Federer's Legacy

So, Roger Federer just won the title of all titles. He won the French Open, which had eluded him for so many years; or rather, had been denied him by perhaps the best clay court player of all time: Rafa. Federer won the French Open and finally completed the career Grand Slam, the sport’s holy grail, and tied Pete Sampras’ illustrious record of 14 overall major titles.

So, why, does it seem, are people still trying to find reasons not to give him his due?

Aren’t we the same folks who said for years that Roger Federer cannot legitimately be the best player of all time if he hadn’t won the French Open?

So why are we sitting on our hands and coming up with new contingencies about what Federer needs to do to earn our undivided props? Such as:

“Well, yeah he won the French, but he didn’t beat Nadal to do it, so it doesn’t really count.”

Well, yeah, so what? When did we make up this rule that a Grand Slam isn’t really a Grand Slam unless you beat someone really good to win it? Since when does a major title have asterisks? Sampras didn’t beat Agassi for each of his titles; nor did Navratilova beat Evert, Graf beat Seles, or Borg beat McEnroe, and vice versa.

Admittedly, some of those had contingencies of their own, such as Monica Seles’s stabbing in 1993 and Borg’s out-of-the-blue retirement in 1983. But the point remains.

Graf beat Natasha Zvereva for her 1988 French Open title in a double bagel: 6-0, 6-0. That’s a score line only the top players put up in the first rounds of a major against some poor sap who has never played a Grand Slam match. Just because Zvereva, who also won 18 (!) Grand Slam doubles titles, couldn’t win a single game in a major final, does that mean the win doesn’t “count” for Steffi? Of course not! Do we need to qualify her Calendar Year Golden Slam just because Zvereva laid an egg? No way! That win for Steffi was anticlimactic, yes, but not diminished.

Even at the height of the Federer/Nadal rivalry, the Swiss won quite a few of his majors wherein the Spaniard didn’t even make it to the latter stages of the tournament. But I don’t hear anyone talking about how Federer’s wins at the past three U.S. Opens, for instance, matter less just because Nadal lost before the two could square off in the finals.

So, why does it matter now?

It is not--repeat--not Federer’s fault that Nadal messed around and lost to someone he had no business losing to on his favored surface. Nor is it Federer’s problem. This is why we play the game—-nothing is a given. Not even, evidently, that someone who had never lost a match at the French Open will win a fifth consecutive title.

Nor, if you recall, was it always a foregone conclusion that Federer would steamroll to a French title without his nemesis in the way. Forget winning; twice he had to come back from two sets down just to stay alive.

And that was only what we could see on the court.

What we can’t see and could never quantify was the psychological burden of having everyone expect him to win, and his own realization that he would either be remembered as a Grand Slam winner or as a great champion always plagued by the memory of a blown opportunity.

So who are we to say that this wasn’t a great win and that this was not a victory to be revered and celebrated more highly than his others?

Admittedly, I’m a huge Federer fan and I have my own reasons why I think he’s so great. I’m just putting that out there. But that isn’t the point. Even I hesitate to say the Fed Express is the unequivocal best ever, and I know that it is a personal opinion rather than a fixed set of requirements.

But even opinions and judgments should be fair.

If you want to say the championship match was a letdown because it wasn’t Federer v. Nadal part however many, that’s fair. Watching the two of them play each other breathes life into men’s tennis in the way all great rivalries have. After Nadal lost, TV execs worldwide did a couple of Hail Mary’s, hoping that at least Federer reached the final. Let’s be honest, who wants to watch Soderling v. del Potro?

But don’t say Federer’s title matters less because he didn’t have to go through Nadal to get it. That isn’t fair. He cannot dictate who is standing on the other side of the net. At the end of the day, it's not important if it’s Nadal, Soderling or Joe Blow playing in his first tournament. What counts is winning and losing.

Federer did what he has done so many times throughout his storied career when he needed to the most: he won. When only five other men in the history of the sport have accomplished the same feat, it’s big, it matters and it counts.

Case closed.