“Congratulations, Roger. You did it.”
Those five words I absolutely hated hearing out of Pete Sampras’s mouth.
“Seven years you let me have this record.”
I remember last year at Wimbledon, he was getting close. I could just breathe a sigh of relief that Nadal won, because that kept him one step further from the title. I was hopeful Nadal would with the US Open too, but scratch that – Federer’s too good. He’s up to 13 now.
Federer has a fair shot to win at any given tournament. His getting to 14 in 2009 was definitely inevitable, but I thought that maybe it might take at least another year before he got to 15. Nadal won a tight 5-setter at the Aussie Open against Fed this year, pushing it back yet another tournament.
Roland Garros – of all the Grand Slams, this is the least likely for Federer to win. Nadal’s got a pretty strong monopoly on the French, so I wasn’t too worried about that one. Oh but hey, Soderling beats Nadal in a freak of nature round of 16 match, pretty much handing Federer his first French Open title. Cut the 14th notch in his belt, the Fed train is one away now.
And finally, we get to Wimbledon 2009. Now, Wimbledon to Roger Federer is as Roland Garros is to Rafael Nadal, so I figured this one would be “the one” for Federer. Although, last Wimbledon he did lose the title to Nadal for the first time since 2003, so I had a little hope that it might not happen. But I wasn’t going to kid myself – I knew those odds were slim.
Usually I’m glued to the tv the last weekend of Wimbledon. However this year I was out of town, camping kind of off the grid for a few days. No tv, which means no watching the final, which in turn means no finding out who won until a few days afterward. I can’t say I was surprised to find out Federer had won, but it made me sad. That’s 15. He’s beaten Pete’s record only seven years after it was set. After downloading and watching the final though, I’ve got to say I was actually surprised by Roddick. I’m not exactly his biggest fan, but he really pulled out the stops that day. That was an epic final, both players were on the tops of their game and were fighting hard to win it.
So there it is, 15 Grand Slam titles. Kind of weird to say. I can dislike the man, but I can’t deny he’s got skill. Pete can’t deny it either, as quoted above. But he said in a recent interview that at least he know that had they both been playing together in their prime, it would have been an entirely different ball game.
I think I would have had my fair share of wins, and he would have had his fair share of wins. We have similar temperament and contrasting styles of play which would have made for a great rivalry. Our rivalry potentially would have transcended the sport.
Seriously, if only. You’ve got to wonder sometimes, I guess it’s the same with any sport. What would it be like, if all the greats from the different decades could play together, at their prime? Who would come out the victor? I would personally love to be able to see Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Laver, McEnroe, Becker, Borg, Courier and any of the other greats I’m forgetting right now to kick it and play some kick-ass tennis together. Most anywhere you look when these men are compared, Federer comes out on top. But you know, I like to think that’s not really true. Different times, different styles – who knows really who the “best” is.
Which leads to the next question: who’s next? There’s still a good few years out of the Federer/Nadal rivalry. But Murray’s got potential, and so does Monfils and Cilic. Perhaps the ever entertaining Djokovic? Or maybe my boy James Blake will step it up and get on top, but that’s mostly just wishful thinking. Only time will tell, but the outlook looks good for men’s tennis.
