Wimbledon started today. Or as they seemed to have renamed it: The Roger Federer Greatest of All Time London Open. The dominant theme here in America is that Roger is a mortal lock to win and that he righted his Ship of State on his own and will rightfully surpass Pete Sampras and retake the #1 ranking and he’s the swellest guy who ever was and….
Wait just a damn minute here. This is all pretty stunning reversal for people who thought he was DOA three months ago. I was sort of in that camp. But I was in it for a reason: that man cannot beat Rafael Nadal. The Australian Open shocker confirmed it. He is one ounce of knee cartilage away from having to answer an eternally fascinating question: can he be the GOAT if he cannot beat his greatest rival???
Rafael is not here. He was not healthy at the French. As this space reflects, I had nothing but praise for Roger in Paris. I spent a ridiculous amount of time compiling links of his prowess on the tennis court. Roger certainly proved his grit. He would’ve won there before 09… barring Nadal’s emergence.
Yes, it always comes back to that. I’m not the only one who thinks so, either. Jim Courier has been one of the only commentators who has been vocal about what Roger’s breakdown in Australia cost him. It seeped into his game against other players, and his record in February, March and April proved it. He’s awfully confident now though, and he should be. His nemesis, the one who flooded his brain with doubt, is not here.
I can hear what you’re saying, “Roger can only play who’s in the tournament, not who isn’t.” This is true, but it isn’t an argument. It reminds me of the argument baseball freaks have about the Negro Leagues vs. Babe Ruth Et. Al.
- “Babe didn’t really face the best players in the Negro Leagues.”
- The Babe apologists say, “well it wasn’t his fault, he didn’t keep non-whites out of the league, so how can you hold it against him?”
There are more than two sides to every argument. In the case of baseball, both sides are right. Of course it isn’t Ruth’s fault that baseball was segregated. But that doesn’t change that he did not face the best competition available. It matters. The question is one of degree. Weighing the factors isn’t “holding it against him.” (It’s totality of the circumstances, they use that test in law for a reason)
This is the same argument we have in tennis over Roger & Rafa & GOAT. (Sorry for the Animal House imagery there) When asked if Roger was GOAT, Mary Carillo said it best moments after he accepted the French Open trophy. “I’ll reserve judgment.” That’s the only prudent thing to do.
There is so much tennis to be played this week, so much to talk about, that we deserve to watch it without constant Roger suck up for the next 13 days. That’s all I’m saying. Especially when not one word is uttered about the power and brilliance of the man he might be passing, Mr. Pete Sampras. Let’s enjoy Roger’s matches and watch it unfold.
Yes I’m a Sampras fan – at least my biases are on the table. I’m also the person who quoted, with approval, large chunks of DFW’s essay Roger Federer as Religious Experience. Which, by the way, Roger was asked about in his presser on Day 1. Bias does not always equal prejudice.
Passing Shots 
Posted on June 23, 2009
0