Australian Open wrap up: The truth about the Roger Federer-Rafael Nadal rivalry
By Douglas Perry, The Oregonian
February 01, 2010, 10:57AM
Sixteen career major titles; eight straight major finals; 23 consecutive major semifinals. Roger Federer is the immutable force of tennis.
Or is he? He's stayed at the top of the game for so long not just because of his supreme talent but because he's always working to adapt, to test his limits, to understand the game and how it's evolving. After winning the Australian Open on Sunday, the 28-year-old World Number One acknowledged that he's being "pushed a great deal" by the next generation of players -- and he likes it.
"I always feel tennis changes sort of every five years," he said. "When I came on tour, matches were played very differently. It was more of a bluff game, guys serving well, but there was always a weakness you could go to. Today, that doesn't exist anymore. I think that's also thanks to guys like (Andy) Murray. They've made me a better player, because I think this has been one of my finest performances, you know, in a long time, or maybe forever."
As a result of Federer's dominance -- and other players' attempts to catch up -- the game arguably has progressed more in the past five years than at any time since the introduction of graphite rackets in the early 1980s. During the Federer-Murray final yesterday, ESPN roving reporter Mary Joe Fernandez, a three-time Grand Slam finalist, cornered Ken Rosewall, whose career spanned from the 1950s into the 1970s. She asked Rosewall if Federer's "throwback" style seemed similar to his game. Rosewall almost did a spit-take. The old Aussie legends don't go in for the romanticizing of their era that the rest of us do. There's "just no comparison," he said simply.
True enough. In many ways, professional tennis today is an entirely different sport than the one Rosewall and his great rival, Rod Laver, played. We tend to relate Federer to the heroes of the '50s and '60s not because what he's doing on court resembles what they did. It's because he's broken tennis out of the modern power-game straight jacket that the wood-racket generations never had to deal with. In the '90s it appeared that brute force was what tennis would be from now on. Boris Becker, Goran Ivanisevic and Pete Sampras, all half a head taller than Laver and Rosewall on tippy-toes, kept it simple: crank up the booster engines and blast the ball past the other guy. In the second part of his career, John McEnroe, with his classic, artistic game, ended up being little more than a bystander against opponents who could have been playing linebacker for USC.
That power is now the price of admission for a professional tennis career (as Donald Young, the best juniors player of his generation, is learning). Same goes for the half-volley groundstrokes that, not so long ago, Andre Agassi and only Andre Agassi could consistently pull off. The top players of recent years have taken the revolutionary changes harnessed so successfully by Sampras and Agassi and broken them open to reveal all of their varied possibilities. The nuclear bomb exploded, and the mutants who survived are truly scary, freakish athletes.
Rafael Nadal: Keeping with Federer has its costs.
But there's never been a mutant quite like Federer.
"I think his level is a lot more consistent in the Slams," Murray said after his straight-set loss in the Australian Open final. "Maybe, you know, in the other tournaments, he tries a few more things out. But, you know, the shots that he hits great all year round, they're still great. He just makes fewer unforced errors (in majors), I think, than he does the rest of the year."
"He's the limit at the moment; he's the No. 1 player in the world," Lleyton Hewitt, a two-time major champion, has stated flatly.
And yet not everyone is willing to concede that Federer is indeed the best ever. (I've been one of the doubters.) The knock against him is this: How can he be the greatest player of all time if he loses to Rafael Nadal most of the time? Seven-time Grand Slam champion Mats Wilander, who's always been unimpressed with Federer for whatever reason, said this when Federer broke Sampras' career major record last year: "Yes, he has the world record, but he's never going to be the greatest player of all time. ... His not-great record against Rafael Nadal is a gray cloud over his career."
That argument is wrong on so many levels. Yes, Federer is 2-5 in major finals against Nadal, but let's put that in perspective. Three of those finals were at the French Open, on Nadal's beloved red clay, the surface least suited to Federer's game. (Need we remind anyone of all the fast-court greats who never made even one Roland Garros final?) The other two losses came during Nadal's annus mirabilis and were five-set instant classics. (Need we remind anyone that Rafael Nadal also will be remembered as an all-time great?)
Much has been made of Nadal's chronic injuries. The 23-year-old wears down every year and has failed to ever reach a final at the U.S. Open, which sports a fast hard court that Federer likes so much that he has won the tournament five times. Nadal's knee tendonitis and other health problems are always presented as simply an inevitable result of his grinding clay-court playing style. But Nadal, in an attempt to match up with Federer on faster surfaces, has changed his game dramatically since those early days when he was strictly a clay-court phenomenon. In 2008, he finally beat Federer at Wimbledon (in their third consecutive final there together) and six months later he beat him at the Australian Open. He hasn't been the same since. Getting to Federer's level took a lot out of Nadal.
Nadal's injury issues make me think of a particularly cruel remark that Joe Frazier once made about his foremost rival, Muhammad Ali. Ali won two of his three fights with Frazier and, of course, now famously suffers from Parkinson's Syndrome.
"Look at him now and look at me and tell me who really won those three fights," Frazier said.
The simple fact is, it's not easy to keep up with Roger Federer. It has caused truly exceptional athletes to push themselves to their physical limits and beyond. Novak Djokovic, Andy Roddick and Juan Martin del Potro have all struggled with injuries, including at the 2010 Australian Open. Nadal, just a couple of days after declaring that he was in excellent condition and had no lingering pain in his knees, defaulted mid-match against Andy Murray in the quarterfinals. Now he's going to be out of action for four weeks, and observers increasingly wonder if he'll ever again reach his 2008 level of play. Federer, meanwhile, floats on from major to major, unimpeded by physical problems despite having to lift up all those heavy trophies. Sixteen major titles; eight straight major finals; 23 consecutive major semifinals.
Yes, Federer is 2-5 in Grand Slam finals against Nadal. But look at Nadal now and look at Federer and tell me who really won those seven matches.
-- Douglas Perry
http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2...t_the_roger_federer-rafael_nadal_rivalry.html
By Douglas Perry, The Oregonian
February 01, 2010, 10:57AM
Sixteen career major titles; eight straight major finals; 23 consecutive major semifinals. Roger Federer is the immutable force of tennis.
Or is he? He's stayed at the top of the game for so long not just because of his supreme talent but because he's always working to adapt, to test his limits, to understand the game and how it's evolving. After winning the Australian Open on Sunday, the 28-year-old World Number One acknowledged that he's being "pushed a great deal" by the next generation of players -- and he likes it.
"I always feel tennis changes sort of every five years," he said. "When I came on tour, matches were played very differently. It was more of a bluff game, guys serving well, but there was always a weakness you could go to. Today, that doesn't exist anymore. I think that's also thanks to guys like (Andy) Murray. They've made me a better player, because I think this has been one of my finest performances, you know, in a long time, or maybe forever."
As a result of Federer's dominance -- and other players' attempts to catch up -- the game arguably has progressed more in the past five years than at any time since the introduction of graphite rackets in the early 1980s. During the Federer-Murray final yesterday, ESPN roving reporter Mary Joe Fernandez, a three-time Grand Slam finalist, cornered Ken Rosewall, whose career spanned from the 1950s into the 1970s. She asked Rosewall if Federer's "throwback" style seemed similar to his game. Rosewall almost did a spit-take. The old Aussie legends don't go in for the romanticizing of their era that the rest of us do. There's "just no comparison," he said simply.
True enough. In many ways, professional tennis today is an entirely different sport than the one Rosewall and his great rival, Rod Laver, played. We tend to relate Federer to the heroes of the '50s and '60s not because what he's doing on court resembles what they did. It's because he's broken tennis out of the modern power-game straight jacket that the wood-racket generations never had to deal with. In the '90s it appeared that brute force was what tennis would be from now on. Boris Becker, Goran Ivanisevic and Pete Sampras, all half a head taller than Laver and Rosewall on tippy-toes, kept it simple: crank up the booster engines and blast the ball past the other guy. In the second part of his career, John McEnroe, with his classic, artistic game, ended up being little more than a bystander against opponents who could have been playing linebacker for USC.
That power is now the price of admission for a professional tennis career (as Donald Young, the best juniors player of his generation, is learning). Same goes for the half-volley groundstrokes that, not so long ago, Andre Agassi and only Andre Agassi could consistently pull off. The top players of recent years have taken the revolutionary changes harnessed so successfully by Sampras and Agassi and broken them open to reveal all of their varied possibilities. The nuclear bomb exploded, and the mutants who survived are truly scary, freakish athletes.
Rafael Nadal: Keeping with Federer has its costs.
But there's never been a mutant quite like Federer.
"I think his level is a lot more consistent in the Slams," Murray said after his straight-set loss in the Australian Open final. "Maybe, you know, in the other tournaments, he tries a few more things out. But, you know, the shots that he hits great all year round, they're still great. He just makes fewer unforced errors (in majors), I think, than he does the rest of the year."
"He's the limit at the moment; he's the No. 1 player in the world," Lleyton Hewitt, a two-time major champion, has stated flatly.
And yet not everyone is willing to concede that Federer is indeed the best ever. (I've been one of the doubters.) The knock against him is this: How can he be the greatest player of all time if he loses to Rafael Nadal most of the time? Seven-time Grand Slam champion Mats Wilander, who's always been unimpressed with Federer for whatever reason, said this when Federer broke Sampras' career major record last year: "Yes, he has the world record, but he's never going to be the greatest player of all time. ... His not-great record against Rafael Nadal is a gray cloud over his career."
That argument is wrong on so many levels. Yes, Federer is 2-5 in major finals against Nadal, but let's put that in perspective. Three of those finals were at the French Open, on Nadal's beloved red clay, the surface least suited to Federer's game. (Need we remind anyone of all the fast-court greats who never made even one Roland Garros final?) The other two losses came during Nadal's annus mirabilis and were five-set instant classics. (Need we remind anyone that Rafael Nadal also will be remembered as an all-time great?)
Much has been made of Nadal's chronic injuries. The 23-year-old wears down every year and has failed to ever reach a final at the U.S. Open, which sports a fast hard court that Federer likes so much that he has won the tournament five times. Nadal's knee tendonitis and other health problems are always presented as simply an inevitable result of his grinding clay-court playing style. But Nadal, in an attempt to match up with Federer on faster surfaces, has changed his game dramatically since those early days when he was strictly a clay-court phenomenon. In 2008, he finally beat Federer at Wimbledon (in their third consecutive final there together) and six months later he beat him at the Australian Open. He hasn't been the same since. Getting to Federer's level took a lot out of Nadal.
Nadal's injury issues make me think of a particularly cruel remark that Joe Frazier once made about his foremost rival, Muhammad Ali. Ali won two of his three fights with Frazier and, of course, now famously suffers from Parkinson's Syndrome.
"Look at him now and look at me and tell me who really won those three fights," Frazier said.
The simple fact is, it's not easy to keep up with Roger Federer. It has caused truly exceptional athletes to push themselves to their physical limits and beyond. Novak Djokovic, Andy Roddick and Juan Martin del Potro have all struggled with injuries, including at the 2010 Australian Open. Nadal, just a couple of days after declaring that he was in excellent condition and had no lingering pain in his knees, defaulted mid-match against Andy Murray in the quarterfinals. Now he's going to be out of action for four weeks, and observers increasingly wonder if he'll ever again reach his 2008 level of play. Federer, meanwhile, floats on from major to major, unimpeded by physical problems despite having to lift up all those heavy trophies. Sixteen major titles; eight straight major finals; 23 consecutive major semifinals.
Yes, Federer is 2-5 in Grand Slam finals against Nadal. But look at Nadal now and look at Federer and tell me who really won those seven matches.
-- Douglas Perry
http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2...t_the_roger_federer-rafael_nadal_rivalry.html
),plays way too many events consecutively and with his style,that takes a major toll. And he schedules really badly. Most of the damage on his knees has been because he has has been playing like this on the pro tour(where 50% is HC) since he was 16. No other player pushed himself like this.
