Wimbledon 2010: Can We Get Used to Roger Federer As The World's New No. 2?
With Wimbledon in full swing there is a question that must be asked. Can we get used to Roger Federer as the world's new No. 2?
With Federer's recent struggles, which include a near first-round defeat at Wimbledon, and a fourth-round exit at the French Open, it may be easy for some to make a decision on this.
As far as his ranking goes, it will be a while until Federer will have a shot at regaining the No. 1 spot. He has points to defend from the final at Wimbledon, and points from a finals run at the US Open.
Rafael Nadal has no points to defend at Wimbledon, but he has points from a semifinals run at the US Open. For Federer to regain his No. 1 ranking, he will need Nadal to have a poor summer on the hard courts, and to falter at Wimbledon.
However, I don't see Federer having that kind of luck.
Nadal has a tricky, but not difficult draw. He shouldn't see a quality opponent until the fourth round in possibly John Isner or Mikhail Youzhny. Robin Soderling could be waiting in the quarterfinals, which could be tough if he can recapture his Roland Garros magic.
It's obvious that Federer wants to get back to the top. There's only one legitimate record he hasn't broken yet: most weeks at No. 1.
He is currently one week short of that record, currently held by Pete Sampras. But I don't see the possibility of this happening until next year.
But you don't have to be No. 1 to be competitive and win tournaments.
Pete Sampras was ranked No. 17 when he won his last Grand Slam in 2002. Andre Agassi was ranked No. 7 and reached the US Open final in 2005 at the age of 35. Michael Chang was ranked No. 15 when he won the French Open. Great players and champions don't need to be ranked No. 1 to win; we all know Federer is no exception.
So, will we get used to Federer at No. 2? Most likely not, but I think I can.
The point is, no matter his ranking, the Federer Express will keep rolling along.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?