Any followed it at all? Darn today I wish I hadn’t canceled my cable subs.
Anyway, with all the discussions on who is the current best sportsman, Federer is it. 8 consecutive grand slam final. Only the french open is missing. And Nadal is amazing on clay…81 consecutive games won (serie interrupted by Federer) and he has never lost a match at the French open…
I watched the first set and a half, but then had to get out on my bike. Nadal/Federer is a great rivalry and yesterday was a fantastic match (at least what I saw of it). I was really hoping Federer would take it. I guess he’ll have to try again next year.
I watched, but was bothered by the fact that Nadal is a doper . . . allegedly, and tennis doesn’t seem to care at all about his link to Oreration Puerto. Of all the majors, having incredible stamina is of the utmost importance at the French Open. Watching the match, Federer looked gassed and Nadal looked fresh the entire time. He also has the most muscular build of any tennis player I’ve ever seen.
And wearing capris instead of tennis shorts is so guh . . . not macho.
Federer will never be considered the “greatest” until he can win consistently on clay, and especially in the only Grand Slam event he has trouble at, mon ami.
Regards,
T.
I would buy your argument more if he were getting knocked out in the 4th round, quarters, etc., but Federer is reaching the final every time, only to meet up with possibly the greatest clay courter. Federer is the 2nd best clay courter out there, by not that huge a margin(he did take down Nadal a few weeks ago), and he is the best on all other surfaces by quite a large margin. If anyone other than Nadal came through that side of the draw, do you think Federer would not be the champ?
Unlike Sampras, Federer is in the final each year.
I will just say that, he is already the greatest tennis player ever. Period.
And he is not even 26 yet.
I have to disagree. He hasn’t won the Grand Slam yet, and that seems to be the clear benchmark for true “greatest-ness” in the sport of tennis.
Regards,
T.
He hasn’t won the Grand Slam yet, and that seems to be the clear benchmark for true “greatest-ness” in the sport of tennis.
By this measure only the following sinlges players have reached the level of “great-ness”:
Don Budge (1938)
Rod Laver (1962 & 1969)
Maureen Connolly (1953)
Margaret Smith Court (1970)
Steffi Graf (1988)
.
That sounds about right. If you don’t have a clearcut standard, the term “great” becomes cheapened and devalued. He should, if he can keep up his brilliance, go into the Hall of Fame in Newport, Rhode Island. But to be an immortal requires a bit more, n’cest pas?
Regards,
T.
I think your standard is very high. I am not sure that I would exclude all other male tennis players from the rank of “great.”
Why do you hate greatness?
The only reason Federer is winning so many matches is because there aren’t any really good American tennis players right now. Just wait until Lance picks up a racquet.
Seriously though, to those who try to measure “greatness”, every era has its own measure of what is “great”. The standard of greatness is simply how much better than your contemporaries an athlete is, and in today’s era, Federer and Nadal are it on the mens side, same as McEnroe and Connors were, and Ashe, and Borg were in previous eras. To say that an athlete is only great because they won the Grand Slam is rather silly. I don’t think anyone can really say that Navratilova wasn’t a great player.
I think we should make them play with wooden rackets that have a sweetspot the size of a nickel again. Then we’ll see who is truly great.
no spaghetti strings though…
sweetspot the size of a nickel.
You’re being generous, aren’t you. My old one didn’t have a sweet spot, at least not after it warped.
I’m assuming those things have a sweet spot. I can’t prove it though. I’d be lucky just to avoid making contact with the lumber those things were made from.
Federer has won 10 Grand Slam titles in 32 attempts. He wins 1/3rd of the time. He is the first player since 1988 to win 3 of the 4 Slam titles in one year, and the only man to ever do that twice. He’s the only man to ever win both the US Open and Wimbledon 3 years in a row. He is 2nd only to Laver in consecutive Grand Slam match wins, and holds the outright record for consecutive weeks ranked #1. He also holds the record for having been named the World Sportsman of the Year 3 times. He won his first 7 Grand Slam finals, eclisping the previous mark of…3. He’s the only guy ever to have won 3 different Grand Slams at least 3 times each.
If he’s not “great” then no one is.
I like to look at it this way: For three years now, Oz, Wimbledon and the US Open conversation have been “Who’s Federer going to beat in the final?”, and the French has been “When Federer and Nadal meet in the final…” He’s not great because he only plays for the title on his weakest suface, whereas it’s a foregone conlcusion in the other tournaments.
Popl who say Federer isn’t great would also find a way to say Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky and Tiger Woods aren’t great either.
Has he won the French Open or not? How can one be considered “the greatest” (Francois’ characterization of Federer) if one can’t win, as yet, one of the four premier tennis tournaments in the world?
Regards,
T.
If you’d said the US Open or even Wimbledon, I might agree, but the French is a notorious surface and has derailed some of the greatest players. I think most fans would reject your characterization, based on your definition, of Rod Laver as the greatest. BTW, Sampras never once made it into the finals of the French.
Since there is no objective benchmark, there’s no way, or need of course, to convince you, but it’s reasonable to feel differently.