(Photo by Julian Finney/Getty Images)
The only thing that will last longer than Sunday's fifth set at Wimbledon is the memory of another epic gentlemen's final. That's why we've enlisted the opinions of Bleacher Report's top tennis analysts to weigh in on five burning questions, one for each set, following Roddick vs. Federer. As Long John Silver, Rohini Iyer, J.A. Allen, and Rob York pull up a chair at Trey's Table, I encourage you to visit their pages for more top-notch tennis coverage.
1. In light of last year's championship, and given that Nadal could not participate in 2009, could anyone have anticipated a better Wimbledon final? Where is its place in history?
York: I wrote earlier in the week that for this year’s final to match last year’s we needed Andy Murray in the final, and many of my fellow Bleacher Creatures were in agreement. Roddick, for all his accomplishments, was not the equal of Federer or Nadal. How wrong we were.
I don’t think this match will be as highly regarded as last year’s but it would have to rank in the top five Wimbledon finals of all time, certainly.
Allen: It will rank high in all future discussions of five-set Wimbledon finals. I give it the number four spot. The feeling before the match was that Federer was a lock, but that was not the case. The action was tense and exciting and the tennis was superlative. Memorable match.
No. 1 - Bjorn Borg vs. John McEnroe 1980
No. 2 - Rafael Nadal vs. Roger Federer 2008
No. 3 – Goran Ivanisevic vs. Pat Rafter 2001
No. 4 – Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick 2009
No. 5 – Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal 2007
No. 6 – Stefan Edberg vs. Boris Becker 1990
Silver: For the most part, no, we could not have anticipated that showing. Even after yesterday, I am not sure we can compare the finals last year and this year.
Last year was more astonishing baseline rallies. This year was more classic grass court serve and return tennis. They were different match ups and it felt very different. In history, I think it is up there with one of the most important matches Federer has won in his career, may be top six or top seven.
Iyer: No it couldn’t have; the match in my opinion was a perfect roller coaster of emotions and drama, the pendulum oscillating between both the players equally. Each and every fan watching the match from their TV sets or straight sitting in the stands would have felt his heart beating a violent tattoo against his chest—the octane pumping from both ends made us slip constantly to the edge of our seats.
2. With Sampras in attendance, Federer surpassed his record, earning a 15th Grand Slam title. In your estimation, is Federer now the greatest that's ever lived? If not, what must he still prove?
Silver: In my two cents worth judgment, he is. Sampras never conquered the French clay. Federer did last month.
Let me put it this way: Federer is the best player of the Open Era. Before the Open Era, Laver never played for five years in his prime, and he has 11 titles. So, that’s the only end note to that statement.
In Sampras’ defense, he held the No. 1 ranking longer than Federer, and Bjorg won the French and Wimbledon consecutively for five years (Federer has done that one time). But I still think Federer is the GOAT (Greatest of ALL Time) after Open Era because of his scorching consistency—21 consecutive Slam semi-finals. Beat that.
Allen: Yes, Federer is the greatest ever... probably. Rod Laver says he is the best of his era. But, the final word on this “greatest ever” distinction should be made once his career has ended and not before. It is difficult to gauge the depth and breath of his tennis career while it continues.
Iyer: Yes, he is; if we take into consideration say a Bjorn Borg and compare Roger Federer with him, Federer will emerge as a better player for the simple reason that Borg never won anything except his record winning performances at Roland Garros and Wimbledon, not to mention that he gave it up when he was dethroned by McEnroe in 1981; a true champion never gives up.
If we take Pete Sampras, then he will have to be overlooked because while he managed to grab seven Wimbledon titles, he wasn’t even remotely close to reaching a French Open final, let alone win it; also, statistically while it took 12 years for Pete to achieve his count of 14, it has taken Federer half of that to make it beyond that legend.
His consistency has been remarkable and it’s this consistency that determines and concretes his place as the greatest.
But at the same time, the same argument will be questioned a bit when Federer and Laver will be compared. The man was a legend, winning 198 titles, not to forget two Golden Slams and that, too, not in two consecutive years, but six years apart.
If the rules would have allowed professionals to contest in the slams as opposed to only the amateurs, then Laver’s tally of slam victories would have definitely been more than what Sampras achieved and what Federer was able to surpass, in such a scenario Federer’s validity as the GOAT does remain under a cloud of doubt.
York: Federer clinched the status of best of the Open Era (1969 and after) when he won in Paris. As great as the achievements of Sampras and Borg are, Federer has now clearly overtaken them.
His only true competition now is with pre-Open Era players. Laver won the Grand Slam twice, seven years apart. Pancho Gonzales was the world’s best for eight years. Bill Tilden created the concept of a professional tennis player.
Whether or not Federer is greater than they were can only ever be a matter of opinion.
3. Based on his performance alone, do you believe Federer would have won either the French or Wimbledon titles if he had been forced to face Nadal in the final?
Allen: That is like asking if Federer would have won if there had been an eclipse of the sun or if the stadium had blown away. There is no way to answer the question objectively. We all imagine that Nadal would have made an impact, but someone else took him out at the French and his injury kept him away from Wimbledon. Not a relevant question.
York: Both Roddick and Soderling are tough, huge-hitting players, but Federer went into both of their matches with extremely favorable records against them. Having Nadal and his 13 prior victories over the Swiss across the net would certainly have changed that dynamic.
I won’t go any more in depth into this subject, though, because I’d not want to imply that Federer doesn’t deserve this. He’s not only talented, but wholly professional and a superb ambassador for the sport.
Silver: It’s a hypothetical question, and the answer to it will not make any difference to what reality is. Mate, you can only play who showed up to play on the Second Sunday of a slam.
Iyer: Roland Garros would have been difficult for Federer to triumph, though definitely not impossible; when you lose to your rival in a most humiliating manner, that rankles a lot and Federer’s 2008 RG loss would have played a pivotal role in this year’s final had Rafa contested that. Federer would have had to summon every ounce of mental solidity in addition to his clay court prowess to edge past Rafa if Rafa was his rival on the seventh of June, 2009.
Wimbledon, however, remains another matter, for Federer was possessed to regain that silverware back from Rafa, so it was always a moot point in Federer’s favour-come hell, come rain!
4. Put yourself in Andy Roddick's seat on that transatlantic flight back to the States. What must he be feeling, and will he ever win another major?
Silver: What must he be feeling… ‘Where’s the Sam Adams I asked for 15 minutes ago? I just want to get out into the sea on my boat in Austin (TX) with Brook.'
He’ll be all right. This is Justin Gimelstob’s tweet last night:
just left Andy at his rented house. he has a great team of people around him that care about him. he knows he has a lot to be proud of.
Will ROD win another slam? Of course he will. May I dare say, Big Apple 2009.
York: The last Wimbledon final he lost to Federer was in 2005 and it sent his career into a tailspin. That match was over in straight sets, so this loss is both better and worse for the American.
It's better because it showed Roddick can stay with Federer, and worse because he lost despite playing (and competing) his best. I wish I could say for certain that he will win another, because no other One-Slam Wonder has ever more deserved to shake that label.
Allen: Andy Roddick played his heart out on Sunday and he proved that he has the arsenal and temperament to win a major. He will. He is a year younger than Federer and does well on hard courts. In fact, his one slam title was earned at the U.S. Open. There is no reason to doubt Roddick's ability to recapture that title even as soon as 2009.
Iyer: He would have definitely been shaken and demoralised, but at the same time he would have understood that Federer is not an invincible factor and even he can get past him if he tries and zeroes in on the right moves; and, yes, he does have the potential to get himself another slam or two. He has resurrected himself into a rival who can pose a stiff challenge to the top three contenders and possibly create an upset!
5. Federer said in a post-match interview that breaking records has never been his concern, and that he hopes to enjoy competitive tennis for many years to come. How many majors will he own when his career is finished?
Iyer: Anything between 17-20 and only if he is able to maintain this level of consistency, fitness, and resolute determination.
York: Before Nadal reached No. 1, it looked like Federer might win 20. Before Nadal’s injury, it looked liked Federer might need to work at it for years to get 15. Therefore, you can understand my wariness when predicting this outcome. I think 18 is reasonable, though.
Allen: I grant him 20 majors if his present fitness and health continue. That is what Pete Sampras predicts and who am I to argue with the master?
Silver: Let’s say he will play another good three to four years. He will always be hard to beat in London, so three more—another three more in other places, combined. 21 or 22 when he is done. Cheers.
Editorial Comments
Excellent analysis, ladies and gentlemen. We appreciate you taking the time to weigh in with candid responses from international perspectives.
Question Three was certainly the wild card, and I wasn't surprised to see some of you discard it as unreasonably hypothetical. I think we all understand the intention behind it, however. To solidify his legacy as the greatest of all time, Federer needs to solidify his legacy as the greatest of his generation. He's indisputably the most consistent and accomplished. But until he dispatches Rafa in a Grand Slam final while both are in their prime, Federer is leaving the door open to doubt.
Well done, and I look forward to any further thoughts in the comments section.
24 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete