Last weekend, I caught the finals of the French Open on tv. Federer won the title, defeating a previously relatively unknown player. He is suddenly being regarded widely by the media as the best player in the history of tennis, having now tied Pete Sampras' record of grand slams. This strikes me as quite absurd.
Firstly, there is the obvious irony that he is being given these accolades after having already ceded the top spot on the rankings to Nadal.
Secondly, and more importantly, no one would be saying he is comparable to Sampras, had Nadal, unhindered by his current knee injury, made it to the finals and defeated Federer for the FOURTH consecutive time. Yet, if this had happened, Federer would not have been any more or less of a player than he currently is. One can easily imagine how the media would have slanted the view of the very same player as being over the hill and not quite comparable to the greats of the game.
It is quite strange that a struggling Federer, who has had to go to five sets to defeat many players seeded out of the top 10, is being paraded as the best thing since sliced bread,when he would have cast these players aside in three easy sets just two years ago.
Anyway, Wimbledon is starting in two weeks. I will call it 5 years before the media dares to. Nadal is the best player in the history of tennis. Go Rafa!
Luke