feed is available 
Nadal prepares to park his tanks on Federer’s lawn (SIMON KUPER - The Financial Times)
June 24, 2007 2:53 PM
[Editor’s note: As much as I admire Federer’s game, I have problems with the efforts, thus far premature, to coronate him as the greatest ever. I suspect I’ll continue to feel that way even if, or as is likely when, he surpasses Sampras’s tally of Slam titles.
The reason is no fault of Federer’s, but it lingers nonetheless: competition.
There is simply no comparing the caliber of the elite players faced by Sampras (or Borg, and arguably Laver, for that matter) with the crowd at the top of the game today. Just think who Sampras contended with: Agassi, Rafter, Courier, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Chang, and even in-form Safins and Hewitts, and this list is not exhaustive. Kuper’s piece makes the case very nicely what a different era we’re operating in.]
June 23 2007
Copyright The Financial Times
I have some sense of what watching the men’s tournament at Wimbledon will be like this next fortnight, because I recently tried watching the men at the French Open.
You arrive at a match well-intentioned. Two brilliant players appear, each of whom has lived off steamed broccoli and sacrificed his life to tennis since the age of two. They begin blamming away, harder and better than any legends of the past. And minutes into their four-hour extravaganza your thoughts drift to lunch, always the day’s signature event in Paris. You know the match is irrelevant, because either Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal wins every grand-slam tournament anyway.
ADVERTISEMENT
This Wimbledon, busy fans can save time by watching only one men’s match: the Federer-Nadal final. But do catch that one, because during it the balance of power in male tennis may shift, from the Swiss to the Mallorcan.
Since 2005 we have lived in extraordinary times. In Federer, we have possibly the best male player ever; in Nadal, possibly the best clay-court player ever. Like the US and USSR in the cold war, they have divided the world between them. Nadal has ruled European clay courts, including the French Open. Federer got the rest of the world, notably Wimbledon, and the US and Australian Opens.
Between them, Federer and Nadal have won the last nine grand-slam tournaments. No two men have so dominated tennis since the Open era began in 1968. Even Pete Sampras, the previous most dominant male player in history, was less omnipotent.
“Not long ago I was surfing the internet,” says Nadal. “I compared the points of Federer and Sampras” - that is, the rankings points they earned playing tournaments. “Sampras was number one with about 5,500 points. Federer has 7,500. That’s an enormous difference.” Nadal himself, currently on 5,225 points, may soon outstrip Sampras.
No other male players really exist anymore. Take the Russian Nikolai Davydenko, a fantastic player, currently fourth-best in the world. When he reached the quarter-final at the French Open, someone pointed out to him that to win the tournament, he would now have to beat Guillermo Cañas, Federer and Nadal.
“Listen,” replied Davydenko, “If I beat those guys, I’ll quit tennis next Sunday. I won’t even just quit, I’ll die.”
Predictably, Davydenko lost in straight sets to Federer. He thus joined the “nine-zero club” of luminaries who have lost nine consecutive matches to the Swiss. The club’s other members include Andy Roddick (the world’s number three) and Lleyton Hewitt (number one before Federer arrived). For these players, the question applies that an apocryphal child once asked about Randolph Churchill: “Mama, what is that man for?”
Tennis crowds, although notoriously ill-informed about the game, are starting to grasp the pointlessness of almost all men’s tennis, as witness the banks of empty seats on centre court in Paris before the final.
The British media bang on about Andy Murray, the Scot ranked eighth in the world, but in truth the only story in men’s tennis is Federer versus Nadal. Probably not since Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe has male tennis had a rivalry between two such brilliant performers. Rivalries, ideally featuring players whose personalities can be distilled into cartoon versions, give tennis some of the appeal of Tom and Jerry. Would Borg (“The Iceman”) catch McEnroe (“Superbrat”) this time, or have his hair set on fire?
The obvious dynamic between Federer and Nadal is older brother versus younger brother. Whereas Nadal plays in clubbers’ gear, Federer dresses as if for a Sunday round-robin at a suburban Basle club. Federer plays in old-fashioned silence, while Nadal is all grunts and cheers. Off court, Nadal is giggly and vague, Federer stern and precise in three languages. Nadal is a kid, Federer a Roman emperor. Ideally there would also be an element of “goodie” against “baddie”, but unfortunately they are both nice guys.
The one thing lacking in their rivalry is great tennis. Whereas McEnroe and Borg brought out the best in each other, Federer usually disappoints against Nadal. “He wears you down,” Federer said after losing in Paris. “He’s the kind of a guy who makes you miss, so you can never say you played really well against him.”
This summer their rivalry should climax. Their Yalta-style division of the world seems about to break down. In Paris, Nadal showed he has all the tools to beat Federer on any surface. His “heavy” forehand shots are already legendary, but his serve has improved over the last year, and he makes as few errors on a tennis court as is given to a human. Admittedly, he won a mere 16 of the 17 break-points in the French Open final, but he is only 21 and will improve.
Nadal may not win Wimbledon, because growing up he got about as much experience on grass as the average fish. On the other hand, last year he reached the final. Certainly he ought to win one of the next three grand-slams on Federer’s turf. If that happens, all other male players might as well retire.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Read "Nadal prepares to park his tanks on Federer’s lawn"
Posted at 2:53 PM