Jolly Roger

As Andy Roddick stepped up to the baseline to serve at 14-15 in the fifth set of yesterday’s epic Wimbledon final against Roger Federer, he must have felt both confident and infuriated. Confident, because he had held serve 37 times in a row over the previous four hours, but infuriated as well because he’d not been broken the entire match and yet still found himself serving for his life. As it turned out, service game #38 was Roddick’s waterloo, and he was an unfortunate loser to the new world number 1.

It wouldn’t be accurate to say that Roger was lucky to win- he served brilliantly- uncorking over 50 aces and came up with the goods when he needed to, but for much of the afternoon, Roddick seemed to be the better player. The difference in the match was mental toughness- Andy showed pluck and determination and did NOT choke, but he simply lacked the killer instinct he needed in the second set tiebreaker, where he was up 6-2, before squandering four match points and losing 8-6. Roddick deserves credit for not folding after that heartbreaker, but he simply could not come up with the big shots to break Roger in the 5th set, and he ultimately lost serve at 14-15 down more because of his own unforced errors than Federer’s genius. And of course, Roddick will see that floating volley he flubbed on set point in the 2nd set tiebreaker at 6-4 in his nightmares for a very long time.

Few would have predicted Roddick to even make it to the finals, but Andy Murray came up short in the semis- spending too much energy berating himself and ultimately failing to make a dent in Roddick’s formidable serve. On the other side of the draw, Djokovic put in a similarly uninspiring display, ambling around the court looking as though he didn’t care if he won or lost. Moving forward into the hardcourt season, it will be interesting to see if Roddick can challenge the top 5 on a consistent basis.

Federer’s performance spoke for itself. After failing to convert on four break points in the 1st set, he re-grouped and played two brilliant tiebreakers, before outlasting Andy in the 5th. I have to admit, that after Fed dropped the 4th set, I wondered which Roger would turn up in the 5th- the resurgent one brimming with confidence after big wins on clay, or the uninspired one that seemed to lose confidence in himself following the loss to Nadal in the Aussie Open finals. In truth, this wasn’t Rogers finest match- he has returned Roddick’s serve better on other occasions, and at times he looked a bit lost, wrapping groundstrokes off the frame of his racquet. But he served brilliantly, elevated his game in the tie-breaks and held his game together long enough to win.

Now all of the inevitable tennis talk comes back to the, is he the greatest ever discussion, which I think is completely pointless. I love Federer and I am so thankful for what he has done for men’s tennis, but the idea that he is the best of all time because he’s won the most grand slams isn’t the slam dunk argument that many think it is. Comparing players from one generation to players from another is a waste of time. Prior to the 1990’s very few of the top players even entered all 4 grand slams in a calendar year, and before the dawn of “open tennis” pros were banned from the slams. So we have no idea how many grand slams Big Bill Tilden or Bjorn Borg could have won, had they played down under every year, or if Rod Laver had been able to compete each year after turning pro.

In my opinion, you can only be judged against your peers that are currently playing the game. On that score, Roger’s record is more one of consistency rather than dominance. The #2 and #3 players in the world- Nadal and Murray, both own decisive winning records against Federer (13-7 and 6-2) but could either of these players ever hope to match Fed’s record of reaching the semis in 21 straight grand slams? Not a chance in my opinion. The remarkable thing about Federer is the incredible consistency in majors- how does he stay healthy and motivated? How does he avoid the early round letdown against lower ranked players? What’s more impressive winning 15 majors, or making it to at least the semis in 21 straight? An argument could be made either way.

Those who claim that Fed cannot be anointed greatest ever because he has a losing record against Nadal are also off the mark. Roger is still a great player, but in truth, he is a few years past his prime. Half of the Nadal-Federer confrontations during Rogers prime (2004-7) came on clay- Rafa’s best surface, and the fact that Rafa won six of those is impressive but doesn’t mean he’s a better player than Roger, just a better clay court player. Two of their matches came on grass- Roger’s favorite surface, and he won both of those, and the remaining five hardcourt matches went 3 for Fed and 2 for Rafa.

So I think that all we can really conclude from the Rafa/Roger rivalry is that when both men were in their prime, Rafa was clearly better on clay, and Roger was a bit better on hard and grass courts. I don’t think that Rafa’s clay court dominance in any way diminishes Fed’s case for greatest of all time. That said, I think it makes more sense to simply state that Roger is among the greats of all time, right at or near the very top. Here’s hoping he continues to play for several more years to build his case even stronger.