And it is very much a young mans game.
I think Roger is one of the greatest of ALL time. There is just no question about it. I like him. He is a very friendly and a classy guy.
When you think about other eras like the early to mid nineties, you had Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker, Chang, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Muster, Todd Martin, Sergio Bruguera(2 straight french opens). You also had declining players such as Lendl, Edberg and Mcenroe. And, believe it or not, Jimmy Connors.
In the 80's we had Mcenroe, Connors, Lendl, Borg(80-82 and in his prime retiring at 26), Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Pat Cash.
Do I even have to go into the 70's or 60's?
Now, is this Rogers fault? Of course not. He can't help it that tennis died in the US and Austalia. But let's be honest, how many other great players have their been during his 7 or 8 year reign? One. Nadal. And Roger has only had to deal with him for 3 years. And he is darn lucky that he got hurt or there is NO way he wins the french open this year. This would have been like Sampras getting hurt for Wimbledon and Agassi having to face a....Derrick Rostagno in the final.
Now, imagine if he had to run into a twenty something Agassi in every major....as well as a couple of the other great ones from that era like Courier and Becker. For his ENTIRE carreer. And then run into the 'next sampras' at the tail end of his carreer.
This is what Sampras had to do. What Borg and connors had to do. What Mcenroe had to do. What the truly greatest, Laver, had to do. It's not only draining physically as well as the fact that your just going to drop some of those matches. But also draining, mentally. This is why guys like Courier and Wheaton got burned out. Why Becker got burned out at 26.
Roger has had it quite easy. It reminds me of when Martina Hingis came along at the perfect time and won a bunch of grand slams real quick......untill the rest of the great ones from that generation came along.
Only one came along for Roger however.