While Roger Federer’s French Open victory wasn’t a classic, it was one that put him in the history books, and once again ignited a debate about Roger Federer’s greatness or lack thereof? What?
It’s sad to me that we have so many detractors in the sports world who are diminishing Federer’s French Open win because he didn’t beat Rafael Nadal in the final.
Tell me how it was Federer’s fault that Rafael Nadal wasn’t at his healthiest this time around? And why discredit the man who did beat Nadal, Robin Soderling?
Tell me why we forget that Roger Federer had to win two five-set matches to get to the final?
Lets face it. Roger Federer is the victim of the high standard he set for himself during that remarkable four-year period of 2003-2007. He spoiled the tennis fans too much, but recently Federer has shown us he knows how to overcome adversity as well.
Roger Federer didn’t beat Nadal for the French title, so what?
In Federer we’ve seen greatness manifested in domination, but in tennis there’s always the opponent on the other side of the net, 14 times in a slam final he’s been the victor and in my opinion vastly under-appreciated by the average sports fan.
Those who discredit Federer’s French Open conquer are a discredit to the history of the sport and history is the word fitting for Roger Federer, for his racket isn’t finished writing it just yet...