Federer’s upset at Wimbledon: Is it the end of an era?

Federer and Nadal have endured a reputable rivalry that is phenomenal and enthralling in all aspects especially the quality of the games; the off pitch tranquility and friendship. Both are immensely gifted tennis players, endowed enough to be touted as the “greatest” in real terms. After Nadal’s marathon victory at Wimbledon on the rain threaded Sunday July 6 2008, on grass, opinions have been sprayed from all corners. Boris Becker’s comments stirred the most commotion. “Whoever wins the French opens and Wimbledon in the same year for me is the number one in the world”, from a former three-time champion was a bit unexpected, though predictable. Referring to the ATP ranking, he continued, “The computer just didn’t get it yet”.

It is true that Nadal’s feat is entirely Herculean. The last person to do so was Bjorn Borg in 1980, almost three decades ago. In Roger, this generation of tennis lovers is distinguished by having a player that done enough to rise to a level where the tag of the “greatest” is fathomable. But the likes of Becker populate a personality landscape seemingly unwilling to accommodate a greater greatness. Last year he stated that it was too “premature” to ever consider Federer as the greatest; that he needed to play at this level for a couple of years. To some extent I agree with the essence of that statement. It is obviously too early because he is still an active player dominating the tennis stratosphere.

Even the suggestion that he is on the decline is untenable and largely ridiculous. It is humanly impossible to play at the standard he has set for himself. Surprisingly, he has done it for so long that we now take it for granted. An occasional dip, even if prolonged is inevitable, but should not arouse negative speculations. No one on an apocalyptic decline would refuse to buckle and participate in a match described by none other than John McEnroe as the “the greatest we have ever seen”. The 6 – 12 head to head in favor of Nadal does not in any way infer superiority. It is more of a manifestation of the mental disparity in the zeal to win. While one is effortlessly pumped up to achieve victory at all cost, even if it means serving only to the backhand, the other is effortless willing to allow his share ability to prevail.

Nadal is the undisputed king of clay, but tennis on that surface is like playing soccer on a flooded pitch. To conclude that Nadal’s momentum is startling huge enough to whip the world’s number one in a few months and put an end to an era is more emotion than certainty. What makes Federer special is how easily he has turned his phenomenal achievement into a walk along the park. It is so tempting to underrate his achievements and shear excellence because he makes it look so easy, as if we can all reproduce it. He will be 27 next month, a lot of years to attain two feats; surpass Sampras’ 14 grand slam haul and win the French opens. On that day he would wake away from the cheering with the eternal tag of the greatest. Only time appears to curtail this reality.