Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
from tennis-x.com
This is a followup to the thread below, "Swept Up in Roger Federer Mania, Time to Get Grounded"
By Luke Johnson, Tennis-X.com Editor
My esteemed colleague Richard Vach recently posted a story on this site proclaiming that Roger Federer will never win a calendar Grand Slam. Well, I’m here to make the argument that he can.
The case for Federer is pretty simple: He’s light years better than anyone else on the circuit right now. At the moment, there’s Roger Federer, and then there’s everyone else. Yeah, Andy Roddick fans think they should be in the conversation but seriously, one win over the Swiss in nine tries. Please. That’s not close, that’s a beat down so I am putting Roddick back in the pack with the rest of the top players.
Of course we are all familiar with the multitude of mind-numbing statistics and records that Federer has already compiled in his short career. The most striking in my mind is his 18 straight wins over Top 10. That’s simply nutty. Having an 18-match win streak in general is quite an achievement, but having such a streak against the Top 10 is absolutely insane. Darn. That’s like winning three straight Tennis Masters Cup titles in a row plus a couple more wins on top of that.
So based on that single statistic alone it’s crystal clear that at the moment no one in the Top 10 can hang with Sir Roger. And if you want more proof, well there are his recent results in Grand Slams, which we all know are rather impressive. Sure, Roger will have his off days here and there and his Top 10 streak will not continue too much longer, but the days of someone like Lleyton Hewitt or David Nalbandian beating Federer consistently appear to be over. Roger sent that message to his “problem players” at the start of the year in Australia during his own personal “Revenge Tour.” Just ask Hewitt who has found himself to be on the wrong end of a bagel diet for much of the year. Ouch.
The question is then asked: With Federer putting up so many mind-blowing numbers and dominating the competition so handily, is the Swiss that good or is everyone else that bad? I think it’s a bit of both meaning yes, Roger is that good and yes, everyone else is that bad.
Let’s take a closer look at his so-called competition. With the exception of Tim Henman and a few others, all his counterparts are basically in the same stylish mold: Hit the serve hard, hit the forehand hard, keep the backhand in play and stay away from the net. Sure Hewitt and Nalbandian can mix it up a bit and Coria is pretty quick and artistic when he’s not injured and Roddick’s been working on his net game, etc, but really everyone plays a fairly similar style, even Roger to some degree.
(Now hold your gripes.)
Yet, that wasn’t the case 15 years ago when Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and even Brad Gilbert ruled the rankings. Pete and Boris were the power serve-and-volley guys, Stefan the finesse serve/volley, Andre and Ivan power baseliners similar to those of today while McEnroe and Gilbert were just freaks. Throw into the mix Thomas Muster, Andres Gomez, Jim Courier, Michael Stich and even the wacky Petr Korda and you’d have to agree those guys as a group had some variety, something I believe the guys that currently reside at top don’t have enough of.
That said, Federer has less issues to deal with when playing his crop of fellow top players. Round-by-round at virtually any non-grass event Federer knows what he’s going to get which is basically a guy that bangs away from the baseline.
Again, 15 years ago that wasn’t quite the case as that bunch perhaps had a bit more variety and a bit more to deal with especially in the later rounds. Sure the depth wasn’t as great as a whole back then, but I believe the guys at the top were better. (Did I just read Mac beat the US Open junior champ 6-1, and Rusedski needed a tiebreak to beat Becker? I know it’s exo tennis, but geez!)
Therefore, advantage: Federer.
Plus, ask yourself this, if Federer started his career back then in the late 1980s, would he have already won four slam titles in his first four years on the tour? Or won back-to-back Wimbledon titles with Becker, Edberg, Stich or Sampras lurking in the draw? (Wow. Michael Stich vs. Roger Federer. Now that would be some smooth tennis.)
Now I’m not saying Roger would lose to those guys, but let’s be honest, that’s stiffer competition (on paper) than what he is faced with today. Roger hasn’t exactly battled very many future Hall of Famers en route to his two Wimbledon crowns. Roddick and Hewitt thus far, that’s it. Again, not Roger’s fault, he’s just playing the hand he’s been dealt. Good on him. And not to slight Roddick and Hewitt, they are good players, but I don’t think on grass they are at the Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Stich level.
The bottom line is that Federer is playing at a perfect time in the sport when there really are not that many great players aside from himself. And the way it looks, the tour is going to be Roger’s personal playground for many more years to come unless someone can step up (Marat, you listening?) and take him on or there’s some prodigy out there we have not yet heard of.
But back to the task at hand, that being winning the Grand Slam.
Federer’s biggest obstacle is the French Open. We all know it. He’s knows it. His mom knows it. His neighbor knows it. The milkman knows it.
Roland Garros has been a nagging thorn in the side of Federer for a few years now. He just lost to an aging but game Gustavo Kuerten this year, and last year in a stunner to Luis Horna. The courts, he says, may be to slick. Philippe Chatrier is too big. On and on. To make matters worse, it would seem the land mines in the draw figure only to multiply in the years ahead as the Argentine Army adds recruits, young Spaniards like Rafael Nadal and Fernando Verdaso continue to blossom and the players in general get fitter and stronger. Add to mix the shaky weather in Paris and you got one hell of a tough Slam to win not just for Federer but for anybody.
Speaking of the weather at the French, unlike Wimbledon where a drop a rain halts play, Federer could find himself playing in a virtual downpour against a Guillermo Coria. In such conditions, I’m pretty sure that would not be a good match-up for Federer. I mean seriously, when was the last time you saw Federer dirty his clothes? Um, never. The guy simply doesn’t strike me a “mudder.” Rather, likes a clean, fast track. Nice conditions, sunny, blue skies and calm conditions.
Just look at his recent losses, or near losses. Andre Agassi gave him a nightmare of a time at the US Open partially because the last half of the match was played in a hurricane. Tomas Berdych, the last man to beat Federer, did so on a blustery day in Athens. Rafael Nadal defeated Federer in Miami, which has always been known for its breezy conditions. Of course he did lose to Dominik Hrbaty on a nice day in Cincinnati and the conditions the day he lost to Guga at the French seemed to be quite pleasant. All I'm saying is the guy likes to play in good conditions and there’s a little bit of proof in that pudding. That's fair, right?
So again, due to the great number of claycourt players and the improbability of the weather, the French Open has been and will continue to be the main nemesis for Federer. But let's give him seven more tries in his career to win it. Don't you think that at least during one of them the seas will part and he will get a good draw? I'd say at least once. Heck, if Pete Sampras can reach the SFs, why not Roger? Plus, Roger is accomplished on the clay. He did win Hamburg this year handily beating Carlos Moya and Guillermo Coria and does have some good results in prior years.
With that, let's presume Federer won the Australian and then won the French. Wimbledon should be the easiest for him to win as very few players really know how play on grass and even fewer know how to beat Roger Federer on grass. Sure, he could run into a hot server but let's again look at the numbers. In his last 14 matches at Wimbledon, he's dropped three sets. THREE SETS, people. But has he played any real big servers you ask? You bet. During the streak he's beaten Roddick (twice), Mark Philippoussis, Ivo Karlovic, Feliciano Lopez, Mardy Fish and Thomas Johansson, surrendering just two sets to that group as a whole. TWO SETS! Yeah, I know he didn't face Joachim Johansson or Taylor Dent or…well, give me break, you get the drift.
Now that it's clear Wimbledon should be not exactly a slam dunk, but close to that if Federer really needed that title en route to a Calendar Slam, let's take a look at the US Open.
The problem with the US Open is that it's in New York, and if Federer or whomever came into the Big Apple chasing a Slam the media onslaught would be enormous and unlike anything anyone has seen in tennis in many, many years, if ever. On the plus side for Federer is that he's already won the US Open so that monkey is already off his back. Plus, the USTA knows a Federer Slam sweep would certainly be a big story for the tournament, and of course the sport in general. So the USTA would be cool with Federer winning their event just as long as it meant bigger exposure for the tournament. Also on Fed's side is the fact he's from Switzerland, not exactly a media hotbed. Sure he will have the immense pressure from the homeland and from the national press but the reality of it is that he's not playing there. He's playing in America where he should still be able to walk the streets at night and go down to the corner stand and eat a hot dog in peace and quiet. That's a big plus.
On the court, again, similar foes, similar games, but the problem would be the nerves. Up to this point in his career Federer has been pretty nerve-less. The guy doesn’t sweat. But going for a calendar Slam would be a unique mental experience I’m not sure anyone could prepare for. But if there is one guy who could do it, it’s Roger. And I think that there is a good chance he will do it. Probably not next year, and maybe not even in 2006. But somewhere down the road the cards will fall right, the stars will align and he'll put together the season of his dreams.
Federer's a rare quantity, a guy who's got no coach, no agent and no one telling him what to do. He leads a grounded life sheltered away from the glitter and glamour which affords him more time to relax and focus on his tennis.
And just remember, Federer is only going to get better. He's not a power player like Roddick who will eventually find his serve speed decreasing as he gets older and suffer a greater chance for injury due to shoulder/arm trauma. Federer is a natural who will continue to hone his skills and improve upon what he already has, which is nearly everything. He's still young at just 23 years and he's already realized that winning titles is cool. That’s a good thing because I think watching him is cool.
By the way, can someone out there lend me $1,000? I’ve got a bet to place.
This is a followup to the thread below, "Swept Up in Roger Federer Mania, Time to Get Grounded"
By Luke Johnson, Tennis-X.com Editor
My esteemed colleague Richard Vach recently posted a story on this site proclaiming that Roger Federer will never win a calendar Grand Slam. Well, I’m here to make the argument that he can.
The case for Federer is pretty simple: He’s light years better than anyone else on the circuit right now. At the moment, there’s Roger Federer, and then there’s everyone else. Yeah, Andy Roddick fans think they should be in the conversation but seriously, one win over the Swiss in nine tries. Please. That’s not close, that’s a beat down so I am putting Roddick back in the pack with the rest of the top players.
Of course we are all familiar with the multitude of mind-numbing statistics and records that Federer has already compiled in his short career. The most striking in my mind is his 18 straight wins over Top 10. That’s simply nutty. Having an 18-match win streak in general is quite an achievement, but having such a streak against the Top 10 is absolutely insane. Darn. That’s like winning three straight Tennis Masters Cup titles in a row plus a couple more wins on top of that.
So based on that single statistic alone it’s crystal clear that at the moment no one in the Top 10 can hang with Sir Roger. And if you want more proof, well there are his recent results in Grand Slams, which we all know are rather impressive. Sure, Roger will have his off days here and there and his Top 10 streak will not continue too much longer, but the days of someone like Lleyton Hewitt or David Nalbandian beating Federer consistently appear to be over. Roger sent that message to his “problem players” at the start of the year in Australia during his own personal “Revenge Tour.” Just ask Hewitt who has found himself to be on the wrong end of a bagel diet for much of the year. Ouch.
The question is then asked: With Federer putting up so many mind-blowing numbers and dominating the competition so handily, is the Swiss that good or is everyone else that bad? I think it’s a bit of both meaning yes, Roger is that good and yes, everyone else is that bad.
Let’s take a closer look at his so-called competition. With the exception of Tim Henman and a few others, all his counterparts are basically in the same stylish mold: Hit the serve hard, hit the forehand hard, keep the backhand in play and stay away from the net. Sure Hewitt and Nalbandian can mix it up a bit and Coria is pretty quick and artistic when he’s not injured and Roddick’s been working on his net game, etc, but really everyone plays a fairly similar style, even Roger to some degree.
(Now hold your gripes.)
Yet, that wasn’t the case 15 years ago when Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and even Brad Gilbert ruled the rankings. Pete and Boris were the power serve-and-volley guys, Stefan the finesse serve/volley, Andre and Ivan power baseliners similar to those of today while McEnroe and Gilbert were just freaks. Throw into the mix Thomas Muster, Andres Gomez, Jim Courier, Michael Stich and even the wacky Petr Korda and you’d have to agree those guys as a group had some variety, something I believe the guys that currently reside at top don’t have enough of.
That said, Federer has less issues to deal with when playing his crop of fellow top players. Round-by-round at virtually any non-grass event Federer knows what he’s going to get which is basically a guy that bangs away from the baseline.
Again, 15 years ago that wasn’t quite the case as that bunch perhaps had a bit more variety and a bit more to deal with especially in the later rounds. Sure the depth wasn’t as great as a whole back then, but I believe the guys at the top were better. (Did I just read Mac beat the US Open junior champ 6-1, and Rusedski needed a tiebreak to beat Becker? I know it’s exo tennis, but geez!)
Therefore, advantage: Federer.
Plus, ask yourself this, if Federer started his career back then in the late 1980s, would he have already won four slam titles in his first four years on the tour? Or won back-to-back Wimbledon titles with Becker, Edberg, Stich or Sampras lurking in the draw? (Wow. Michael Stich vs. Roger Federer. Now that would be some smooth tennis.)
Now I’m not saying Roger would lose to those guys, but let’s be honest, that’s stiffer competition (on paper) than what he is faced with today. Roger hasn’t exactly battled very many future Hall of Famers en route to his two Wimbledon crowns. Roddick and Hewitt thus far, that’s it. Again, not Roger’s fault, he’s just playing the hand he’s been dealt. Good on him. And not to slight Roddick and Hewitt, they are good players, but I don’t think on grass they are at the Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Stich level.
The bottom line is that Federer is playing at a perfect time in the sport when there really are not that many great players aside from himself. And the way it looks, the tour is going to be Roger’s personal playground for many more years to come unless someone can step up (Marat, you listening?) and take him on or there’s some prodigy out there we have not yet heard of.
But back to the task at hand, that being winning the Grand Slam.
Federer’s biggest obstacle is the French Open. We all know it. He’s knows it. His mom knows it. His neighbor knows it. The milkman knows it.
Roland Garros has been a nagging thorn in the side of Federer for a few years now. He just lost to an aging but game Gustavo Kuerten this year, and last year in a stunner to Luis Horna. The courts, he says, may be to slick. Philippe Chatrier is too big. On and on. To make matters worse, it would seem the land mines in the draw figure only to multiply in the years ahead as the Argentine Army adds recruits, young Spaniards like Rafael Nadal and Fernando Verdaso continue to blossom and the players in general get fitter and stronger. Add to mix the shaky weather in Paris and you got one hell of a tough Slam to win not just for Federer but for anybody.
Speaking of the weather at the French, unlike Wimbledon where a drop a rain halts play, Federer could find himself playing in a virtual downpour against a Guillermo Coria. In such conditions, I’m pretty sure that would not be a good match-up for Federer. I mean seriously, when was the last time you saw Federer dirty his clothes? Um, never. The guy simply doesn’t strike me a “mudder.” Rather, likes a clean, fast track. Nice conditions, sunny, blue skies and calm conditions.
Just look at his recent losses, or near losses. Andre Agassi gave him a nightmare of a time at the US Open partially because the last half of the match was played in a hurricane. Tomas Berdych, the last man to beat Federer, did so on a blustery day in Athens. Rafael Nadal defeated Federer in Miami, which has always been known for its breezy conditions. Of course he did lose to Dominik Hrbaty on a nice day in Cincinnati and the conditions the day he lost to Guga at the French seemed to be quite pleasant. All I'm saying is the guy likes to play in good conditions and there’s a little bit of proof in that pudding. That's fair, right?
So again, due to the great number of claycourt players and the improbability of the weather, the French Open has been and will continue to be the main nemesis for Federer. But let's give him seven more tries in his career to win it. Don't you think that at least during one of them the seas will part and he will get a good draw? I'd say at least once. Heck, if Pete Sampras can reach the SFs, why not Roger? Plus, Roger is accomplished on the clay. He did win Hamburg this year handily beating Carlos Moya and Guillermo Coria and does have some good results in prior years.
With that, let's presume Federer won the Australian and then won the French. Wimbledon should be the easiest for him to win as very few players really know how play on grass and even fewer know how to beat Roger Federer on grass. Sure, he could run into a hot server but let's again look at the numbers. In his last 14 matches at Wimbledon, he's dropped three sets. THREE SETS, people. But has he played any real big servers you ask? You bet. During the streak he's beaten Roddick (twice), Mark Philippoussis, Ivo Karlovic, Feliciano Lopez, Mardy Fish and Thomas Johansson, surrendering just two sets to that group as a whole. TWO SETS! Yeah, I know he didn't face Joachim Johansson or Taylor Dent or…well, give me break, you get the drift.
Now that it's clear Wimbledon should be not exactly a slam dunk, but close to that if Federer really needed that title en route to a Calendar Slam, let's take a look at the US Open.
The problem with the US Open is that it's in New York, and if Federer or whomever came into the Big Apple chasing a Slam the media onslaught would be enormous and unlike anything anyone has seen in tennis in many, many years, if ever. On the plus side for Federer is that he's already won the US Open so that monkey is already off his back. Plus, the USTA knows a Federer Slam sweep would certainly be a big story for the tournament, and of course the sport in general. So the USTA would be cool with Federer winning their event just as long as it meant bigger exposure for the tournament. Also on Fed's side is the fact he's from Switzerland, not exactly a media hotbed. Sure he will have the immense pressure from the homeland and from the national press but the reality of it is that he's not playing there. He's playing in America where he should still be able to walk the streets at night and go down to the corner stand and eat a hot dog in peace and quiet. That's a big plus.
On the court, again, similar foes, similar games, but the problem would be the nerves. Up to this point in his career Federer has been pretty nerve-less. The guy doesn’t sweat. But going for a calendar Slam would be a unique mental experience I’m not sure anyone could prepare for. But if there is one guy who could do it, it’s Roger. And I think that there is a good chance he will do it. Probably not next year, and maybe not even in 2006. But somewhere down the road the cards will fall right, the stars will align and he'll put together the season of his dreams.
Federer's a rare quantity, a guy who's got no coach, no agent and no one telling him what to do. He leads a grounded life sheltered away from the glitter and glamour which affords him more time to relax and focus on his tennis.
And just remember, Federer is only going to get better. He's not a power player like Roddick who will eventually find his serve speed decreasing as he gets older and suffer a greater chance for injury due to shoulder/arm trauma. Federer is a natural who will continue to hone his skills and improve upon what he already has, which is nearly everything. He's still young at just 23 years and he's already realized that winning titles is cool. That’s a good thing because I think watching him is cool.
By the way, can someone out there lend me $1,000? I’ve got a bet to place.
