Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, 'WTF' and Other Thoughts: An Amazing 2011 Awaits

Sports Commentary and More from The Other Tip of the Goldberg

Just two days ago, world No. 2 (still sounds weird to me) Roger Federer capped the 2010 ATP season with an impressive 3-6, 6-3, 6-1 victory over arch-rival and No. 1 Rafael Nadal to capture the World Tour Finals. And yes, I won't be the first or the last to comment on the unfortunate WTF abbreviation for this season-ending tourney. More on that later.

So, what does it all mean?

All tennis fans can recite the stats, especially for the two top players in their sport for the last six years or so. For the Swiss great (still only 29), it gives him a hard court win to bookend his 16th major victory at the Australian Open. Of course, that was way back in January, which means Roger, Rafa and the boys (and girls, for that matter) will get this all cranked up again in less than two months.

In addition to garnering the prestigious win (his fifth WTF championship) Roger heads into the short break with a much-needed head-to-head victory over Nadal, who still leads their personal series 14-8, and 12-6 in finals. If he had lost, how would all of us perceive a 7-15 (5-13) record for Roger versus Rafa, with everything trending toward the Spaniard?

Indeed, it is a testament to Fed's historic run and impossibly high expectations that a season in which he compiled a 64-13 record, with five titles (including a major and a WTF) can be termed an "off-year." Lofty standards indeed, and it appears that he will draw strength from Sunday's victory achieved with a more aggressive style of play encouraged by new coach Paul Annacone.

Rafa exits the London stage having defeated four strong hard court players prior to falling to Fed. It would seem that the tourney was more of a nice-to-have than a must-win for Nadal, who famously won three more majors and the career Grand Slam at the tender age of 24. He clearly did not want to cede the tourney to Federer—and the Swiss champion won it playing great tennis—yet he proved once again that he is a threat to win any tourney at any time, played on any surface.

The ATP finals illustrated once again that while there are other brilliant players on the tour, they still rally in the long shadows cast by Nadal and Federer.

A question for 2011: Can Roger and Rafa pocket all of the majors again next year, or is it only a matter of time before Andy Murray breaks through, or Novak Djokovic wins again? Robin Soderling is always a threat, Tomas Berdych is formidable and if Juan Martin Del Potro comes back healthy, he has a whole lot of game. And there are more very solid players out there.

WTF?

The World Tour Finals debuted in an era when its acronym was not a (cyber) vulgarity. Now in my mind, other cyber-abbreviations, such as LOL, are much more banal and vulgar looking to me, but I digress.

So, please excuse me for using this abbreviation—and all it connotes—to explore something greater. I will ask you to pardon my French, and perhaps my U.S., my Australian and my Wimbledonian, when I ask (and please substitute "why" for "what" as needed):

WTF can't more alleged tennis fans appreciate both Federer and Nadal? Why the intense, childish rivalry between so-called fans of both camps who should know better?

Truly, I realize that the internet makes trolls of many, and flexing keyboard muscles can be great sport for some. I am also quite opinionated, and quite passionate about sports, or I would not be here. Indeed, I come from the Philadelphia area, cover the Phillies and Eagles and know a little something about red-blooded, leather-lunged passion.

But still, there is such a disconnect between the respectful rivalry of Nadal versus Federer, and the insane prattling, back-and-forth between their fans who claim to be fans of the sport. I can almost understand it if this were a true feud such as McEnroe-Connors, or McEnroe-Lendl, but even then.

They say that contrasting styles make for great fights, and tennis has had some great mano-a-manos over the years, not limited to Agassi-Sampras, Borg-Connors, and Evert-Navratilova. But has there been a more intriguing rivalry—based on both contrasting styles and personalities as well as the sheer high level of play—in the last 40 years than Rafa-Roger?

It's natural to choose sides when the stakes are so high, and I do the same. But what is there not to like about these two men, their brilliant play, their record-setting achievements and their penchant to pay tribute to one another when defeated? Oh sure, once in a blue moon, there's an occasional subtle comment that may be blown up as a dig at the rival, but in today's day and age, this is a highly respectful, classy rivalry that should be respected by their minions, and all tennis fans.  This is not Yankees-Red Sox.

An Appeal to Fed Fans (of which I'm one)

It is easy to make a case for Federer as the mythical greatest of all time, and I am torn between him and Rod Laver on my own scorecard, with a slight lean toward Laver (who I really did not get to see at his best.) In addition to re-writing the tennis record book in so many ways, people are drawn to Fed for so many other reasons, including his pure grace, his elegance, his urbane persona and his shot-making artistry.

Federer fans at their best marvel at all of these qualities, and at their worst tend to see anyone who challenges his supremacy as a pretender, or maybe a brute or a sacrilegious being.

In my own little world, I have two friends who practically deify Fed. One of them is an all-around sports fan, and the other barely knows the difference between a Yankee and a Cowboy. The latter still cannot accept the fact that Nadal (and occasionally some other mere mortal) can actually defeat their god-king on a given day. Perhaps, Federer losing is such a shock to their belief system and world view that he can't handle it. His self-esteem implodes and he must lash out against his rival who temporarily discovered a new planet or unbearded Santa Claus.

And why is it that Nadal, that great Mallorcan dynamo who possesses a surreal combination of speed, power, relentlessness, will and tennis skill, is loathed by this friend (we're still friends, but it's tough sometimes) and so many others? Because he does not play a beautiful game? Because he has the temerity to beat his God? Is he Jackson Pollack spray- painting over his beautiful Monet?

I'm not an art critic; that's the best analogy I had.

To my friend, and these other detractors: By demeaning Nadal, you are demeaning the game of tennis  itself, and Mr. Federer.

An Appeal to Nadal Fans (of which I'm even more of one)

You have every reason to be proud of Rafa, and even root for him with great zeal. You may even be upset by those aforementioned Fed zealots, but now what?

Do you deny that Federer is a brilliant player, and an easy case can be made for him as the greatest ever to wield a racket? And even more so, can you forgive Roger his occasional arrogant comment?

I admit that, at times, I am struck by how deferential Nadal has always been to Federer, who does not always return the same kindness to Nadal. But even if one can see Federer as a little arrogant, does anybody really find him unlikable? Is he anything less than a great ambassador for his sport, a sport you claim to love?

One of the beauties of Nadal is that he is this beguiling combination of power, passion and warrior-like resolve on the court, and then a humble gentleman once the match is over.

To Nadal fans, I say: Yes, you are sometimes slighted by Fed's true believers, but get over it and stay classy like the man you are rooting for. Disrespecting Fed's achievements and only pointing to Nadal's head-to-head record versus him as the whole story is, at best, demeaning to Federer, Nadal and to the sport.

To All Tennis Fans

I hope that Roger's great win at the ATP/WTF means that we will see several more years of this enduring, scintillating Roger-Rafa rivalry.

Some will judge the greatest player of all time by the number of majors that he accumulates, and it seems as if Federer has enough in his tank to add to his record 16.

As a tennis fan, I hope he attains 18 or even 20. And I'd love to see Rafa stay healthy, motivated and brilliant enough to surpass his ultimate mark. And maybe we'll all see an even greater player come along after Rafa. I'm not so sure he exists or will, but I plan to be watching.

A MAJOR Pet Peeve

One final rant.

Why do we call every major victory a Grand Slam, or a Slam?  I'm preposterously aware that it's a shortcut of sorts, but it misleads and vitiates the term itself.

Federer has won 16 majors, and Nadal nine majors; they have both achieved the Career Grand Slam.

Rod Laver won the Grand Slam in both 1962 and 1969, and no player has done so since in a single calendar year. Did he win four slams in 1962? No, he won four majors, and the Grand Slam!

Baseball has a Triple Crown (for the league's winner in batting average, home runs and RBI) and the last player to win the Triple Crown was Carl Yastrzemski of the Red Sox, in 1967.

This year, Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals led the National League in homers and RBI...nobody said that he won two Triple Crowns.

As great as Pujols is, he's still trying to become the first man since 1967 to win a Triple Crown.

As great as Roger and Rafa are, they are vying to become the first to win a Grand Slam since 1969.

And what a major accomplishment that would be.

For more information on my books, other writings, and speaking engagements, please contact me at [e-mail]