It was June 2001. The All England Lawn Tennis
Club was gearing up for another day of the Wimbledon Championships. The
top-seeded Pete Sampras was to face 15th seeded Roger Federer in the fourth
round.
As the day dawned, few would have realised this
was the dawn of another era in tennis. Everyone expected Pete Sampras to glide
through the draw. Nearing the age of 30, Sampras had eased past his first three
opponents with grace. Everyone expected Pete to humble the up-and-coming
19-year-old Roger Federer with ease.
Winning one more Grand Slam may be an
over-achievement for Federer at this stage of his career.
Although it was hard to assimilate that history
was made on that day and an epoch in modern tennis came to an end, the
spectators managed to come to terms with it. But, what escaped them was
underlying significance of a match that had irrevocably altered the course of
history and that in two years’ time, they would come to love and worship the
very same man who had dislodged their hero from his pedestal.
Who would have known that was the day the world
of tennis would get a new star. After an extraordinary five sets, the
19-year-old Swiss had defeated the man who was probably the most formidable
player at the net, an extraordinary server and above all, the greatest player
of that era.
Every great team has a downfall, a successor. Someone
was destined to take over from this man who had until then been immortal on
these courts.
The same crowd would, after two years, cheered
for the ebullient Swiss. This time it was Philippoussis on the receiving end.
Great players often get carried away by their achievements that they fail to
realise the change of times. Philippoussis was one such man. Federer, on the
other hand, was the epitome of calmness on a tennis court, someone who valued
dignity higher than anger.
Federer’s entry into the mainstream was at a time
when the Serve and Volley game was nearing the grave, while the physical
baseline game was waiting for its coronation. Federer, however, was ill-suited
to both. He was a different player. He was a man who controlled the game with
his amazing touch. The way he won the Wimbledon final was inspiring.
Although he lost the US Open, he returned to win
the Australian Open, defeating Marat Safin with consummate ease in the final.
While Federer’s game was suited to synthetic and grass courts, clay was one
surface that would haunt him for long. He lost in the 3rd round in the
following year’s French Open.
Federer returned to his favourite hunting ground,
the place where he had announced himself to the world, the hallowed grass
courts at the All England Lawn Tennis Club. Federer, yet again, proved his
mettle as he just lost two sets throughout the tournament. The silky Swiss had
established himself as the the best player in the world. Experts believed he
would go on to rule the tennis world for the next decade. Everyone was sure
that he would be the numero uno for the next decade. They had never seen such
an amazing player.
But fate thought otherwise.
Every great tale has an antagonist. Every great
man had a rival. Pele had Maradona, McEnroe had Bjorn Borg, Albus Dumbledore
had Lord Voldemort, Shane Warne had Muttiah Muralitharan, Allen Border had
Sunil Gavaskar, Albert Einstein had Niels Bohr. Federer was destined to have
one, someone who would master him and dominate the then-unbeatable Swiss.
Unfortunately for Roger Federer, this rival came
earlier than expected, in the form of Rafael Nadal. It was the 2005 French
Open. Rafael Nadal was seeded 4th after winning the Monte Carlo Masters, but
not many expected him to win the title. He was the villain waiting in the
shadows to be unleashed.
He had already beaten Federer once, but everyone
believed that was due to Federer’s foot injury and was supported by the fact
Federer beat him again immediately. But the French Open semifinal was the day
when the world recognised Nadal’s calibre. He had defeated Federer in straight
sets with a supreme display of athleticism and courage. Federer looked clueless
against a ferocious Spaniard who was determined to finish on the winning side.
Sampras had been untouchable for seven years,
with only Agassi rivalling him, but Roger Federer’s pinnacle at the top was cut
short by this raging Spaniard who bullied his way past opponents. His very face
showed his indomitable spirit, extreme courage and a burning desire to win. But
he was a young man, who had his weaknesses, and could not dominate the game.
The beleaguered Swiss took advantage of this and sealed many titles during
Nadal’s rapid growth into an equal for Roger Federer.
Just like Pete Sampras, Roland Garros remained a
tad too far for the Swiss, who had so convincingly won on the green grass for 5
years in a row. Rafael Nadal was getting stronger by the day and no one could
beat him in the following French Opens. The Spaniard had played to his
strengths in the French Open, but had not exploited the Swiss’ weaknesses at
Wimbledon. That was the reason Federer won the Wimbledon for 5 years in a row.
Furthermore, Nadal was uncomfortable with high bouncing courts and courts where
he couldn’t use his pace to the maximum. Grass only helped this cause.
The Swiss had not changed with the modern times.
He had not adopted to the changing physical game. He still played what was a
transition between the serve and volley and the modern baseline game. That was
a mistake that cost him many titles. Federer never was a great mover on the
court and he never did attempt to become one. He would always stick on to his
strategy and would always toy with his opponents. But Nadal was not one to be
toyed with. Nadal’s power, pace and stamina easily outmatched Federer’s slow,
precision and technique-based game.
Federer was class. He played with grace, elegance
and had the touch of a genius. He would glissade his way past opponents who
would look clueless against his magic. His intricate forehands, the delicate
dropshots, the backhand winners were something to be admired. But in sports,
very rarely did grace win over athleticism. Brian Lara was an elegant player,
but Sachin, who did not possess what Lara did, always prevailed over Lara.
Rafael Nadal, on the other hand, was an
embodiment of athleticism, a livewire on the court, someone who was equivalent
to a raging bull in terms of determination, courage, passion. He had the
burning desire to win and every shot he hit was like a bullet. Federer
virtually had no answer to this. Rafael Nadal, on his day, would just shatter
Federer to nothing. His mere presence on the courts intimidated the opponent.
Just after Nadal came another face that would
trouble Federer. This time it was the Australian Open. Experts and fans were
looking for another classic Federer-Nadal final, with many believing Federer
would win due to Nadal being ill-equipped on hard courts.
But again, fate had decided something contrary to
that.
Two new faces emerged out of the blues to shine
in the tournament. One was Jo-Wilfried Tsonga who announced his arrival by
sending Murray home in the first round. The next was Djokovic. Although not a
new face, few expected the 21-year old Serbian third seed to win the
tournament. He defeated Federer in straight sets in the semifinal with an
exuberant display of strength, stamina and athleticism. This had marked the
arrival of a new rival to Federer.
As the dayd progressed, Federer’s life on the
tour became increasingly tough. Andy Murray, another of the new breed of
physical baseliners, had established a better head-to-head record against
Federer.
The 2008 French Open was another tournament which
had Nadal’s name etched all over it. Every Federer fan hoped for a change of
name on the Roland Garros trophy but that seemed a far-fetched dream to
Federer. Clay was never Federer’s forte but Nadal’s domination of Federer in
the final seemed like Federer would never pick up a tennis racquet again.
Rafael Nadal had demolished and humiliated Roger Federer in the final with a
straight sets victory.
He was just the proverbial mile away from
achieving greatness. Between him and greatness was only the title at tennis’s
own colosseum.
Federer had won the last 5 times at the All
England Lawn Tennis Club and was bidding to equal William Renshaw’s record of 6
consecutive titles. Federer had danced his way into the final and Nadal had
bullied his way by destroying all his opponents with equal ease. Many were
doubtful whether Federer would win after seeing him dominated by Nadal in the
French Open but still they maintained that Federer would prevail on his
favourite surface. He was unbeaten at the Wimbledon for 41 matches when the final
came.
What turned out on that day was one of the
greatest matches in the history of tennis and the longest ever Wimbledon final,
lasting for 4 hrs 48 min. Rafael Nadal had defeated the magnificent Roger
Federer for the first time in Wimbledon as Federer made an unforced error on
Nadal’s fifth match point. That match remains as one of the best ever witnessed
in the open era. That day signalled the shift of regime from the exuberant
Swiss to the blustering Spaniard.
Nadal had shown himself to be one of the best
players of the open era. He was at the peak of his career and playing the best
tennis. When Nadal was on form, no one could go anywhere near him which is
warranted by the record number of Masters Titles held by Nadal.
But, every man has a demon.
Nadal had one too. No, in fact two.
Nadal’s old demons started haunting him. For
long, his shoulder and knees were never quite okay. But during all these days
it didn’t really trouble him. But the high amount of topspin on his serve and
his straight arm forehand started troubling his shoulders. Nadal was unabashed,
he continued playing with full vigour. However, he lost the US Open semifinal
to Andy Murray. Federer had eased his way into the final. Andy Murray, who then
had a better head-to-head record against Federer, could not prevent him from
claiming his 5th US Open. Still, this was seen only as a consolation for the
Wimbledon loss.
Nadal however, returned strong in the Australian
Open. He defeated Federer in five sets in the final that left Federer in tears
in the post-match speech. One thing was visible, age was catching up on
Federer.
2009 would go on to be an important year for
Federer and a forgettable one for Nadal. After he had won his first Australian
Open, everyone expected him to comfortably streak to a 5th Roland Garros title.
However, the law of averages stated that Nadal would lose and he did to
everyone’s surprise. Robin Soderling, who had been raising a few eyebrows with
his performances previously, defeated the Spaniard in the 4th round. That was
the first time Nadal had lost on the red clay of Roland Garros.
This was an opportunity even the great Pete
Sampras had been denied.
Federer was destined to complete a career Grand
Slam. Even the Gods were on his side. Nadal had lost. In the fourth round,
Federer had won from two sets down and a breakpoint which if converted would
have had Tommy Haas serving for the match. He played five sets against Juan Martin
Del Potro in the semifinal and went through. He faced Soderling in the final,
who had squeezed his way past the top seeds. There wasn’t any doubt about the
result. That was Federer’s tournament. Even an earthquake couldn’t have stopped
him. Robin Soderling was no match for
Federer’s brilliance in the final and finally, the Swiss maestro had overcome
the milestone that had so convincingly eluded two of the greatest
grass-courters of the Open era.
He had won 14 Grand Slam titles and equalled
Sampras’ record.
It was destined that the 15th one would be at the
place where it all started. Nadal’s recurring knee injury ruled him out of
Wimbledon. Nadal’s injury meant a clear passage for Federer. Federer was the
favourite and it was only a matter of time before Federer lifted the trophy for
the sixth time. Federer never had to sweat till the final, where he played a
five-setter against Andy Roddick and clinched the title.
Statistically, he was the greatest player of
all-time.
The US Open was where Federer’s potential
downfall started. Nadal returned and everyone was anticipating a Federer-Nadal
final. But, there came a new champion from South America. Juan Martin Del Potro
clinched the title beating Nadal in the semifinal and Federer in an epic
five-setter in the final.
This match portrayed Federer’s weakness against
young and physically fitter players. Next was the 2010 Australian Open. Again,
to Federer’s advantage, Nadal retired in the quarter-final against Murray, who
eventually reached the final. Federer easily outplayed Murray, who was yet to
get to the peak of his career. This was the only title for the next two years
as Federer didn’t even come close to winning a Grand Slam.
Nadal on the other hand, was in full form, and
won Roland Garros and the US Open, thus completing a career Grand Slam
This proved outright that Federer could win a
Grand Slam only when Nadal was out of contention. This theory was strengthened
further when Federer won the 2012 Wimbledon title after Nadal was beaten in a
five-setter by Lukas Rosol, owing to his problems with recurring tendnitis in
the knee.
Federer won against an emotional Murray in the
final and took his 17th Grand Slam title.
Since then, Federer has never reached the
semifinal of a Grand Slam. Federer was dumped out of this year’s Wimbledon by
Sergiy Stakhovsky, just like he had done to Sampras all those years ago, as he
lost in four sets in the second round. He put on an extraordinary display of
serve and volley tennis to which Federer could not respond. He was so quick,
Federer couldn’t match his pace and transition from the baseline to the net.
A look at Federer’s statistical career will tell
us that he was the greatest player of all time. But, a closer look at his
comparison with Nadal would say he was never better than Rafael Nadal.
Some may argue that Nadal himself said,” If
somebody says I am better than Roger, I think that person don’t know nothing
about tennis”. This was said by Nadal out of sheer respect for the man. Federer
himself would agree that Nadal at his peak would have easily beaten Federer at
his peak.
As he rightly said, “He’s a fantastic player and
he’s going to be around so much longer so I’m happy with every one I get before
he takes them all”.
Federer neither had the power to hit forehands
like Djokovic, nor did he have the ability to run all day like Nadal. His shots
were precise and had elegance in them. But elegance is nought against hard-workers
and determined players like Nadal, who give their best every point.
Rafael
Nadal has one of the best forehands of today’s game with an enormous amount of
topspin and power combined with pace and bounce, while Federer’s is an elegant,
yet not-so-effective forehand. When not in form, he keeps hitting his forehands
wayward and they are a liability.
Serving is an art. Federer was a master of this
art, but Nadal devoloped himself into one. Federer was one of the best servers
on tour. On his day, he serves extraordinarily, but on most days he serves
averagely. Rafael Nadal on the other hand didn’t have a potent serve, but
improved it so well that it is one of the most venomous serves in the game.
Coming to the physical part of the game, Federer
would not even be near Nadal. Nadal is an extremely fit player possessing one
of the best physiques in the world of sport. Nadal would have given
body-builders a run for their money.
Federer on the other hand was just good enough to equal the fitness of
any top 20 player. Nadal can slug it out all day whereas Federer is just not
good enough to keep running the whole match.
The mental strength is what matters most in long
matches. While both of them are equally good at it, Nadal plays the same way
throughout the whole match, he has the burning desire to win which can be seen
on his ferocious face. Federer plays every set in a different way and doesn’t
have the burning desire in him like Nadal does.
To tweak chef Marco Pierre White’s words,” Hard
work beats the talent, when talent doesn’t beat hard work.”
Federer was every player’s nightmare. But Nadal
was the man who was Federer’s greatest nightmare. Federer outclassed most of
his opponents, but that was insignificant against Nadal. Nadal would simply
overpower Federer and outlast Federer.
Overall, Federer is a magician who wields his
wand, the racquet to accomplish the things, while Nadal is an acrobat who lets
his body do the work. As it was proved, magic works only against the
feeble-minded while physical effort can outlive the greats.
It is a saddening fact indeed that Nadal shall
always be remembered as “The man who dominated Roger Federer” rather than “The
greatest player of the Open era.”
To all those who may think I am a Federer-hater,
I too am a Federer fan who wept when Stakhovsky put him out of Wimbledon.
Deluded people keep dwelling in their dreams;
come back to reality and realise the truth rather than jumping with the masses.
Many fail to realise the importance of time and
still believe Federer has what it takes to win more titles.
In what was a story of David and Goliath, many
were deceived into believing Nadal was the Goliath. It was always Federer who
was the Goliath.
Time often impresses upon humans that it is
supreme but every so often it decides to do so in a manner that is so dramatic
that posterity is unlikely to forget even if it is wont to. Sampras' defeat to
Federer was one such instance. Pushing 30, Sampras had pulverised most of his
opponents up till the fourth round of Wimbledon 2001 and had shown no outward
signs of his advanced age. Age, his fans believed was just another number and
time, they believed affected lesser mortal
Writer-Akshay Gurumoorthi
2-27 win loss record in 2013 . 
