|
September 10, 2006
Only history stands in Federer's way
By Art Spander, CBS SportsLine.com
NEW YORK -- History is his only opponent, and history, similar to his rivals, doesn't stand much chance. He's the best now. He may be the best ever.
Another Grand Slam for Roger Federer, the young Swiss master, so graceful, so powerful, so successful.
Another Grand Slam, nine in all, and with so much tennis to be played, and with so many years remaining in his career, the probability is the 25-year-old Federer will win more than Pete Sampras' record of 14.
The man on the other side of the net this time was the rebounding Andy Roddick, who had regained assurance and picked up a down-the-line backhand, who three years ago won the U.S. Open but Sunday really only was a foil against Federer.
With his 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 victory in the Open, Federer became the first person ever to double up at Wimbledon and the Open for at least three consecutive years. He's taken Wimbledon the last four years, the Open the last three.
He also has won five of the last six Grand Slams, a loss to Rafael Nadal in the French Open final in June the only imperfection.
When some misguided journalist asked Roddick if Federer was a step above everybody else in tennis, Andy shook his head and said, "That's obvious, isn't it?"
This was followed by a rather illogical observation that it's tough to beat Federer, Andy saying, "We know the answer to that, don't we?"
Absolutely.
He's as tough to beat as golfer Tiger Woods, who with his wife, Elin, was in the Federer viewing box at Arthur Ashe Stadium.
"More and more often in the last year or so, I've been kind of compared to Tiger ... so I asked him how it was for him," Federer said. "Many things were similar. He knew exactly how I felt out on the court ... how it feels to be invincible at times.
"We've been trying to meet on several occasions. He promised me to come if I'm in the finals. So I had some pressure."
Pressure is what Federer applies. He has that wicked passing shot, that brilliant backhand and a serve so big that it gets him out of what little trouble he may encounter, a serve that against Roddick was responsible for 17 aces. Andy, a noted server himself, had only seven.
"I think his ability to play big points," was a Roddick explanation when someone wondered why Federer is a champion. "I think he sees the court a little bit differently."
All the great ones, whatever the sport, have that ability. One remembers John Robinson, then coaching the Los Angeles Rams, marveling at the performances of San Francisco quarterback Joe Montana, saying, "I wonder what he sees that we don't see."
The whole of Federer is greater than the sum of the parts.
"I don't know if you can boil it down to two or three things," Roddick said. "I think his movement's underrated, and what he can do with his hands is unparalleled."
Roddick was pleased with his own tournament, the past several weeks under the gaze and advice of Jimmy Connors practically disinterring a game that had sunk far below the surface.
Sure, he lost the first five games of the first set to Federer, but Roddick did win the second set and had a chance to win the third. A chance, as if in the great scheme against a great player or a great team that ever matters. Then, in the fourth set, Federer once more was the dominator, as in the first set winning the first five games.
"It was a pretty high level of tennis," Roddick said, "especially in those middle sets. There wasn't much between us. I had some break-point opportunities there in the third and played some decent points. I competed hard. Disappointed but proud of the two weeks that I had here."
If he was disappointed Tiger was with the other guy's support group, well, Roddick was somewhat diplomatic, if not fully diplomatic.
"Um ... I didn't really notice until they showed him (on the video screens)," Roddick said. "But he's a big boy. That's his decision."
A month ago, when Tiger won his 12th major, the PGA, it was suggested he might be the best athlete ever, which he isn't, although he might be the best competitor ever. Then earlier this week, James Blake, following a quarterfinal loss to Federer, said Roger might be the best athlete ever. And he could be.
"He's definitely earned the right to be in that discussion without it being much a stretch at all," Roddick agreed. "He's a hell of a tennis player, and a hell of an athlete."
And one without a false sense of modesty.
"I look at the tournament as a whole," Federer said. "I played absolutely fantastic. I played great shots every match."
He lost only two sets during the Open, both to Americans, one to Blake, one to Roddick.
"You can say the gap is closing," Federer said when someone wondered about the other players.
"But at the same time, I'm playing so well and consistent it's going to be hard for them to pass me at the moment."
Or for a long, long while.
|
