Guys, this is the last post of this blog as Nadal didnt win the Roland Garros 2009. I created this site only Rafa in my mind. Now that the title of the Greatest Of All Time (GOAT) has firmly been tagged on the genius of Roger Federer, it’s time to look at the here and now. I'm ending this journey with an unfare question: Would Federer have won at Roland Garros had Nadal made the final?
With just 11 days to go for the first ball to be struck at his beloved Wimbledon, it would be safe to say that the genial Swiss is more challenger than king.
Federer’s journey to his maiden French Open title is crucial in determining where he stands in the men’s game today. Paris was something of a meant-to-be moment for the 27-year-old. Novak Djokovic, the ruthless, but equally unreliable Serb, lost early. Andy Murray, the crafty counter puncher, followed a little after. Somewhere in between, the French Open lost its undisputed No.1: Rafael Nadal, fourtime champion at Roland Garros and four times conqueror of the mighty Fed. Nadal’s exit dramatically opened up the draw for the former world No.1. In the final, he ran into an opponent, Robin Soderling, who could do no better than play into his hands. Then, when Andre Agassi, the last man to complete a career Grand Slam in 1999, presented the Coupe des Mousquetaires to Federer, you simply had to hand it to the script writer. Nicely planned, and neatly executed.
Despite the carefully woven designs of destiny, Federer still had to win his quota of matches. Tennis is not known to be a kind sport. So, even if Paris in the spring of ’09 was meant to be, it couldn’t have happened to a more dazzling talent and a more deserving champion. Unlike American Pete Sampras, who like Federer revelled on the grass courts of Wimbledon, the Swiss ace prepared meticulously for the French Open. While Sampras often skipped lead-up events, Federer went through the clay court season, year after year, living and learning, making adjustments to his tennis and temperament. He has won four times in Hamburg and been in finals in Monte Carlo and Rome. The door had to open, something had to give, the law of averages, call it what you want.
Had Federer beaten Nadal to win the French Open he would’ve crushed the demons of doubt that has dogged his career these last two years. It would’ve made him The One, instead of one among the top-10. It would’ve helped him crack the mental stranglehold Nadal (13-7 in head-to-heads with Federer) had established over him, with others like Murray (6-2) and Djokovic (4-7) following suit. The genial Swiss isn’t any slower than he was two summers ago, nor has the sharpness of his play softened, it’s just that Rafa has his number, quite literally. Federer can do almost anything on a tennis court, but he abhors repetition. Nadal, always respectful and seemingly resigned to Federer’s greatness, taunts him with his tennis. One more time, Roger. One more time, every time. That’s where Federer came apart.
Most of the top guns in men’s tennis, particularly the Americans, Andy Roddick and James Blake, have repeatedly said, it was easier to play and beat Nadal rather than Federer. So, while the world was busy applauding Federer’s genius, Nadal was building the wall. Nadal ripped off Federer’s cloak of invincibility last summer at Wimbledon, beating him in his own backyard, not with any newly engineered tactic or technique, but by the sheer tenacity of his craft.
That doesn’t make Federer any less a figure in tennis history. Given that he has played his tennis in an intensely competitive era, and winning as much as he has, makes him the greatest player of all time. But even if Federer wins Wimbledon this time, in a field that may or may not include Nadal, he’s a champion with a chink. The chink is called Rafa.
