Even as every time Roger Federer steps onto a tennis court he enshrines himself further and further into tennis immortality, at the same he becomes less and less legendary. This may be a strange observation to make of a player who until today had gone six years without losing before the semi-final stage in a Grand Slam. Before this years' French he had reached eight straight Grand Slam finals, dating back to his defeat at the hands of Novak Djokovic in the 2008 Australian Open.Soderling beat the world number one for the first time in his career, having been defeated in their twelve previous meetings, including a comprehensive beating in last year's final in Paris. After his victory, he said 'As soon as I got here, immediately I felt confidence. I've played better and better every match and today I played really well. It cannot be much better. It's great to play on this court and it's for sure my favourite grand slam. To play the world number one on this court, it couldn't be better.' He will play Tomas Berdych, Andy Murray's conqueror, for a place in the final.
Soderling's performance was all the greater as it was delivered in front of a rather hostile Parisian crowd that has not seen a French Open final without Federer in it since 2005, when he was knocked out in the semis by, you guessed it, Rafael Nadal. This was their third meeting, and first of eight meetings in Grand Slam events. And the last time Federer was knocked out of a grand slam before the semi-final stage was in 2004, when Brazilian and champion grunter Gustavo Kuerton beat him in straight sets in the third round of the French, a run of twenty-three straight semi-finals. Even in defeat, the size of the Swiss' achievement looks even greater.
If there are any blots on Federer's copy book, it seems clear what they are, Rafael Nadal, and Roland Garros. Sometimes even both at once. If not for them, we might be calling him the best, rather than one of the best. Nadal has been a perennial thorn in Federer's side, as the Swiss has lost fourteen of their twenty-one meetings, losing the latest in this year's Madrid Open final. Five of those have come in Grand Slam finals. Nadal has won twelve of their seventeen meetings in finals, six out of eight in Grand Slams, five out of seven in Grand Slam finals, and ten out of twelve on clay.
This would mean that Federer has the edge when the two play on a surface other than clay, with five wins out of nine on hard courts and grass. In the Open Era Federer holds the record for most consecutive wins on grass (65) and hard courts (56), with Nadal having the record on clay (81). Perhaps Federer has simply had the misfortune to play at the same time as one of the greatest players on clay, ever.
This mode of reasoning punishes Federer for not winning his title by beating Nadal, and at the same praises the Spaniard's achievement, even when his record looks a lot more ordinary if we ignore his four French Open victories. But the fact is Nadal was superior on clay, Federer on grass. After Nadal lost two straight Wimbledon finals to the Swiss, he worked on his game until he emerged victorious in the final to beat all finals, emerging from a five-set thriller as the 2008 Wimbledon Champion. Federer might have finally captured the elusive French Open title, and done what only Andre Agassi and Rod Laver have done in the Open Era, but he did it without going through Nadal, who had been knocked out by Soderling, in part down to tendinitis in both knees, a problem that kept him from defending his Wimbledon title a month later.
Some will say this is far too harsh on the man who has won sixteen Grand Slam titles in the space of six and a half years. His struggles at Roland Garros look tiny compared to those of Pete Samprasa titan in is own era, but still a man who struggled whilst playing on clay. Sampras managed to get past the third round just four times, and never made a final. He is still one of only three players to win all four slams in the Open Era along with Laver and Agassi.
Until Federer does indeed beat Nadal at the French, a chance he may never get again, questions will remain unanswered.
If there are any blots on Federer's copy book, it seems clear what they are, Rafael Nadal, and Roland Garros. Sometimes even both at once. If not for them, we might be calling him the best, rather than one of the best. Nadal has been a perennial thorn in Federer's side, as the Swiss has lost fourteen of their twenty-one meetings, losing the latest in this year's Madrid Open final. Five of those have come in Grand Slam finals. Nadal has won twelve of their seventeen meetings in finals, six out of eight in Grand Slams, five out of seven in Grand Slam finals, and ten out of twelve on clay.
This would mean that Federer has the edge when the two play on a surface other than clay, with five wins out of nine on hard courts and grass. In the Open Era Federer holds the record for most consecutive wins on grass (65) and hard courts (56), with Nadal having the record on clay (81). Perhaps Federer has simply had the misfortune to play at the same time as one of the greatest players on clay, ever.
This mode of reasoning punishes Federer for not winning his title by beating Nadal, and at the same praises the Spaniard's achievement, even when his record looks a lot more ordinary if we ignore his four French Open victories. But the fact is Nadal was superior on clay, Federer on grass. After Nadal lost two straight Wimbledon finals to the Swiss, he worked on his game until he emerged victorious in the final to beat all finals, emerging from a five-set thriller as the 2008 Wimbledon Champion. Federer might have finally captured the elusive French Open title, and done what only Andre Agassi and Rod Laver have done in the Open Era, but he did it without going through Nadal, who had been knocked out by Soderling, in part down to tendinitis in both knees, a problem that kept him from defending his Wimbledon title a month later.
Some will say this is far too harsh on the man who has won sixteen Grand Slam titles in the space of six and a half years. His struggles at Roland Garros look tiny compared to those of Pete Samprasa titan in is own era, but still a man who struggled whilst playing on clay. Sampras managed to get past the third round just four times, and never made a final. He is still one of only three players to win all four slams in the Open Era along with Laver and Agassi.
Until Federer does indeed beat Nadal at the French, a chance he may never get again, questions will remain unanswered.
No comments:
Post a Comment