11
Jul
2007
Quick Thoughts on Federer v Nadal
Originally, I was going to write a whole column about this rivalry and break it down from all different aspects. Then I realized that I don’t know enough about tennis or it’s history to accurately paint a picture for my readers and let them know where I’m coming from. Since I base my writings off of accuracy, true knowledge and interest, I don’t want to sell people short by writing about something I don’t know enough about. So instead of a whole column, here is my opinion on the rivalry:
I think it is one of the best rivalries in sports today. I don’t think it’s on the level of Red Sox-Yankees and others because to be quite honest, not that many people tune in to tennis. However, watching that match was amazing. It was a few successful returns by Nadal away from being an upset of Federer. I do know enough about tennis to say that I think Federer, when it’s all said and done, will go down as the best to ever play the game. I do believe he will surpass Sampras’s mark of 14 Grand Slams (Federer currently has 11).
Nadal is 21, not at his prime yet and Federer is 25, at the peak of his prime. This is why I usually stay away from the debate about who is better because both players are phenomenal, but are also at different stages of their careers. It’s clear to see though that Nadal is catching up to Federer on grass while Federer still struggles on clay. “Doesn’t that make Nadal the better player then? I mean he’s catching up to Roger and he’s not even at his prime yet, like you said.” This is the argument I get from friends on this topic. My response is no, he’s not better because he hasn’t won the way, or dominated the way that Roger has. I don’t have the stat infront of me (if someone can find it and send it to me, I’d appreciate it), but I want to know what their head to head record is, and how many of the games were on clay and how many were on grass.
I heard an interesting viewpoint the other day about the rivalry and the debate about who is better. The person said that this is similar to an NBA Playoff Series in the sense that, it hasn’t really begun until someone beats someone on their homecourt. If i win my two games at home, and you win your two games at home, we’re still even and the series hasn’t started yet. But if you come into my house and beat me, then you have the upperhand and it’s on at that point. I feel its the same concept with Federer v Nadal. Until one of the two beats the other on their tourney (Wimbledon for Federer and French Open for Nadal), we don’t have a clear cut, 100% leader because they are so neck and neck.
Now that being said, my prediction is against what most people foresee. I think Roger will beat Nadal in the French Open before Nadal beats Roger in Wimbledon. When that happens, game on.
(Yeah, I’m sure they really love each other.)