Calling any sportsman or sportswoman the best ever is an inexact science. But surely now, Roger Federer has a pretty strong case to be thus labelled. Overnight he has won is seventh Wimbledon singles title, and his 17th Grand Slam tournament. And in doing so, he is once again atop the ITP World Rankings; The Guardian reports:
Anyone who cannot spare a drop of sympathy for Andy Murray in defeat at the hands of Roger Federer in this enthralling Wimbledon final either does not recognise genius or should be earning a living in a merchant bank. And anyone who can make his mother cry with a consolation speech of the quality he delivered to a transfixed Centre Court after three hours and 24 minutes of such spirit-draining effort is, as he described himself recently, "a pretty nice person".He is also a pretty good tennis player – but on Sunday not quite good enough to beat Federer, who faltered at the start with the sun beating down, then thrived after the rain forced the match under the roof, to win 4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4.It is doubtful if anyone could have matched him in this mood and form: not Novak Djokovic, whom he beat handsomely in the semi-finals on Friday and displaces as world No1 just a month shy of his 31st birthday; maybe not even Pete Sampras, his hero, whose mark of seven Wimbledon titles he has equalled, to go with the 10 other grand slams he has won. As for that British ghost from the past who is still riding on Murray's back, Fred Perry, he lived almost in another sport. As Boris Becker said later: "Murray played like a champion. There is no shame in losing to Roger Federer."
We reckon that Federer's win overnight cements his place as one of the best players ever, and quite probably the very best. His rivals for that accolade would be Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver.
On statistics alone, Federer has won more Grand Slams than any other man. He and Sampras are tied with the most Wimbledon titles, and Federer is set to beat Sampras' record for most weeks at number one in the world rankings.
Many were writing Federer off a couple of seasons ago when he stopped winning slams. As his star descended, those of Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic were in the ascendancy. But Federer showed at Wimbledon that there is still life left in the old dog. His performances against Djokovic in the semi-final and against Andy Murray in last night's final were dominant, and right up there with his best.
What sets Federer apart from the current crowd however is his respect for the game. He dresses immaculately, and traditionally. He on-court demeanour is almost always of a high standard. He is a gracious loser, but more importantly, he is a gracious winner as well.
10 comments:
I know I'm suspended, but who cares?
Yep, he was the best ever before this, and this is just some more icing on the cake. Most GS titles, most GS finals, and semis, career grand slam, most consecutive finals, most consecutive semis, every quarter final for over eight years, three slams in a year three times, all four finals three times, most match wins in grand slams, most weeks at no 1, most consecutive weeks at no.1 most year end finals wins. No one else is even close, and he's not done.
If he's not the GOAT there is no GOAT.
One of the greatest and always enjoyable to watch playing - style and quality
Notwithstanding my oft-stated contention that Tennis is obviously a girls' game, can you call him the greatest if he's never won the French open?
Borg dominated grass and clay...
@ James - Federer won the French Open in 2009, so he has a career Slam of the Slams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer
Fair enough. I'll go back to ignoring the silly game for the next 50 weeks as all good Brits do.
While I question the extreme adulation and earnings of some sports stars, especially tennis and golf, I admire how Federer conducts himself and he is respected by players and audiences alike.
I don't disagree with your suggestion that he is the greatest tennis player ever but offer some alternative views.
Using a system of ranking players according to the number of high level games won over their entire career, Conners comes out on top: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/624893-jimmy-connors-named-best-male-tennis-player-of-all-time
It is hard to compare male and female tennis players but Martina Navratilova has won 18 Grand Slams, 167 singles titles, 177 doubles titles, 20 Wimbledon tiles, the longest winning streak (74 consecutive matches) and is the only tennis of either sex to have won eight different tournaments at least seven times. She won her 41st Grand Slam doubles title (US Open) in the mixed doubles in 2006 just one month from turning 50.
Navratilova?! I mean, I know I'm on shakey ground in light of my Bradley Wiggins post, but we know that drug testing in tennis is a joke now, it was non-existent in MN's day.
Ever wonder how a 50 year old woman can have that kind of muscle-mass?
James-Jimmy Connors had a similar long career 69-96, was he a drug taker too? I think tennis is a game less influenced by muscle mass than general fitness and technique. It is hard to compare athletes of different sexes because the intensity and level of consistency of competition can be greater for men. Connors did beat Navratilova in a "battle of the sexes" when Connors was some years older than MN and he had some predetermined handicaps, like having only one serve.
Don't know enough about Connors, but I could name several top players that I think are today. Do you wonder why, especially in the womens game, players jump from nowhere to win majors?
Tennis requires power, aerobic fitness and technique, which goes to the pack pretty quickly when you get tired. It's hard to imagine a game more suited to drug assistance.
The tennis authorities appear to test losers at competitions and no one out of competition, when drugs are most useful.
Shouldn't the Greens call for an inquiry?
Yes.
Post a Comment