|
June 23, 2006
In Defense of Sanity
Trying to Bring Some Perspective to the Rafa-Roger Debate
By David McPherson, The World of Tennis
In the week and a half since Roger Federer came up short in his bid to win a non-calendar Grand Slam and Rafael Nadal
showed beyond a doubt who is the world's best clay-court player, there
has been an unusually large amount of headline-grabbing remarks about
the world's two best players - some of them more edifying than others.
Before
the tennis world turns its attention to the next Grand Slam, I thought
I'd look at a few of the more controversial statements and give my two
cents worth.
1.
Considering Nadal's domination of his head-to-head series with Federer,
it's no longer clear that the Swiss is the best player of his era.
I
said it before the French Open final and I'll say it again - the
head-to-head record between these two is very misleading. Nadal has won
six of their seven meetings, but four of Rafa's wins have been on the
Spaniard's favorite surface and Federer's least favorite. While it's
true that Nadal has also won two of three on hardcourt, I put this down
to the fact that this is an uncomfortable matchup for Roger. Recall
that he also struggled for a while with both David Nalbandian
and Lleyton Hewitt, also known for their excellent counterpunching.
Also, people always point out how close Nadal is to being 7-0 against
Federer, but the Swiss was also very close to winning two of the
matches he lost (Dubai and Rome 2006). The point is that head-to-head
records are always misleading. If Nadal had played the majority of his
matches against James Blake or Hewitt on
clay, he almost surely wouldn't be trailing in his head-to-head with
those players. Head-to-head records have also never been used as the
main basis for comparing two all-time greats, so why start now? Federer
has won seven Slams to Rafa's two and finished No. 1 in the world the
past two years, and he is headed for a third straight No. 1 finish.
Nadal, as great a player as he is, has never made it to the
quarterfinals of any Slam outside the French.
2. Federer had "no balls" in the French Open final.
With
all due respect to an all-time great like Mats Wilander, not even he is
qualified to take a pot shot like that at Federer. There's a world of
difference between being No. 3 or 4 in the world and a possible
contender for a Grand Slam title and being "the man" at every single
tournament the entire year. Wilander, as successful as he was, was
simply not under that type of a microscope. As for Federer's
performance in the final, I still haven't heard a reasonable
explanation for what Roger was supposed to do. He was having a world of
trouble with his topspin backhand and that is simply fatal on clay
against someone as solid and heavy-hitting as Rafa. It wasn't an option
for the Swiss to just start charging the net or hitting mostly slice
backhands. Bottom line: he had to hit that topspin backhand like he did
in Rome. His inability to do so made beating Nadal all but impossible
on the day.
3. Federer still hasn't shown the guts to win when he can't roll over people with his elegant, effortless game
I
thought we were past all this nonsense. There's no such thing as a
7-time Grand Slam champion who isn't also a phenomenal competitor with
an incredible will to win. If anything, the French final was further
proof of Federer's fighting spirit. On a day when he couldn't hit a
backhand in the court, was probably battling nerves and was up against
one of the greatest clay-court players of all time, he still found a
way to come back in the fourth set and force a final-set tiebreaker.
Again and again, tournament after tournament, Federer finds ways to win
matches when he's not playing well or come from behind and nearly win
when the situation looks hopeless (Note especially the Rome final
against Nadal and the Master's Cup final against Nalbandian).
4. Federer has been anointed as a great all-time player too quickly
Yes,
Pat Cash actually said this. I don't know what part of "7 Grand Slam
titles" the Australian doesn't understand, but that's more than Boris
Becker and Stefan Edberg and as many as John McEnroe and Wilander. And
he's only 24. No, the guy is not overrated.
Finally, on a related note:
5. Nadal's the only player who doesn't just bow down to Federer.
Again,
this was a Wilander quote. I really did like Mats as a player, but I'm
glad I don't have to hear his commentary all the time. Players are not
lying or bowing down to Federer!! Andy Roddick fights, Fernando Gonzalez
fights, Nicolas Massu fights, Nicolas Kiefer fights. Come to think of
it, in every match I've ever seen Federer play, the other player is
giving his best effort to pull off the win of his career. Of course,
they don't have the game that Nadal has, especially on clay.
If they did, I guess they would look a lot more mentally tough than
what people give them credit for. Now, don't get me wrong. Nadal is an
amazing competitor and certainly a large part of his success is
attributable to that, but I do find it ironic that some of the other
players that have had some big wins against Roger - Marat Safin, David Nalbandian and Richard Gasquet come to mind - are all known much more for their uncommon talent than their phenomenal mental strength and competitive fire.
OK, enough ranting for one day!
|
