HISTORY WAS ROGER’S BUSINESS AS HE CATCHES UP WITH SAMPRAS
Instead he was Roger’s benefactor, the man who had removed Nadal from Federer’s path a week ago: Robin Soderling. This was something neither man had imagined when the French Open got under way. After all Soderling, a lanky, limber Swede with a scruffy mini-beard and a No. 23 ranking, had never progressed beyond the third round of a major. His first round on the outback Court 6 was, Soderling said, attended by two people: “my coach and my girlfriend.”
Federer, taking his 11th shot at dissolving his French jinx, filled every seat wherever he appeared. It was usually the principal playground where the two met for an hour and 55 minutes yesterday, and most of the 14,845 communicants were chanting “GO ROJ-JERRR!”
They and Roger got what they wanted: to share his slices of tennis history, warming them and him during a chilling, rainy, gusty matinee that ended in champagne-raising triumph, 6-1, 7-6 (7-1), 6-4. The Lord of the Swings had returned, at long last conquering the treacherous clay.
“I waited to win the French Open for so long,” Federer says. “So close, three finals. I said to myself, ‘If one day Rafa [Nadal] isn’t there, I’ll win it. And it happened. It’s an unbelievable relief.”
Thanks to the suddenly ascendant Soderling. Shouldn’t Roger remember Soderling in his will?
Says he, “I was on the court with the greatest player of all time. For me, beating Nadal in a best-of-five match on clay is a great memory – nobody had ever done that. I used to say I played bad against Roger [0-10 now]. But today I learned it’s not that I played bad, but he makes me play bad. So that’s what so difficult playing against him. Impossible. Thank you Roger for showing me how to play tennis.”
Federer needed this win to rebuke the doubters. “My game left me for a while, losing the Australian to Rafa, Indian Wells to Andy Murray, Key Biscayne to Novak Djokovic But it started coming back, beating Rafa on clay two weeks ago in Madrid.”
It’s come back like a prodigal son to the feast, and the kids had better look out for Roger at Wimbledon.
He confesses being nervous throughout the match, “saying ‘What if’ all the time to myself. What if I lost this opportunity? I had to work to keep my mind on tennis.”
Surprising? But there were so many historic goodies waiting at the end of the day’s rainbow.
Playing his 19th major final, he caught up with record-holder Ivan Lendl, and should surpass it. This was his lusted-for 14th major singles title, pulling him even with another record-holder, Pete Sampras. “Pete texts me. Always wishes me well,” says Roger.
And by taking the French he becomes the new member of the exclusive saintly six. That’s the career Grand Slam club. The only guys ever to win all four majors: Englishman Fred Perry and Californian Don Budge in the 1930′s, more recently Aussies Rod Laver and Roy Emerson, plus Las Vegan Andre Agassi. Now a Swiss big cheese is anointed.
“I think it was meant to be, difficult weather like this. It was the same kind of day 10 years ago that Andre [Agassi] won here to complete his career Slam. And here was my friend, Andre, presenting me with the trophy. It seemed very fitting.”
He muses, “This title means as much to me as my first Wimbledon [2003], maybe more. Pressure was big, people expecting me to win easily with Rafa, Djokovic and Murray losing early. But I had more tough matches than ever before – [Jose] Acasuso, four sets, could have been five, two sets down to Tommy Haas, set point against [Gael] Monfils, tight fifth set with [Juan Martin] Del Potro after being down two sets to one.
Shot of the tournament, he agrees, was his staggering inside-out forehand that kissed the far sideline, rescuing a third set break point from Haas. It was 3-4, 30-40. If the shot misses, Haas serves for a fourth round. Victory.
“My hopes went up when Rafa lost, but I never wish an opponent to lose. That’s not me. I have too much respect for him.”
It was a very quiet night lastnight for the Federers. He and wife Mirka did room service and watched CD’s of his last two wins over Soderling. Is that romantic or what? “I was in the zone and didn’t want to get out, didn’t want people around.”
However, there was one threatening guy in his zone, and it wasn’t Soderling. As Federer took the balls to serve at 1-2, 15-0, in the second set, an intruder joined them, leaping a sideline fence into the court. A young Spaniard whose name wasn’t released, approached Roger, wearing Swiss socks, waving a Spanish flag in his face.
“All of a sudden I saw him. That gave me a fright. I wasn’t sure what he wanted, but I didn’t panic because it happened to me at Wimbledon and Montreal.”
By then, tardily, security men tackled and removed the miscreant.
“A touch scary, yes. He threw me out of my rhythm a little bit” – something Soderling was unable to do.
Perhaps the character with the flag imagined himself a Spanish emissary to replace the missing Nadal. He obviously wanted to get close to Roger on a tennis court, but nobody can do that these days.
Tags: Add new tag, Federer, Men's final French Open, Soderling
June 07 2009 05:39 pm | French Open
Marcus on 07 Jun 2009 at 6:34 pm #
Hi Bud,
This is a magnificent article – truly superb in rendering of the, for me, fictive world of tennis. Truly, such fluent and concise prose only can do justice to what, for me, was the greatest victory of Roger Federer’s career, as a true fan at heart; possibly this might be the most special moment of this decade. Would you put him as favourite for Wimbledon?
cheers
Marcus
Craig on 07 Jun 2009 at 6:54 pm #
Bud,
We heard your voice at the Federer press interview, some of which is on video on the French Open website. In that interview he also said he noticed that Soderling’s opponents were playing very far from the baseline and he didn’t want to give Soderling time to organize his big shots like Robin had in the earlier matches.
Roger’s feat was more appreciated by everyone because he had to come from behind in his matches with Haas and Del Portro as you state. Bet every weekend tennis player will now be practicing their drop shots, after seeing Roger use the drop so effectively. But Roger handled that intruder wisely and that man was lucky Roger didn’t bop him on the head with the racquet.
Awhile ago we were worrying about Roger, now some us worry about Rafa’s condition.
bud on 08 Jun 2009 at 5:25 am #
Dear Marcus — thank you for the kind note. considering rafa’s physical problem, and the way roger played, roger should be the wimbledon favorite.
cheers, bud
Dear Craig — i assume you, too, are working on a drop shot. lob plus drop is a nice combination. yes, i wondered if roger would use an overhead smash on the invader. tony trabert, as davis cup captain, did just that to an intruder while u.s. played south africa, i think 1979.
hurrahs,
bud
Mark on 08 Jun 2009 at 11:43 am #
Hi, Bud, you are really a real good commentator and writer, if only you were the commentator for star sports these days, its really sad that nadal has injured knees, do you think he can win more slams? maybe a US open?
Craig on 08 Jun 2009 at 12:55 pm #
Bud,
Yes. When I get the chance, I will be practicing/using my drop shot and then maybe use the lob as you suggest. I read in Wikipedia where Bud Collins was quite a good tennis player. Tony wouldn’t take any nonsense,it sounds like.
My question for anyone is : Roger has 14 Major titles and the career Grand Slam. But is Nadal considered a better player ? In 7 Grand Slam finals with Federer, Nadal has won 5 and has won 13 of 20 singles matches. Is it like Bjorn Borg, who is “ranked” above John McEnroe who beat Bjorn in 3 out of 4 Grand Slam finals ? McEnroe was 2.75 years younger than Borg. There is a difference of almost 5 years between between Federer and Nadal.
Last question is : Were players of Borg’s era and before more skillful in that they used that small wooden racquet ? I used my mom’s old wood racquet when I first started playing, was it in the 1970′s ? The ball went right through the strings and made a hole. Must have been gut strings.
Then switched to aluminum and for awhile the racquet heads were not as large as today. In fact they look silly compared to today’s racquets. Used like Head Master and I think the T2000, etc. How could Bjorn be so consistent using only his small wood racquet ?
Ames on 08 Jun 2009 at 3:19 pm #
So, now … the GOAT question. Maybe you’ve made your case elsewhere, and if so, thanks to send url. But if not, could you make it now? My case follows:
Rocket for achieving summum bonum of the sport twice.
Fed for total wins AND winning on all surfaces, plus he held 3 of 4 titles in a calendar year three different years. No other player has done that more than once.
However, there are other factors to consider …
Rocket had a 6-year gap due to pro disqualification, and the assumption would be strong that he’d have added several more titles to his 11 if allowed to play.
But the depth of top talent today is greater and the tour schedule is more demanding than in Rocket’s time. Still, Fed has handled all except Rafa.
My vote goes to Rocket, but with Fed very close.
Now if Rafa goes on to win another 8 titles or pulls off a Grand Slam, that’s another debate.
But today, what’s your call? Or do we have co-GOATS?
Thanks, Bud.
Eelco on 09 Jun 2009 at 3:29 pm #
I think the whole GOAT argument is flawed. You simply cannot compare different areas. If GOAT = most succesfull it really isn’t that difficult (although you could argue about what are the most relevant statistics). Number of Grand Slam tournaments nowadays is the most important, so Federer and Sampras are joint number 1. They both have 14.
But I don’t think this line of reasoning is fair to the players of 10, 30 and 100 years ago.
So, why not drop the whole GOAT-issue, simply enjoy the game of tennis nowadays and recall the old stars from yesteryear? My personal favourite by the way is Miloslav Mecir and I think at his best he was the most wonderful and talented player ever to have graced the game.
stan isaacs on 11 Jun 2009 at 2:14 pm #
i think the world would apprecaiate a considered essay by bud mensch on the oh-so-significant subjest of who is the greatest of all time–federer in relation to laver (or anybody else) cheers, stan
Brad Seely on 11 Jun 2009 at 7:19 pm #
To: Bud Collins
From: Brad Seely
Headline: Sampras Era Just Doesn’t Add Up To Federer Era
Message: Sampras just had Agassi, who was somewhat suspect at times in his career. Sampras could not ever win five straight at Wimbledon or at the U.S. Open like Federer did. Sampras could not get more than two Australian’s compared to three for Federer, which it is comparable because both won these on the Rebound Ace. Nadal is way better than Agassi could ever hope to have been. Sampras could not ever make it to the French Open final, which was not because of his competition, but because his serve could not be such a decisive blow on the clay. Additionally, Pete Sampras never won three grand slams in a calendar year, and Roger Federer has done that on three occasions. This only serves to illuminate Federer’s accomplishments compared to Sampras.
Headline: Laver Doesn’t Compare To Federer At All.
Message: Laver won one of his two career grand slams during the Pre-Open Era, which subjects that to some critique. Both Laver and Federer won one career grand slam during the Open Era, which makes this similar. Laver won five grand slam titles during the Open Era, which pales in comparison to the fourteen of Federer. Laver cannot even be in this conversation just because he won one career grand slam, which very sparse grand slams during the Open Era.
Headline: Borg Is Insufficient In Respect to Roger.
Message: Borg won six French Open and Four Straight in eight years, which the Four Straight has been accomplished by Nadal, so this diminishes the achievement to some extent. Federer won five straight at Wimbledon to equal Borg, which McEnroe is not comparable to Nadal that ended each ones streak. Borg could not even win or even sniff an Australian Open win or final, which diminishes his career to a great extent. Further, Borg was unable to get over the hump in four straight finals at the U.S. Open Finals, which this is similar to Federer at the French, and this is because it was their toughest and roughest surfaces. This only serves to illuminate the achievement of Federer with his longevity was able to withstand the Nadal barrage at Roland Garros. Unlike Borg, Federer didn’t cower from Tennis after getting defeated to Nadal at Wimbledon or the Australian. No, Federer got stronger and more resilient, which most of his bad performances was because of Mono. By they way Borg won 4 French and 5 Wimbledon in a row, which Federer has 5 Wimbledon and 5 U.S. in a row, and 5 U.S. in a row has not been done in the Open Era! This goes to show why Federer is the Greatest Of All Time (GOAT).
Headline: Emerson lacks Open Era Slam or Grand Slam Victories!
Message: Emerson did win two grand slam Pre-Open Era, which kind-of diminishes his achievements because it was only done against Amateur’s not Professional. This is kind of the travesty of tennis that eras are incomparable, which means I have to take Federer’s accomplishments above Emerson’s.
Brad Seely on 11 Jun 2009 at 7:23 pm #
Roger Federer’s Nicknames:
Swiss Maestro, Fed Express,Swiss Clock, Swiss Knife, The King of Grass, The King of Tennis, The Lone Roger, Rajah, Raj, Lord of the Swings
Brad Seely on 11 Jun 2009 at 7:45 pm #
By the way, My little brother can be my witness to this because I said this was Roger’s year at the French, and I was right! I said that Nadal would collaspe and he did not even getting to the final. I said if Rafa could not win two sets out of three in Madrid to The Swiss Maestro then how could he win a three setter at Roland Garros. I think Rafa’s career will be dramatically shortened due to knee problems if he does not ajust his style of play, but that might cause him to be more beatable. Without Nadal, Federer would and will be the Favorite for three to five years into the future. No one can even time the Swiss Clock, and that goes for Murray, Djokovic, del Potro, and the whole bunch of so-called up and comming challengers.
Craig on 14 Jun 2009 at 8:47 pm #
To Brad:
Pretty good thoughts, however please answer: How come Roger has lost 5 out of 7 Grand Slam finals to Nadal and overall something like 13 out of 20 Singles matches to him ? This leads one to believe that if Nadal’s knees are in reasonable shape, he so far has mastery over Roger ?
Brad Seely on 15 Jun 2009 at 3:53 pm #
Well, I can say to Craig that Nadal is facing now what Roger did last year with the Mono, and injury or sickness that could derail his career if not handled with care. I think Nadal will lose Wimbledon to Federer in a three set final, and that’s if Nadal even makes it their. Rafa has to be totally healthy to beat Roger on any other surface other than clay, and Roger has to be under the weather to lose. I think you are crazy to site Nadal beating him five times out of seven because three happened on clay Nadal’s better surface, and the two previous will be chalked up to MONO! It’s kind of like Golf in a way because Jack Nicklaus got taken to the shed by Tom Watson many times, and they still call Jack Nicklaus the greatest golfer of all-time, which here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Watson_(golfer)#Wins_.288.29! Golf and Tennis are relatable sports in my mind. By the way Go TIGER win the USOPEN!
Brad Seely on 15 Jun 2009 at 3:58 pm #
Nadal plays a game that is hard on his body, which leads to rapid deterioration, and this means he will have to change his style of play to win points quicker. I don’t think this will help, but to make him more vulnerable to others other than Federer. I think Federer’s lasting legacy will be his longevity in making a game that is easier on his body. Nadal is a Bull and bulls run out of steam, while Federer is a Maestro and goes on and on orchestrating great matches! By the way, I think it is similar to site the age gap of Fed and Rafa because it is similar to Navratilova and Graf!
bud on 20 Jun 2009 at 3:36 pm #
We have been ballooning in Switzerland for six days so I have been out of touch but will get back to you all soonest! Thank you for reading and writing…
Bud
Brad Seely on 20 Jun 2009 at 9:00 pm #
Hello Bud Collins, I was reaching out to you because of a constant debate on Wikipedia, and I am needing your help because you are an authority on the sport. The problem is people just don’t know the history of tennis rivalries, and I was looking for an exhaustive list, which I want to know where to go look or if you could give me a list!
Thanks,
Brad Seely
P.S. I can’t wait to see you at The AELTC at The Championship, Wimbledon!
Donald Marhefka on 04 Aug 2009 at 4:06 am #
To Craig and Brad Seeley,
Brad did a good job of explaining why H2H is just not that important. A much better stat is STE (Same Tournaments Entered.) For example, the Swiss Maestro has won the French but did not meet Nadal. Is it his fault? Of course not. He played whomever was across the net. So, the Lord of Swings gets one point against Nadal STE. The Fed Express leads Rafa 29-20 STE. For a complete write-up that explains STE, go to this site:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/226249-logical-flaw-in-the-interpretation-of-rafas-13-7-h2h
bud on 07 Sep 2009 at 5:40 pm #
You can begin with my HISTORY OF TENNIS published by NewChapterPress and available on Amazon.
bud on 07 Sep 2009 at 7:04 pm #
First, we need to get terminology correct. A GRAND SLAM is a feat accomplished by winning all four MAJORS, Australian, French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open, within a calendar year. It has only been accomplished by five people – Don Budge 1938, Maureen Connolly 1953, Rod Laver 1962 and 1969,Margaret Smith Court 1970 and Steffi Graff 1988.
Nobody else has ever won a singles Grand Slam.
Roger Federer has a record 15 major titles, Sampras has 13 major titles, Emerson has 12.
To be taken into consideration is the fact that in their day, Emerson, Laver, Court and all the top players played doubles and mixed doubles as well as singles. As a result, Court accumulated an amazing 62 major titles.
I believe Roger can win a Grand Slam. And as far as the Greatest of all Time debate, you can only be the greatest of your era. Roger certainly is the greatest of his era.
bud on 07 Sep 2009 at 7:05 pm #
I’ll get to it, Stan!