In Defence of the Master
Elegant, graceful, flowing, melifluous, artful, stylish, classy, statesmanlike, sportsmanlike, effortless, humble, genius. These are just some of the adjectives utilised by the fawning, onanistic press to describe Roger Federer. Lazy and cliché as they may be, these words probably do go some way to describing the enduring popularity of Roger Federer. Watching him play tennis has been described in print with absolutely no hint of irony as being akin to a religious experience. Therefore the announcement this week of his decision to miss the rest of the year to focus on recovering from a recent knee operation is a crushing blow to his myriad followers. It probably comes as no surprise to discover that I am not one of them.
I have never had a particular problem with Federer as a player or as a man. Neither do I merely endulge in ‘trolling’ or ‘hating’ towards those that do engage in such idolatry. I have no issue with the fact he is a serial winner, though quite frankly who wouldn’t be jealous of the rich rewards his career has garnered? What I do object to however, is that he is described most often in reverential terms. If the words listed above were used about Kim Jong Un they would be dismissed as outright propaganda. I have always felt uneasy about the almost cult-like obsession with Federer, that there was a general feeling that if you didn’t like him the problem was with you.
He is guilty of being less magnanimous in defeat than his many Stefan Edberg Awards would suggest. Many pundits curiously overlook this. If you are fortunate enough to witness tennis in the flesh, I also believe that you will see Federer’s style is not any more aesthetically pleasing than the other players in the top 50. They are all geniuses at their craft. Again Federer’s style of play is described in the media almost as fact, rather than a self fulfilling bias.
Between 2005–2007 when I was developing as a tennis fan those seasons were entirely dominated by Federer. It didn’t make for the riveting, suspenseful viewing that we have enjoyed since 2008 (aside from periods of domination by the Serbian world No. 1 Novak Đjoković). The only person who stopped Federer from sweeping every title before him was Rafael Nadal and even he didn’t beat Federer every time, especially outside of clay court tournaments. Despite all of this, I have no issue at with stating that I believe that Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time.
To most Nadal and Đjoković fans this claim will be considered scandalous. Having accumulated 14 and 12 slams respectively and both with markedly more Master’s 1000 titles than Federer, the plea could be made to wait for the end of their respective careers. Naturally hindsight makes comparison easier but I believe that Federer’s haul of slams (17) and 237 consecutive weeks at world number will most likely not be usurped in this era. The number of multiple slam winners in their 30s currently stands at 0. Đjoković turns 30 next year and Nadal is already there. Granted we are in an era of tennis where fitness and physical performance appear to be equally if not more important than tennis playing ability. The peak for a player is now in the late twenties/early thirties. History, however is not on the side of the would-be GOATs.
If either or both of the slam/world No 1 records were to be overturned by Nadal, Đjoković or any other players there is one thing which marks Federer out. Between 2005 and 2007 he made the rest of the tour look stupid. He was that good. Đjoković is metronomic and machine like, Nadal has the strongest competitive instincts of any athlete and both have the ability to grind opponents into the dirt. Federer in his prime though made also-rans look like they weren’t playing the same sport as him. He would win slams without losing a set. He would absorb the shots of opponents more powerful than him and toy with them. He even made his nearest challenger at the time Andy Roddick look weak.
Nadal and Đjoković are direct results of what Federer has done for the sport. By becoming unbeatable the sport as a whole had to improve to live with the standard set. He also increased the popularity of the sport and therefore helped to increase tournament prize money exponentially since the early 2000s, which has made the sport more competitive. In many ways we have Federer to thank for the quality we have been able to witness in tennis in the last few years. Nadal, Đjoković and even Britain’s Andy Murray would not have become the players they are if it hadn’t been for Federer. Through the blinkers of the superfan this may be hard to appreciate until he’s gone.
Perhaps surprisingly, I was concerned to hear of Federer’s physical frailties. One of the few prizes he has yet to achieve is the gold medal in singles. It is now almost certain he will never win that tournament. He will be nearly 39 for the Tokyo Olympics in 2020 and will be lucky to even be participating, let alone actually win. The fact that the greatest player of all time won’t get another realistic shot at the one title that still eludes him is a shame. With several high profile withdrawals already, losing one of the most popular and competitive players can only harm the event, even for those that hope he loses in the early rounds.
My anti-support of Federer has kept me wildly entertained through the years. I am always amused to recall his back to back defeats at the hands of Guillermo Cañas in 2007 and often rewatch his tense five set losses to Nadal in Australia and London.* This all comes from a place of admiration though. It is because he is so good that I feel compelled to cheer against him. Sport needs rivalries and he had none. It needs clashes of personalities yet everyone liked him. It needs clashes of egos and despite his ridiculous achievements he always seemed (somewhat) humble. Federer made the sport more popular so clearly the public cares not for these things. Maybe after all it is entirely my fault that I never understood why he was so loved. If I had one word to describe Federer, and I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say so, I would have no qualms in emphatically describing him as a legend.
*I did support him once though. In 2005 he faced Andre Agassi in the final of the US open and the press coverage surrounding the event became embarrassing in the level of its praise for the American veteran. You may at this point start to notice a pattern…
US Open picture courtesy of John Togasaki via Flickr
Wimbledon Trophy picture courtesy of Robbie Dale via Flickr
