Yes Roger's game has an aristocratic elegance to it that Novak may never possess in this lifetime, Rafa's game has too much muscle and Novak is too robotic. If Tennis was a fashion industry and not a sport then Roger would instantly be the GOAT Supermodel and Novak/Rafa would be deemed unemployable. Thats what Rolex ad says as well. Instead of me stressing that sports is all about effectiveness and not who looks good, I will instead say that when our life has always been comfortable then we tend to appreciate hardwork less in life but when we suffer trials of life more and more then and only then we truly realise that style is secondary. It is like the boy a girl dates in college is sometimes different from the ones she marries later on. Or your buddies in college who are carefree and fun loving, that varies from the people you hang around later on in your life who are more career oriented. Or when you are a kid that is still studying and doesn't realize the value of money because his parents give him a lot, but when he starts earning is when he realizes the need to save. So when you struggle only then do you appreciate the struggles of others and value their ability to navigate out of it as a greater asset than natural ability/style. But 1 I think I do know is that regardless of one struggling/not, everyone likes a winner and nobody likes a loser. Even in Fed's stylish peak he had the records too backing him, those records also did add to his aura more much more than his style. So when his records broke a lot of that shine is gone. People realized that stylish strokeplay is only relevant if you have the lead, otherwise Richard Gasquet is quite classy in his own right but he shall never be a Federer, what separates his and Roger's backhand is 20 grand slams to 0. Once the records broke the trance cast by the stylish strokeplay should also break, if it doesn't then god bless those who are still in it.....
I enjoyed your writing
Fed worked hard. He had his immaturity and his arrogance - just like Novak had his own brand, but you don’t get to where any of these guys are over 2 decades without putting in the work. Just ask Kyrgios.
So it’s a false dichotomy to posit that Federer has style and Novak has hard work. Tennis is a hard and graceful game. They both have some of each.
But again, Wallace wasn’t writing about hard work or records - or against them. (And actually, in his “stylish peak” Fed did not have the records). He wasn’t even writing about “style” in the vain “supermodel” terms you use as a straw man caricature.
He was writing - agree with him or not - about transcendent beauty being expressed in an athlete’s form and movement. And absolutely - part of what was beautiful about Fed’s game was that it was dramatically potent in his peak - unlike Gasquet. But principally Wallace was citing the beauty even in that potency - and there is nothing wrong with that. It isn’t the superficial back seat value to hard work you seem to imply it is. It’s a different category. Indeed, hard work has a kind of transcendent beauty of its own.
So I’m not sure your thoughtful and well articulated points are really relevant to the article.
There is nothing wrong what what Wallace loved about Fed’s game. You might as well denigrate some article celebrating the joy the author gets from a well cooked Ribeye or a delicious wine or a beautiful sunset.
And I don’t think he was actually advocating “religious” approbation to Roger Federer as some god. He was using hyperbolic metaphor to convey what he saw that very likely is (wether Wallace knew it or not) a unique attestation to God’s glory in Federer’s game that is actually in any of God’s gifts given in one way or another to all of His creatures, including Novak and you and me and the clouds and the sea, etc: some element of transcendent beauty. In Federer, Wallace saw it in Roger’s athletic and potent elegance.
What I don’t get is the repeated objection and even moral judgment against this old famous piece of sports literature so long after. To be honest it strikes me as simply a latent salty sense of feeling wronged by Federer’s popularity by Sampovic fans. At least on this thread. Of course that’s TTW.
But think about it for a moment and see if you can’t see the forest for the trees: A Pulitzer Prize nominated literary genius was captivated by Rogers Federer’s game in his peak years. He wrote a well-received article about his joy in what he saw.
Sure, Novak (or Peter) doesn’t really get that kind of response and never likely will - in that particular way - as you stated.
So what.
All Federer has left is the 20 slams, consecutive weeks, some other great records - and the legacy of his wonderful game. Novak has the most important records now. And he’s amazing in his own for all kinds of other reasons. (Like I mentioned before).
Instead of his and Peter’s fans putting Fed down on this resurrected article in a thread that shouldn’t even be in this forum, why not just celebrate Novak and Peter for their many unique attributes?
Especially since Novak has a credible claim to GOATness in terms of records that Fed doesn’t, I would really think that would be enough.
Unless of course, Rolex was right.
