When It's All Said And Done
Will Roger Federer be considered the greatest men's tennis player of all time? Granted, the 23-year old Swiss has a long way to go to catch up with the likes of Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, and Pete Sampras, having bagged only four grand slam titles to date vs. double digits for the others. Yet, he is on a 26-match winning streak, won three of the four majors last year, and has completely separated himself from the rest of the tour.
I saw him play live in the semis of last year's U.S. Open. It was a privilege. Where Andre Agassi is a great player and Andy Roddick obliterates opponents, they are chuckers compared to Federer, who plays sublime tennis. He moves with grace and has a complete game without one discernable flaw. He is quite simply the best tennis player I have seen in twenty-plus years of watching the sport.
Rod Laver does not exaggerate when he says that Federer could win the grand slam. He is so far above his peers, if you even call them that, that I can easily see him eventually ranking above all who preceded him.
Comments
Frankly, I always thought that they named Star Trek's Borg after Bjorn. As good and as dominant as Federer is, I think that he's got a ways to go to catch late-seventies vintage Borg.
But that's probably an unfair comparison I'm making. In thirty years, the game has completely changed.
On an unrelated note, over on the blogroll, I spy links to yin and taco shop psychic, both of which are officially defunct.
Posted by: Chad | January 27, 2005 09:11 AM
In a stunning development, at least in my books, Federer lost to Marat Safin in a five-set thriller. Re: Borg, he played ethereal tennis, too. White-collar tennis to McEnroe’s and Connor’s blue-collar game. But you’re right that it’s hard to compare players across generations because of the changes in the game. Still, even with today’s loss, I get the sense that Federer, like Pete Sampras, is playing more against history than his contemporaries.
Posted by: Jon | January 27, 2005 06:39 PM