Will Swanton makes some comparisons between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer.
Rafael Nadal can win his sixth grand slam title tonight. At the same age, Roger Federer had one.
So for all the proclamations of Federer’s greatness as he attempts to match Pete Sampras’s benchmark for the most major triumphs, Nadal’s charge through the history books suggests that Federer and/or Sampras could end up as only temporary custodians of the record, making way to a Spanish bull more willing to lose blood than a final.
Nadal has five majors to his credit at the age of 22. Federer didn’t win his first until the same age. Sampras had three at the same stage. So tonight, when we sit back during the Australian Open decider and marvel at the all-time great, to which end of the court do we look?
If you want to make the age to age comparison than you also have to include the fact that Rafa was playing as a pro at the age of 15, while Federer was very much a late bloomer, hitting the pro ranks at a later age (17).
So the race for tennis immortality is much more complex than what Swanton lays out here. It’s not about the cherry picked numbers.
Federer was a late bloomer because his skill set is far more complex, his arsenal more varied and subtle than Nadal. It took time for Federer to pull all that complexity into the neat and coherent package you see today.
Nadal on the other hand has changed little from the player he was a few years ago, his power game is just a mature version of what he’s always been. It was a game waiting for the boy to turn into a man.
Nadal’s game is a race against time, Federers is a game for the ages.
The moment Nadal loses half a step and a bit of strength he’s gone as an effective player (witness Lleyton Hewitt), Federer’s game on the other hand relies on more than brute physicality, it relies on intelligence as well as skill – with power and speed a subset of that.
That is what will keep Federer playing on at a much higher level for much longer than Nadal – who will burn out much faster.
My prediction is that as the long arc of tennis history plays itself out, Federer will still be regarded as one of the all time greats, standing on the shoulders of Sampras and Emerson, while Nadal will be in the second rank of Grand Slam winners, along with players like Andre Agassi and Jim Courier.
So, who do you think will win tonight?
Phil, who knows, but I think your analysis is pretty spot on. It seems Federer had a glandular fever type illness last year and Courier reckons it took the edge off his court movement all year. He looks impressively fit right now. But he’s 27 and players can peak physically about his age.
Nadal has already had injury issues and one of the foundations of his game is his court movement in defence. His record on clay is supreme and if you look at his superior record against Federer it looks quite different when you take out the clay matches.
How many slams a guy wins is in large part dependent on who else is around. There is little doubt that sans Nadal, Federer would have won one or more French opens by now, which Sampras never looked like doing.
Also every tournament can through up a bolter from the top 20, or an experienced player playing particularly well. Verdasco playing like he is would have been a worthy champion this year.
Then the whole thing could hinge on a line call or two. There was a point in Dokic v Safina where a line judge called out when it was smack on the baseline. I don’t think Safina had a play on the ball, but the point was replayed and Safina won. So from memory Dokic went 30 all on her serve when she should have been 40-15 up but for the line-judge error. She lost her serve and soon after the match.
BTW I read that Nadal can put 3200 rpm topspin on the ball, whereas Agassi the previous best could only manage 1900. There is no way that opponents can practice for that feature of Nadal’s game because no-one else comes close.
My prediction is that Federer will win in four. I think Nadal will be just too exhausted after Friday night.
I *hope* Federer will win. He’s beautiful to watch and hasn’t won in Australia for a few years – it would be good to see him win it at least once more.
I’m hoping Federer but I think Nadal
Interesting that Mrs.L finds Nadal ‘nice to watch’,whereas I find him a bit too much ‘look at me’. I find Federer watchable simply because of his attitude and being cool.
OK, so Roger and me have the same animal attraction and laid back attitude,we wouldn’t be seen in Nadal’s attire, I mean,we mean, all that display gives ladies the vapours?.
I totally agree with you Phil, and was having a gripe with my girlfriend about the fact Swanton doesn’t seem to know/understand anything about tennis, and that the SMH’s tennis coverage – particularly the columns – have been _abyssmal_ this year. I want feds to win, but watching now, Nadal is certainly playing better…
Well Nadal is younger, more hungry and has one killer weapon. On the other hand he only has one killer weapon.
Whereas Federer’s often underestimated assets is that he he has a gigantic tennis brain.
Federar
But really at this level, it often comes to down to subtle psychological factors.
Watching it now, I’d say it’s still touch and go but if pushed I’d call the Swiss swaczker in four.
Me too.
Or five, if he gets agitated.
Pardon the typos. I was distracted by Rog’s backhand, one of the most glorious strokes in the game.
His forehand now seems to have clicked in too. Hitting a clean winner from the baseline in open stance. Harder than it looks.
….
Well OK, having just seen that ninth game in the third set, I’m revising my prediction to Fed in five.
By the way, any takers for an sports commentator lynching party?
OK, now re-revising my bet to either Federer or Nadal in four or five sets.
Any takers?
If we can go after Roger Rasheed first, I’m in.
I’ll bring the rope.
JA first.
At least Bewdy Newk and Fahry Fred aren’t on Seven putting viewers to sleep.
And when we’ve dealt with the commentators*, perhaps we could go after tonight’s chair umpire and his nonexistent crowd control, and then the drunken morons in the crowd.
*Not Alicia Molik though
Disappointing in the end. Federer was cruising at 30-0 on his serve in the fifth, then a few loose points and he had lost it. After that he just looked beaten.
Actually he wasn’t his best apart from glimpses. Too many forced errors and not serving well. But definitely not playing the big points well, which Rafa did to perfection.
Sad to see a grown man cry.
Courier reckons that Nadal wears shoes too small for him by choice. He has two gammy knees and seems to walk on the outsides of his feet. I suspect he’s going to have biomechanical problems and may well be missing from a few tournaments over the next few years.
Both players are excellent as far as I can tell (no expert judge of tennis here!).
I would note with much sadness that, whoever wins, the great D.F. Wallace remains dead no matter what.
Personally, I’m never gonna watch a tennis match with quite so much delight ever again. Sorry that the planet Earth failed ya, Dave. I was no big fan of “Infinite Jest” (it took me ages even to figure out the Hamlet joke), but I really, really loved the essays.
Well at least we’ve still got William Vollmann for the time being. Give Updike a kick in the shins, and make the next long work you’re surely composing in your head truly worthy of Eternity…
This is the voice of Mount Auburn Street,
So early in the morning.
“Oh look! I’ve just found my penis!“
Todd Woodbridge indicated after the match that we might just have to start thinking of Nadal as one of the greatest ever. I think this whole argument is particularly fraught, but it is often forgotten how many great players there were around in the 1950s and 60s. Laver won a double grand slam and was out of the amateur game from 1963-1968 during some of his best years. It is not often appreciated though that he was not always the highest ranked professional player. For a time Ken Rosewall was.
One of the greatest I ever heard about was Pancho Gonzates who was generally recognised as the best of the professionals in the 1950s. But he said the Lew Hoad was the one player who could beat him when he, Gonzales, was playing at his best. Hoad, however, was inconsistent, and often couldn’t get motivated at certain times and against certain opponents.
Jack Kramer (b. 1921) who ran professional tennis back then, has an interesting perspective which takes in pre-WW2 players. From the Hoad link this is what he says:
It’s doubtful whether he would rank Sampras and Federer on the first line, but the conditions and equipment are so different that it’s hard to tell. Tony Roche, who is a pretty good judge, said the other day that Federer is one player who could pick up a wooden racket and mix it with the likes of Laver. It’s highly doubtful that Nadal could.
Helen — I reckon Rafa probably found his penis quite some time ago. Just a wild guess.
Helen: I don’t know, it’ hard to judge from the picture. I’d say it was line ball.
Perhaps Rafa is glad he can see “Little Rafa” again now that he’s off the ‘roids.
meh
Tough call on commentators: Rashid painful, but Alicia Molik a bit gauche?
Who cares…. the tennis was superb. Men’s final = 10/10.
Jelena Dokic games = v. good too.
Ambi at #22, I watched a couple of fairly ho-hum women’s matches just to listen to Molik’s commentary: articulate, intelligent, and full of insider knowledge about the games of women she’d played herself for years.
Brian at #14: I don’t mind seeing a grown man cry, in fact I think there ought to be more of it — I’d much rather see blokes expressing their feelings by weeping than by, say, bashing their wives or chucking their children off bridges. What does bother me a bit is seeing anyone — male, female, child or adult — cry over losing a tennis match.
Is it OK by you if a footballer cries when his team WINS the Grand Final? Jeez, let ‘em cry… win, lose or draw, Pav’s. It doesn’t bother me.
We’ll have to disagree about Alicia: intelligent, yes; but gauche and name-dropping I thought. Still, that’s the brief they get, I’m sure, these past players. Emphasise one’s own credentials. Ah well, at least they don’t cry
Pavlov’s Cat wrote:
I suppose it’s “just a tennis match” to you and me, but for Federer, it’s his job. Maybe he’s crying about squillions of sponsorship dollars down the tubes, or the linup of nubile young tennis fans lined up outside Nadals hotel room insted of his. That’s worth crying over, surely.
Personally, I cried when I saw the chair throwing, nationalistic morons jumping up and down about two worthless little sh*thole countries that don’t even exist any more.
I’m with you JPZ in Infinite Sadness, thanks for remembering.
Tennis was never the same for me after IJ. Watching it and it’s CorpLogo flood makes me fully expect that any day now there’ll be the announcement that, as part of the post-GFC econofix, naming rights for the years will be going out to tender. Apparently 2009 maps to ‘The Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment’ in Subsidized Time. To think of a mind like that being blasted with ECT is my definition of horror.
Yep, good point.
Why does Raffa pick at his wedgie all the time? It really is a bad look.
He can afford to buy some very good underpants that fit properly.
Back again, Pavlov’s.
I hear you’ve had scorching weather in Adeliade. I’m Victorian. On Saturday arvo I was hanging some washing out, just 5 minutes in the sun. Officially 43C, possibly 50C in that north-facing spot. Couldn’t bear it.
Then I thought of the tennis players, going for hours in 50C or 60C on the court. Then the firefighters facing the radiant heat of a eucalyptus fire. Then the people working in fish & chip or chicken shops when it’s 43C outside, or any other hot workplace. I wouldn’t begrudge any of those folk a little weep after their time of trial. Not during, after.
Do not weep, gorgeous Roger Federer
Nadal won but you are more betterer
Ambi, overkill, dude. I was responding to something much more uncompromising that Brian said. Go pick on him.
Helen, we can haz more of those?
Sorry to cause offence by disagreeing with what you wrote, P’sC. (But I shan’t cry.) Seems to me Brian and you probably agree: sad to see a grown man cry over a tennis match.
betterer
- but something about Rod Laver
seems to make Roger quaver
Better a little weeping than that constant Billy Idol sneer Nadal wears.
Raffa was raffish
Feder a feather
(duster)
hmmmmm, Helen’s still got three match points. Double faults unfored.
anyone know what jack kramer thinks of rafa?