The OtherArena

[corrado]

This morning, Roger Federer won his 10th career Grand Slam. This time the Aussie Open:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus07/news/story?id=2744992

This guy is unreal. He's doing things and breaking records nobody can top. I see him doing this for years.

[jdw]

Roger is amazing. It's hard to compare Slams across eras because so many of the great didn't play various Slams back before the late 80s. Borg played a single Aussie, that one when he was 17 years old and *before* his first French Open title. Mac didn't play it until 1983, and the only other time in his prime that he played it was in 1985. Connors skipped if for years after going Winner-Runner Up in back in 1974-75. I don't think Mac and Connors played the French consistently in the 70s either.

Roger has sustained a truly extreme level of dominance as long as anyone has in the game. I don't know if it's a sign of the era (lack of having a Connors-Mac-Borg group at the top), or that one of these other guys would win 6-10 slams if there wasn't a Roger around.

The key is going to be how bored Roger gets. We see it at times within individual matches, where he gets bored for a set or two, then wakes up and blows the opponent off the court.

We've seen Agassi play well late in life - World #1 for a stretch at the age of 33. I think that sometimes tricks us into mis-reading the potential longevity of these guys. The last time Pete finished year end World #1 was in 1998 when he was 27. While he got to #1 as late as November 2000, Pete won just 3 Grand Slams after 1998.

Edberg won his last Slam in 1992 when he was 26, and went to only one final after that. It was also the season where he was World #1 for the last time.

Becker only won a single Slam after the age of 23, and never was World #1 after that.

Borg was through at the age of 25 with 11 Slams. Mac burned out in 1985 at the age of 26. Wilander won his 5th, 6th and 7th in 1988, the last coming at the US Open when he turned 24. Mats won one more title in 1988, and then only one other title in the rest of his career. Courier is another decent example - four Slams, 14 titles and a year end World #1 by the age of 23. He did won another 9 titles after that, but none were Slams, and he never was World #1 again.

I hope Roger doesn't get bored and not only can put the Slam record from Pete's 14 to somewhere close 18-24 that Court, Graf, Moody, Evert and Navratilova won in the women's ranks. Roger's going to need to break through in the French and win it several times to push it that high.


John

[Tomer]

So, with the end of the Grand Slam year, Federer is up to 12 titles, 2 short of Sampras' record. If he can beat Nadal at the French Open, he can potentially become the new record holder at Wimbledon (as well as exceed Borg's consecutive Wimbledon win record in the open era). It's feasible that he could break 20 Grand Slam titles by 30 (assuming that he doesn't fall hard any time soon), which would be something.

[jdw]

Roger is amazing.

There are quality, younger players coming up. Roger happened to beat one of them at Wimbledon, and the other here.

I don't think he has a lot of years of winning three-slams-a-year left. I think Djokovic or Nadal, along with age, injury and fire will slow down the pace a bit.

On the other hand, the young challengers could inspire Roger to pick up his game to a higher dominating level. That's extremely rare - I'm thinking of Martina as the only one to truly do it. She wasn't as dominating as Roger early, but it also was one of the most competative eras that I've ever seen. It forced her to rethink her game and training and desire, and pushed things to a new level.

To some degree in golf that happened to Tiger. Others started elevating their games, and Tiger had a sense that he'd have to take his game somewhere else to dominante. It was a bit of an ugly game as he changed, but coming out the other side is a pretty breathtaking player.


John

[jdw]

Amazing Wimbledon final. Just wonderful.


John

[JAG]

It's easily the best tennis match I've ever seen (post 1990).

I think it might be the best sporting event this decade.

I still believe Roger Federer is the most complete if not best player of all time, but Nadal kind of owns him. He's up 12-6 now.

Has that ever been true in any other sport? A best-ever candidate who struggles so mightily with someone in his era?

Jagdip

[jdw]

Martina and Chris exchanged periods of dominance.

I think the head-to-head is a bit of a boondoggle. 8 of Nadal's wins have come in finals on Clay. To a degree, you have to give credit to Federer for continuing to play on a surface that it's his strength, and do well enough to get to so many finals (10 of his 21 losses in Finals are on clay).

Nadal has gotten to Finals *off* clay just 14 times, just 6 times against Roger (2-4). 7 of 29 his tourney wins off Clay.

Nadal is getting better. But the advantage is largely because Nadal beats him up on Clay, and Roger keeps playing clay to try to get himself ready for the French and both the Career Slam and the Season Slam.

Nadal needs to step up off Clay. He's never made it past the QF in the US, and to the Semis just once in the Aussie. Roger has cleaned his clock in the Masters in the semis each of the last two years (Nadal didn't win his group despite being the top seed in it, forcing the two to face each other in the Semis).

What we're likely to see is Novak Djokovic push Roger on the hardcourts, while Nadal dominates clay until he gets bored of it. The big question, which I think I've yammered about before, is whether Roger will take this to push himself to a higher level. Similar to Martina after the 1980-81 seasons, and Tiger in his "make over". Or if Roger has a higher level.

As far as the best Wimbledon, I'll still go with the 1980 Final. Much more ebb-and-flow, along with the complete contrast in styles and personalities.

The best day of tennis was Super Saturday back at the 1984 US Open... just an amazing, long, thrilling, draining day of tennis. So good that even the "prelim" of the Old Timers Final was wonderfully entertaining.

John

[Hadi]

It was definitely an instant classic, and probably the highest quality tennis I've seen since the epic Sampras-Agassi shootout at the 2001 US Open. Actually, I enjoyed the Goran-Rafter final from that same year as much, or more than this one, mainly cause the crowd was on fire throughout and Goran's storyline (3-time Wimbledon Finals loser, obscenely talented complete head case, washed up wild card entry, torn up left shoulder) was even more incredible.

With that being said, I think Roger can play much better than what he showed today. He really looked flat in the first set, and completely fell asleep at 4-1 up in the 2nd set. He also chunked a number of easy volleys that I've seen him put away hundreds of times over the years. He played incredibly well in the breakers, and at times in the 5th, but even then, he became impatient on some critical points on Nadal's serve and sprayed some forehands.

Federer deserves a lot of credit for not rolling over in the 3rd set though. Coming back against someone like Nadal, who almost never gives away free points, and is so consistently creative with his shot-making is an almost impossible task.

Going forward, I think the number of hard court tournaments Nadal plays will bear watching. That surface is physically brutal for someone who scrambles like he does. I've always thought his window for winning slams is narrow, since age and the inevitable injuries that accompany being a base-liner (see Chang, Rios, and Hewitt as previous examples) who relies on his legs will surely slow him down.

Federer's issue, like John mentioned, will be motivation centered. Once he passes Pete, what will push him from then on? Winning the French surely is a top priority, as is keeping Nadal at bay, and maybe even matching Budge's (edit-and Laver's) feat of the year slam (unlikely at this point).

I do think Roger will win the Open this year though, especially if he can continue to serve like he did for most of this tournament.

-Hadi

[jdw]

Hard to figure a comp for Nadal.

I don't think Chang is a good one - he wasn't remotely as good. Hewit did get to World #1, but it was in that period between Pete and Federer where things were pretty up in the air. He won 6 and 5 of the 20+ tourneys he played each of those years, which isn't exactly dominating. Rios... I always thought he was a bit of a nutter who didn't have a great deal of desire for anything but the good life after his one strong year.

I wonder if Agassi might be a better comp for the talent level. Nadal found his head far earlier than Andre, who got by largely on talent rather than hardwork until his 1998 comeback.

Andre won five of his eight slams after that point.

He did eventually eat a lot of injuries, and his speed faded.

Evert and Connors were baseliners when young, tirelessly chasing down balls. Not as quick as Nadal, but relative to the style when they broke in decently quick. It's probably forgotte by looking at older Chris since there were so many fast younger players by then.

On the other hand... I do agree that Nadal needs to look long term. His serve looks better than Andre's at the same point. He needs to keep improving that, and look for ways to end points *sooner*.

John

[corrado]

Federer lost today at the Olympics and wont get a medal. And he also I think loses the top Men's ranking too. I had no idea Olympic competition counts for the tennis rankings.

[Tomer]

So, Roger gets back on the right track after losing in a stunner to Juan Martín del Potro at the US Open last year, smacking around Andy Murray at the Australian Open finals. With Nadal looking pretty much crippled at this point (with his constant injuries due to his playing style) you have to wonder if Roger will try to go for the single year Grand Slam. Also, if he continues playing at this level for the next few years, he has a good shot of breaking Margaret Court's singles title record of 24 and getting himself a single's Olympic medal in 2012.

[jdw]

He's been helped by Raffy falling apart. Hadi was dead on two years ago about the potential for injury to Raffy given his style, and the impact it would have on his tennis if/when the wheels started to go. I don't think even Hadi expected it to happen so soon, but there it is.

It doesn't really feel like Roger has picked up his game. It's more that the one player who had the mental as well as physical tools to beat him can't anymore. No one else in the game has picked up their game to that level. Djokovic especially seems perfectly happy to stay where he's at, not making a Slam Final since the 2008 Aussie.

I suspect this all will get lost in time as people rate Roger. He's closer to Steffi's run after Monica went down than Martina's return to #1. You could start to see positives for Martina against Chris in the 1981 US Open and Aussie Opens, winning tough wars. By 1982, Martina regained being the dominant #1 playing better than she ever had, though it was Chris' turn to pull the upset in the Aussie Open. Martina came right back to beat here two weeks later in the year end Toyota Championship, then went 86-1 through 1983 and 6-0 against Chrissy, five of which are one sided blow outs.

That's what I still want out of Roger. Instead, he's likely to end up chasing Court like Steffi did. And folks will likely forget how Roger had his number there, much like Monica had Steffi's.

That is part of tennis: you have to stay healthy, and longevity is an element of greatness. But it's also why I rate Martina higher that people who've come since, both female and male. She returned to the top in utterly dominant fashion, and did it by going through someone who in her own right might just have been the greatest of all-time but-for Martina... and she dominated that opponent when she returned to the top. Not just beat, but crushed for close to two years. And continued to get the better of the rivalry when Chrissy picked up her game as well.

But I'm repeating myself. :P

John

[jdw]

Just to be clear: Good for Roger. I do hope for the game that either Raffy comes back at full strength (seems to be getting unlikely) or someone else steps up. The game needs someone to push Roger, or to allow Roger to push himself.

The women's game looks to be helped by Justin coming back. We head to her home court for the next major, so we'll see how strong her comeback is. Getting to the Aussie Final, and pushing SW was a good sign.

John

[guren]

[JAG]

So Nadal continues his unique mastery of the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time at the French Open.

It's Raffa's 10th major, sixth French and he has the Career Slam on his resume.

One of the more interesting rivalries of all time.

Jagdip