Roger Federer has won the French Open, finally. He beat an over-awed Robin Soderling, playing his first Grand Slam final. Roger had beaten Soderling on all the previous 9 occasions that they had played. So the result was a foregone conclusion. The monkey is finally off Roger's back. He can now play without a care in the world, and win a few more slams.
Federer has achieved parity with Pete Sampras' 14 Grand Slams - but has the edge because Pete never won at Roland Garros. Neither did Ashe, Becker, Connors, Newcombe, Edberg. McEnroe never won the Australian Open or the French Open. Rosewall and Lendl never won Wimbledon. Borg never won the US Open or the Australian Open. Nadal hasn't won the US Open - yet. Is Federer the greatest ever?
Let us have a quick look at his competition. Only 5 other players have won all 4 Grand Slams in their career: Andre Agassi, Don Budge, Roy Emerson, Rod Laver, Fred Perry. Perry and Emerson can be ruled out because their wins came during the amateur era - when pros were not allowed to participate in Grand Slam events.
Don Budge belonged to the amateur era as well. But he won a Grand Slam in the same calendar year and still holds the record of 6 consecutive Grand Slam singles victories. According to another great, Jack Kramer, the greatest tennis player ever is a toss-up between Budge and Ellsworth Vines.
In the Open era, only Agassi, Federer and Laver have won all four Grand Slam events. Great player that he was, I feel Agassi doesn't quite belong in this league. His base-line only game and counter punching style was not suited to playing well on grass. The fact that he won Wimbledon in 1992 was because his opponent was a very nervous and inconsistent Goran Ivanisevic (who finally won Wimbledon as a complete outsider).
That leaves the last two men standing - Federer and Rod Laver. Did I mention that Laver has won the calendar Grand Slam twice? Once as an amateur in 1962 and once as a pro in 1969. In 40 years, no one has come close to touching that record. There are some other interesting tit-bits.
In 1963, after Laver turned pro, he became an instant whipping boy of the pro stalwarts. Lew Hoad was 8-0 and Ken Rosewall was 11-2 against Laver before he started adapting and asserting himself. He ended the year at No 2, behind Rosewall.
From 1965 to 1967, Laver was undoubtedly the No 1 player in the world. In 1967, he won the unofficial Pro Grand Slam of Wembley, French Pro, Wimbledon Pro and US Pro. In 1968, when the Open era began with only 8 open tournaments, Laver was runner-up to Rosewall at the French Open and won Wimbledon by beating Tony Roche in straight sets. That was followed by the calendar Grand Slam in 1969.
I'm not even including Laver's doubles wins and Davis Cup victories. He won 11 Grand Slam singles titles in all. Wonder how many more he would have won if he was allowed to participate during his 5 years in the pro circuit from 1963 to 1967. But the two Grand Slams in a calendar year - one during the amateur era and once as a pro - should be more than enough evidence to decide who is the all-time great.
For those who have never had the privilege of watching the Rockhampton Rocket in action here is one final clinching piece of evidence. To be called the greatest ever, a player should have a better win-loss record against his best adversaries. Rod Laver beat every one in sight - whether it was his idol Lew Hoad, or an aging but supremely gifted Pancho Gonzales, or the evergreen Ken Rosewall with the greatest backhand ever. What about Roger Federer? His win-loss record against Rafa Nadal (current rank: No 1) and Andy Murray (current rank: No 3) is in the negative.
I looked up the definition of 'great' in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary. There are 11 definitions, out of which 'remarkably skilled' seems most appropriate for a tennis player. In terms of remarkable skills, there is little to choose between Laver and Federer. Laver was by far the better at serve-and-volley. In fluidity of motion, almost ballet-like in its beauty, Federer tops.
Posts
