This year's Wimbledon is a significant one. It's the 10th anniversary of Roger Federer's first of five straight victories at the All-England club, which was also the first of his record 17 Grand Slam titles. In 2003, a legend was born. Some may argue that he's no longer the elite player he once was, but there's no debate that Roger Federer is the Greatest of All-Time.
Roger's record speaks for itself. Five consecutive Wimbledon wins AND five consecutive US Open wins (which overlapped for four years). A career Grand Slam that was made complete with that incredible and ultra-satisfying French Open victory in 2009. More weeks at No. 1 than anyone in history. His remarkable streaks of 10 straight Grand Slam finals (and another one of eight right after that), 23 straight semis and 36 straight quarters (which is still active). Think about that last one for a second, nine straight years without missing the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam tournament!
I point to that as my argument against anybody who wants to talk about Roger's "decline." Is he the same player he once was? Definitely not. But is he anywhere close to done? The answer to that question is also a resounding "No!"
And let's keep some perspective. When compared to anyone other than Roger Federer circa 2004-09, the 2011-13 version of Roger Federer is still pretty damn good. He's ranked third in the world, is still a contender at every Grand Slam, and rarely loses to anyone outside the Top 10. I'm pretty sure anybody would take that. The problem is, Roger Federer is always compared to his own lofty standards. He's a victim of his own success.
If Roger's proved anything over the past couple years it's that (a) he's mortal and (b) what he did from 2004-09 was simply extraordinary. Much like his friend Tiger Woods, Roger in his prime was doing things that are simply unattainable for everyone else. It's not fair to expect anyone to live up to such a high standard for so long. We took Roger Federer winning Grand Slams for granted. Once it stopped happening regularly, we gained even more of an appreciation for how difficult it is to win one Grand Slam, let alone 17! And that's why it was so wonderful to see him finally win the French Open in 2009. And when he got back to the summit last year at Wimbledon.
Then there are the other two guys who make up the Big Three: Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. You can point to them as two more, very real reasons why Roger Federer isn't dominating Grand Slam tennis the way he used to. When Roger was Roger, there was him, then there was everybody else. Now you have three of the greatest players of all-time creating three of tennis's all-time great rivalries. Federer's sustained greatness is the very reason why Djokovic and Nadal have become so great themselves. In order to beat him, everybody else had to raise their game. As a result, men's tennis has never been stronger.
It's no coincidence that there ascent corresponds to Federer's so-called "decline." Roger would certainly have a few more Grand Slam trophies on his mantle if not for Nadal, who's beaten him in a final six! times. Djokovic, meanwhile, is by far the best player in the sport right now. You can add to that mix Andy Murray, the sleeping giant who was awakened in the Olympic gold medal match, when he denied Roger the only thing his career is lacking before going on to win the US Open. The "Big Three" is now a "Big Four." And let's not forget Federer's own personal kryptonite: Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who's taken over for Murray as the "next big thing."
But heed this warning, underestimate Roger Federer at your own risk. Some people thought is days of winning Grand Slams were over. Entering last year's Wimbledon, it had been two-and-a-half years since he had, during which time he'd only made one Grand Slam final. Not only did he win Wimbledon again, he used it as the launch pad for an amazing summer that saw him get back to No. 1, another thing that some had thought would never happen again. So to say Roger's days of winning Grand Slams are behind him is a vast exaggeration.
And even if Wimbledon 2012 does end up being his last career Grand Slam title, so what? Is that going to somehow diminish everything he's accomplished? If Djokovic or Nadal (or both) eventually catches him for most Grand Slam titles, does that make his career any less spectacular? Finally, is this "diminished" Roger Federer any less captivating to watch?
I'll never stop appreciating Roger Federer's greatness. Or his understated professionalism. He doesn't need to win another Grand Slam title to be my favorite tennis player. No matter how much longer he decides to keep playing (my guess is he'll stick around until at least 2016 and take one last shot at that Olympic gold), Roger Federer's still going to be Roger Federer. Even if that's a shell of the Roger Federer we see today, which is a shell of the Roger Federer we saw five years ago, that's OK.
He's got nothing left to prove. But knowing Roger, he'll still go out and prove something anyway, just to show he still can. In fact, I've got a feeling that he'll go out the same way as the man he succeeded as the Greatest of All-Time. In the final match of his career, Pete Sampras won the 2002 US Open. The legends always seem capable of conjuring up one last moment of glory. Although, Roger Federer's is still a long way away. He's got plenty more moments in him.
No comments:
Post a Comment