earth. He didn't.

You know the rest. Neither would back down. Federer knew how to win. Roddick may not know how to win, yet, but he damned well knows how to fight. And he knows how to refuse to give in. Say what you will about the man, but he's ornery and ain't gonna back down from a brawl.

Make no mistake. Roddick played the best match of his life. In the biggest match of his life. And no one in that stadium--including the great ones seated in the boxes-- could have possibly topped him. That is, except for the quiet, somehow unassumingly confident Swiss. Roddick held serve *37* times. That's the equivalent of 6+ sets without losing a service game. Against the best player who's ever lived.

And he lost. Or more appropriately, he didn't win. Roddick didn't lose. I read one man who compared him to Rocco Mediate in last year's US Open, taking Tiger Woods to an 18 hole playoff, forcing must make birdie putts from Tiger on the 72nd and 90th holes just to stay in it, only succumbing on the 91st hole--the US Open's equivalent of a soccer match being decided by penalties after extra time.

Yet people still aren't willing to accept that Federer is the best of all time.

He's played in two of the greatest grand slam finals in *history*. He lost one by a service break and won the other after playing a full set and a half of extra time against a player who was perfect for 37 games.

He owns the most grand slam victories. He never loses to anyone outside the top five in grand slams. He's made 20 straight semifinals in grand slam tournaments.

But he doesn't have a foil, so the story goes. Who has he beaten? Didn't all these other greats have to go through really good players in order to win? Becker, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors to name one era. Laver, Rosewall, etc. Who's he beaten? Sampras, at the least, had Agassi and Becker, among others.

Why hasn't anyone made the argument that maybe he's so good that he's *eliminated* his potential rivals. No, Djokovic isn't Edberg or McEnroe. But how good is Nadal? Even if he ends his career with a losing record against Rafa, he's at least won the French, and been in the finals five times. He's undoubtedly the second best clay court player of his generation. And that's, by far, his worst surface.

Let's play a hypothetical game here. If Federer had lost each of his finals to Roddick and Nadal--who's got four years on Federer and, God willing, he retains his health and plays four more years after Federer, we know we have one guy with at least 7-10 majors, Roddick would have four and with the possiblity of adding an Australian or US Open either in the past or in the future it would take him past five.

Federer, as of 2009--minus the US Open, a tournament he very well could win--would have 10-12 majors and between three and five years left in his career. One a year and he breaks the record.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that of the 20ish semifinals he's been in, he's played 15 different opponents. As Mickelson shows, once you win one, the second, third, and fourth become much easier. What if one of those guys (Djokovic? James Blake?) gets on a roll and wins 3-4 majors of the ones that Federer doesn't?

What happens then? That's easily three guys with Hall of Fame potential and Federer still sits on top of the heap with a career grand slam and the most majors of anyone around. Winning at a time when technology and depth and the four different surfaces of the tournaments has made the game tougher and more testing than ever before.

But that hasn't happened.

Federer is a victim of his own success. Federer is so good that he has *eliminated* his rivals. He gets inside people's heads. His reputation--a deserved one--makes other players believe that they only get one chance to beat him. Or that anything less then their best isn't going to be good enough. Federer knows that his B or C game can beat 95% of his opponents. That's an advantage that can't be underestimated. Borg, let's not forget, *lost* that famous 18-16 fourth set tiebreaker and still won the tournament, 8-6 in the fifth set.

Look at it this way, if you buy the argument that Federer's achievements are somehow diminished by his lack of rivals, you also have to accept the possibility that maybe he actually *does* possess rivals the equal of those of other generations.

He's just so good he's kept them from building the resume necessary to even be considered worthy of entering that royal box we saw on Sunday.

Federer stepped onto the biggest stage possible yesterday against the toughest opponent possible. History. And that history wasn't just an idea, it was staring him in the face from the front row. On top of that, he caught the player with the game most capable of catching Federer at Wimbledon at his physical peak, playing better than he ever could have possibly dreamed and matching Federer in the one thing that no one outside of Nadal had ever come close to doing.

Mental toughness.

Federer still won. Nadal might have the potential to give him a tougher match. But he never has. And he'll never get the chance because he didn't get to go after Federer with the weight of history on Roger's shoulders. Roddick did.

Federer still won.

It was enough for Sampras to declare the race over, the debate closed.

And that's enough for me.