Roger Federer, one of the greatest players of all times is not considered the best after all. I am not saying this. But a lot of my friends who are Tennis enthusiasts believe so. They feel that Federer is lucky to not have some of the most competitive players around in his prime years. I do not think that is true. I am a huge Federer fan. It is not his record grand slams or his ATP rankings. It is because of the way he plays, his elegance, his skills and his low profile personality.
This made me think about writing a blog about the reasons that makes Federer the best. I went inventorying about Federer's records in grand slams. He has won a record 15 grand slams. As I am writing this, he is on his way to the 16th title having a one set advantage over Murray in the Australian Open. He has reached the semi-finals or better of the last 23 grand slam tournaments he has played. That is in a span of 6 years. Simply amazing. I will come to the debate about his opponents being weak or not. He has held the No. 1 ATP rank for a record 237 consecutive weeks. He has a record of reaching 10 consecutive grand slam finals and appearing in 18 of the last 19. All this can be attributed to his motivation, fitness and off course experience.
All that was for the record. If you ask me what I like about Federer the most. I think the most obvious thing is his amazing backhand. I have seen very few players who can play backhand with so much ease as Federer. Most of the players play using 2 hands. The way Federer plays is so elegant and effortless and that too with one hand. I have seen almost nil double faults from Federer. He is very disciplined. Another significant thing about Federer is his mind. He always focuses on winning the first set. When he does not, his strategy is affected. Well, he should be thankful to Nadal for overcoming this now. Federer is not the same person as he was when he won his first grand slam in 2003. He has improved a lot and learnt on his way. His serve is not as strong as Sampras and cannot be compared to Goran Ivanisevic. But his returns and his patience to play long volleys are remarkable than them. His drop shot is equally brilliant.
Now coming to the debate (Am now rejoicing that Federer is on his way to winning the second set). Most people believe that if Sampras was young, Federer would not have been so great. Well, I do not agree. There has been a considerable change in the way Tennis was played during the times of Sampras and Agassi and the way it is played nowadays. Greater stamina, longer volleys, increase in baseline plays and decrease in on-the-net plays are some examples. First of all it is unfair to compare both of them. Even if you compare them, Federer's back hand would probably have won him more matches against Sampras or Agassi.
As far as the point of people supporting Nadal or Murray or Djokovic or Del Porto is concerned, that is completely natural. An excellent article on the art of innovation by Mahesh Murthy explains this. There are leaders and then there are followers or the second best/third best in the category. Most of the times people root for the 2nd or 3rd ones since they know they have more fighting spirit and the desire to become number 1. But he also talks about exceptions to this. There have been industries where the leader consistently reinvents and leads the pack by innovating. The same holds good for Federer as well. His defeats against Nadal and Del Porto must have taught a lot to him. I believe it was his bad luck that Nadal was out before the Wimbledon finals. He would have definitely won a match against Nadal given the loss he suffered in 2008.
It is always good to see someone defeat Federer consistently. That would be the beginning of the end of Federer's era. An era of unprecedented dominance.
