Getty
There can no longer be any doubt that Nadal is better than Federer on all surfaces and all occasions. He is indisputably the best player in the world. I think he'll win the calendar year grand slam in 2009 – it's the natural progression to an impeccable arc of improvements in all facets of his game over the last 4 years. History is still being written, and it remains to be seen how the two will compare to one another when their careers are over, but it's clear that Nadal is the better player now, and objective posters can safely stop talking about his ascension in the context of Fed's "demise".
Federer dominated for so long, and everything said about him for so long was so positive, that those who’ve resented this all along will naturally revel in its unraveling. In the beginning the source was perhaps those who saw Roddick as the next great tennis champion and resented Fed’s dominance of him. Then it moved to those who resented how quickly the GOAT discussion moved from Sampras to Federer. Then as Nadal ascended, there's been a building resentment of all the attention Fed gets, ostensibly at the expense of Nadal. But an impartial observer has to admit that if you go by results, Fed earned his reputation, just as Nadal has now earned his.
Nadal's ascension to the summit, starting in 2008, has been viewed in the context of Federer's descent by the media, which I don’t think is a bias as much as a reflection of Fed’s record. Anyone who thinks the media are in the tank for Federer is blind to the obvious – his reputation was earned from results and not some collective desire for him to be anointed the greatest player of all time.
I mean, let’s consider the reverse – would it have made any sense if they simply put it down to all the caveats of his doubters? Could anyone take seriously a pundit who said, between 2005 and 2007, “Fed’s not that good – everyone’s building him up to be something he isn’t – his results have been very fortunate because the era is weak and he’s had easy draws. Really, I think Nadal is the best player in the world, and he’s just been unfortunate to have had tough draws, in tournament scheduling, and an ATP schedule skewed in favor of players who specialize on faster surfaces.”
A comment like that would be laughed out of the room. But somehow, for some of the posters here, and all over the web, this is the only kind of comment that shows you haven't been duped by the great Fed Hype Machine. It's ridiculous.
But given that Nadal has now won 3 of the last 4 slams, and he's done it on 3 different surfaces, and won MS titles and the Olympics, it's natural for the conversation to begin to take on the same leaning towards Nadal as it did towards Federer for all those years. He’s proven that he is now the better player with no caveats.
It's also fair to say that Nadal supporters, who've been waiting 4 years to have their day will continue to resent any diversion of attention away from Nadal to Federer. And Federer supporters who haven't given up hope that the good ol' days could return, resent the speed with which Nadal now has to be considered the man to beat everywhere. It's not different than with Sampras fans and Roddick fans.
Craig has revealed in the past that he doesn't particularly like Federer, and that he's a Roddick fan, so you have to keep that in mind when reading this blog. That said, I think he's done as good a job of lauding Federer as any Roddick fan could, over the last few years. He’d have to be a monk not to resist a few juicy headlines like the quote spawning this thread, or this one:
“Rafael Nadal has denied Roger Federer (and all the pundits) history. But he made a bit of his own.”
Implicit here is the idea that the pundits WANTED Fed to make his history, but isn’t it reasonable to assume they just BELIEVED he would? And even if they did WANT him to do it, does it mean that their praise of him has been biased? If anyone had won 11 out of 16 grand slams over 4 years, could a pundit who didn’t laud him for it be taken seriously?
Wouldn’t it be obvious, based on the record, that such intentional ignorance it would be evidence of bias AGAINST such a player?
Post: Quote For The Day
0 comments:
Post a Comment