Comments on: Federer’s Fall

By: Suhrith

Suhrith — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:01:51 +0000

That’s a good point you make about the exhibition games between Federer and Sampras; Federer certainly treated them seriously and I am sure he was quite embarrassed by the loss.

By: Anirudh Krishnan

Anirudh Krishnan — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:57:10 +0000

To be considered a great sportsman I feel it is as important to deal with defeat in a gracious manner and comeback strongly as it is to play stylishly and win convincingly. On that count Federer has often been found lacking.

Suhrith, I also agree with you that Federer cannot be regarded as the greatest of all time till such time he considerably improves his record against Nadal.

On another note, I saw parts of the Sampras v. Federer exhibition matches that were played a couple of years ago. While Federer may have defeated Sampras in their only Grand Slam match, Federer struggled to defeat Sampras even 5 years after Sampras retired (and both of them seemed to treat the exhibition match very seriously) and even lost to him in one of the three matches.

By: Suhrith

Suhrith — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 02:18:51 +0000

Thank you, Subra. I must admit, that if there ever was such a thing as the ‘greatest of all time’, then Federer probably has the best claim to it. I disagree with you however, on the value of aesthetics. What you think is beautiful tennis, may not be beautiful to the eyes of another. For that matter, I’ve not always found Federer’s tennis to be particularly elegant. I think the ease with which he seems to play his game is often confused with grace (something which was – to use a cricket analogy – not true of Mark Waugh, who, to my eyes, made cricket look both elegant and easy). In fact, I know of quite a few people who find beauty in Nadal’s tennis (Yes, Nadal!).

By: Subramanian

Subramanian — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:01:30 +0000

Great Article Suhrith. Brilliant summary of Federer’s career.

To be called great, a player needs to have both a great record and needs to have played attractive sport. For instance, V.V.S. Laxman is not a great because of his middling record and Shahid Afridi is not great because he almost always resembles an unsuccessful axe murderer.

But to combine both these traits of greatness and to combine them to an extent greater than any former player or contmeporary should surely be enough to earn a player the ‘greatest’ title.

Admittedly, the statistics may not convincingly show that Roger Federer is in fact undisputably the greatest player. But the amazing statistics coupled with his beautiful, mersmerising, non-chalant style of play, which on certain days looks like an angel playing tennis, I think, makes pretty much the strongest claim to the title that we are going to see for a very long time.