For Federer and Nadal, Best Debate Is Still Ahead
|
Version 0 of 1. It is safe to assume that Roger Federer would not have had much of a chance against Rafael Nadal had he made it to their anticipated quarterfinal Wednesday night at the United States Open. In other news, as they used to say on “Saturday Night Live,” Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. Oh, but wouldn’t Federer, despite his three-set loss to Tommy Robredo in the fourth round, have challenged Nadal with a greater arsenal than Robredo, who at best could be characterized as a poor man’s Nadal? Yes, in theory. But if we have learned anything over the last nine years, it is that Federer does not hold up well against Nadal, the swashbuckling Spaniard. Nadal defeated Federer in straight sets on Florida hardcourts the first time they played, in 2004. Since then, he has beaten Federer about two times for every loss (21-10 head-to-head). With Federer losing to mere mortals now and Nadal at the top of his hardcourts game this summer, Federer never seemed farther away in his pursuit of Nadal than he was in absentia Wednesday night. Wasn’t that the most alluring part of the rivalry at its summit? While Federer had a firm grip on the No. 1 ranking and was being toasted as the greatest in history, he more often than not seemed to be chasing in futility after Nadal and his evil topspin forehands. Parse the numbers any way you want. (Federer’s defenders like to explain the disparity by noting that 13 of Nadal’s victories were on clay, his natural habitat.) But if Federer, 32, does not soon get his game together and his confidence back, and if Nadal’s 27-year-old body can hold up until he is 30, the basis of the rivalry will probably shift from head-to-head matchups to Grand Slam titles. That is the one measure that is concrete, unlike the unwinnable greatest-of-all-time debate. It is Federer’s stronghold, his indisputable claim to being the best. But if Nadal can close the gap, which stands at 17-12, and get within striking distance as he approaches the end of his peak years, the rivalry will thrive no matter what Federer does from here on. It will in certain respects be bigger than ever. It will have a very good case as the greatest in the history of men’s tennis. There is a mythology to sports rivalries that sometimes transcends a more sobering truth. HBO did a sweet documentary on John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg, who played a brilliant five-set final at Wimbledon in 1980 that included an unforgettable 18-16 fourth-set tiebreaker. Their matches were marked by classic contrasts of style and comportment. But they played only 14 times, with each winning seven, and they were finished as Grand Slam singles winners by their mid-20s. Longevity matters. Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi played a robust 34 times, with Sampras winning 20. They met in five Grand Slam finals, but Sampras won four of them and had the far more productive career. He also prevailed in four tiebreaker sets in the 2001 United States Open quarterfinals on a memorably exhausting night. But if that match reflected Sampras and Agassi at their competitive height, it lacked the gravitas of the Federer-Nadal Wimbledon final in 2008, won by Nadal in the fifth set, 9-7. Of course, the discussion of the best male players and rivalries gets more complicated when it has to include Rod Laver and the pre-Open era. What would Federer’s 17 Grand Slam titles mean had Laver not lost five years of his prime for joining the then-separate professional tour? Asked about Laver’s Grand Slam gap years, Nadal said: “In theory, that was going to be the best years for him. So he would have the chance to win as much as Roger did. You never know.” We can theorize, but we do not know. By the numbers, Federer is the best, and he will remain so for at least a couple of more years, whether he plays on through the twilight of his career or decides to retreat from the uncomfortable position of faded icon. In the wake of Federer’s defeat Monday night, there was no doubt a competitive second-week hangover at the United States Open, a derailment of hope. Even an appearance by Donald Trump could not save the night from the one-sidedness of a Nadal blowout that was only compelling until Robredo finally won a game 39 minutes, and 9 games, into the match. A Swiss player not named Roger, Stanislas Wawrinka, got people’s attention Thursday by upsetting Andy Murray. But even Nadal sounded wistful after Federer failed to keep their date to play for the first time on the New York stage. “To be honest, going to be great if we were able to play because I felt that our rivalry for so many years we were able to play in all the best scenarios, stadiums, around the world,” Nadal said in his charming Euro-English. “Three finals of the Grand Slams, so probably that deserves to have that match here in the U.S. Open, too, the biggest court of the world. But didn’t happen. That don’t mean cannot happen in the future. We’ll see. Hopefully. But is true that we are getting older, so the chances are less today than five years ago.” They played a close match in Mason, Ohio, last month, with Nadal extending his dominance over Federer. It is true that 21-10 sounds like a blowout. But the more emerging and important tally is about to be 17-12. The sport is waiting to see what Nadal can do about that. |