Last year, Roger Federer began in glory, as he swept to the Aussie title, his record setting 16th Slam. There, he offered one of his glowing, unapologetic self-assessments: “There’s no secret I’m definitely a very talented player. I always knew I had something special, but I didn’t know it was like, you know, that crazy.”
Federer also ended the year in triumph, scoring an in-your-face parting-shot victory in London, where he abused la crème de la crème — Novak Djokovic, Robin Soderling, Andy Murray and, most of all, Rafael Nadal, en route to claiming his fifth season-ending ATP World Tour Finals, and muted the chorus whose refrain was that Roger has been in serious decline.
Of course, before London, the doubters had ample reason to wonder whether we would again relish his Royal “flawlessness” — the imposing competitor and sublime shot-maker, the genius who raised the tennis bar to ridiculously high Alpine heights. After all, between his book-end triumphs in Melbourne and London, Federer had (so to speak) flailed a thousand forehands. His returns were modest. His backhand was hardly happy. So his shoulders would slump, the frustration obvious. “This is killing me,” he seemed to be shouting. And as oh-so-slight lines emerged on his Hollywood handsome 29-year-old face, slight fissures cracked his supposedly seamless game. OMG: The Mighty Fed was no longer a wall of invincibility. His vulnerability clear. He not only lost to top foes, but also fell to lesser lights: Alberto Montanes, Marcos Baghdatis, Ernests Gulbis and, of course, Tomas Berydch. His astounding streak of 23 straight Slam semis was snapped by Robin Soderling in Paris. He nearly crashed out of Wimbledon in the first round against unheralded Colombian Alejandro Falla. He failed to reach the final of three straight Slams. Plus, he stumbled in myriad ways. Occasionally flat-footed, sometimes too cautionary, the once fierce closer incredibly lost five matches in which he had match points. The Sky is falling.
The critics, led by Mats Wilander, quickly circled. First the blunt Swede diminished The Federer Era itself, saying, “On paper, Roger is the best of all time, but you have to say that the era when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so much. Suddenly Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had — the Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger dominated so much. He’s not worse [now]…[But] it’s all statistics. So Roger Federer is the greatest.”
After Nadal won the U.S. Open, Wilander said, “This victory says that we should stop talking about Federer being the greatest player of all time. I truly believe that. We can say that Roger is, but there’s no point in doing that until Nadal is done. It’s already unfair to say Roger is because Rafa is beating him all the time on every surface and in the Slam finals.”
But hold on, Sparky. Before we just flick Fed aside, remember he won a Slam and five other titles in 2010. There are worse things than being No. 2 in the world. He hired coach Paul Annacone, who was stunned by Roger’s eagerness. And most importantly, forget only at your own peril that Fed simply is Fed. Far more than a conglomeration of stats and titles, he is a man, a master, a magician; a force of nature that you never, ever want to underestimate.
