2008 French Open
Nadal d Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0
2008 Wimbledon
Nadal d Federer 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 9-7
2009 Australian Open
Nadal d Federer 7-5 3-6 7-6 3-6 6-2
In January 2008, Federer lost his first Grand Slam match to a player who wasn't Nadal in three years. Djokovic blasted him off the court in straight sets, but the general consensus was not that an era had ended, but that Federer was simply due a defeat. As Federer tends to do, he has retrospectively put that defeat down to an illness and/or injury.
After one round at the French Open, the Times was suggesting this was the beginning of the end. However, Federer reached his third consecutive French Open final and was once again facing Nadal in an attempt to complete the career Grand Slam. After destroying Djokovic in the semi finals Nadal was favourite but Federer had plenty of chances in 2007 before ultimately falling in 4 sets.
What happened was quite extraordinary. Nadal won 6-1 6-3 6-0 in an hour and a half. In a Grand Slam final, Nadal had taken a set off Federer to love. The match wasn't even remotely close. The general impression was that Federer would never win the French Open but that he was still the number 1 player on other surfaces. He went into Wimbledon as favourite to win a 6th consecutive title.
Federer and Nadal both reached the Wimbledon final with minimum of fuss, a semi final line up of Safin and Schutller demonstrating that for all the drama of the final, the actual tournament was of fairly low quality. The final itself does not need to be gone over again, going down in history as it does as the greatest match of all time. As everybody knows (if you didn't before, you will have passed the score while reading this article, but why you were reading a tennis blog if you didn't know is another issue) Nadal edged the match and Federer had gone three grand slams without a victory for the first time since 2002.
The general consensus at the time was that Nadal was now the worlds best player. There were serious questions over whether Federer would win more than the 12 grand slams he had at that time. Having just beaten him on his favourite surface, and with an excellent overall head to head record, Nadal looked set to prevent Federer for years to come. As the BBC put it at the time "...defeat on his favourite surface will lead many to question whether he is still the worlds best player". It felt like the end of an era.
Federer lost early in the Olympics as Nadal confirmed he was the top man by taking gold. However, an inspired Andy Murray made his arrival at the top end of tennis by knocking Nadal out of the US Open at the semi final stage. I think its fair to say had Nadal made it to the final, he would have won. However, Murray froze (a habit he is yet to shake off) in the final and Federer won his 13th Grand Slam.
However, at the Australian Open in 2009 there was no stopping Nadal, as Murrays incredible run of form stopped suddenly against Verdasco in the 4th round (when many predicted Murray to win the title) and the top two faced off again. For 4 sets the match was an absolute classic, before Federer suffered a fifth set collapse which slightly marred things, and Nadal now held 3 of the 4 Grand Slams. The Guardian noted that Nadal now looked set to be the first to win all 4 Slams.
Reaction: The hold Nadal had over Federer at this stage meant that few thought Roger would regain number 1 or complete the career grand slam. Pete Sampras record of 14 titles was suddenly looking further away than ever. However, Federer went on to beat Nadal on clay at the Madrid Masters and was no doubt the happiest person in the world when Soderling stunned Nadal in the 4th round at Roland Garros. Federer went onto take the title at the French for grand slam 14, then take advantage of an injured Nadal to break Sampras record at Wimbledon. Federer was back at number 1 and achieved everything that looked so unlikely in January.
2009 US Open
Del Potro d Federer 3-6 7-6 6-4 7-6 6-2
Nadal had returned to tour in the second half of 2009 and looked a broken shadow of a man. Federer breezed through the tournament, introducing the world to the "tweener" shot on match points in the semi finals against Djokovic. Del Potro hammered Nadal 6-2 6-2 6-2 but was widely expected to be defeated by the man who knocked him out of the Australian and French Open.
For a set and a bit, Federer was comfortable. Del Potro then resorted to the "being a complete dick" tactic which succeeded in throwing Fed off his game. Forehands started finding their range and Federer was beaten by a player who looked set to dominate the game for years to come. Could this be the end of Federers reign at the top?
Reaction: Once again, a player who had dethroned Federer suffered a serious injury (does Federer have an alibi?) and is only just getting back to his best. Federer went on to face the in form Andy Murray in the Australian Open 2010 final, with many feeling this was going to be Murray s turn to further show that the new breed had taken over. Murray froze again and Federer won Grand Slam 16.
Wimbledon 2010
Berdych d Federer 6-4 3-6 6-1 6-4
A quarter final defeat to Soderling at the French Open saw Federer's epic semi final run come to an end, but somehow the reaction to this was fairly muted. Perhaps with Nadal back, many knew it just prevented the inevitable final defeat. However at Wimbledon Federer was still the King and had not missed a final since 2002. Berdych had done little to suggest he was capable of an upset and it was a massive shock when he prevailed in 4 sets. Sports Illustrated suggested that this was the end of an era. Fox Sports also had this opinion.
Both pieces suggested that we would never see Federer at his peak again. Perhaps an indication of the knee jerk nature of the press, but there is a difference between Federer winning every grand slam he enters that isn't on clay and Federer being unable to compete at all. Essentially the reaction seemed to suggest that as Federer was now vulnerable to defeats in the later stages of slams (lets not forget this was the quarters, not the first round), he wouldn't ever compete again.
Of course, Federer has retrospectively blamed this particular defeat on a back injury, continuing the run of "matches Federer would have won, in his opinion, had he been fit or played properly" to every single match Federer has ever played.
Reaction: Berdych went on to ruin Wimbledon by defeating Djokovic then deciding not to bother turning up in what I recall as an absolutely terrible final. As for Federer, he has not won a slam since and, in a sense, it is the case that he is no longer guaranteed to at least reach the finals of Grand Slams.
However, Federer was majestic in London in November at the World Tour Finals, hammering Murray, Djokovic and Nadal on his way to victory. In 2011, he has been the only man (and person obviously, as a woman was hardly going to manage) to beat Djokovic and put in his best performance in the French he has for years against Nadal. Had he won the first set as he should, he would probably have won it.
CONCLUSION
The defeat to Tsonga was shocking mostly as it came from two sets up, and Federer appears to have acknowledged that for once he deserved to lose. Exactly as last year, an end of an era has been declared. Here, here and here, for starters. But we have been here before. It should be accepted that Federer will no longer be reaching finals every time, but this is hardly the end. Federer is currently the third best player in the world and will almost certainly win at least one more major before he retires. He will still be top 4 when Wimbledon 2012 rolls around. As we have seen, it is not possible to just write him off on the basis of one bad result. Federer is on a gradual slide from the top and the latest defeat will not accelerate it.
No comments:
Post a Comment