I've heard the suggestion that Federer is the greatest men's tennis player of all time.  I'm not sure that's true, but I'm also not sure it isn't.  Certainly, he's one of the only greats of recent times who wasn't heavily dependent on his first serve, and his tournament record is absolutely unbelievable in its consistency.

But I've also heard it suggested that Nadal is better, because his head-to-head record (especially on clay, where the bulk of their meetings have happened) against Roger is much better than even.

I've always been more than a bit skeptical of that, and watching Rafa go out in the opening round today to the Belgian Steve Darcis makes quite an exclamation point to it (I've also got other issues with the Spaniard, but I'm really not going to get into it today).  I'd be tempted to make a big deal out of it being straight sets, too, but all three sets were very close, so I think it'd be a mistake to read anything into that.

But the fact that Federer, even being five years older, had no troubles advancing (straight sets, with the closest being 6-3) is certainly a strong buttress to the argument of Roger being much better.

Update: I forgot to mention the Post's unfortunate headline over their top Wimbledon picture in today's sports section: 'Federer and Nadal set to meet again - in the quarterfinals'.

No comments:

Post a Comment