- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,599
- Reactions
- 6,440
- Points
- 113
Before you Rafalites and Novakians get your panties in a wad, I am NOT saying Roger is the best player in the game right now - clearly he's not. But a thought struck me this evening, after Roger defeated a reeling Andy Murray. While it is generally agreed that the two best players in the sport right now are Nadal and Djokovic, and by a significant margin over the rest of the field, the idea came to me that it is actually Roger Federer, at least right now, that is setting the standard, the bar if you will, as to what defines a champion. Let me explain.
Consider who Roger has lost to this year:
Tsonga at Toronto
Djokovic at Wimbledon
Gulbis at Roland Garros
Chardy at Rome
Wawrinka at Monte Carlo
Nishikori at Miami
Djokovic at Indian Wells
Nadal at the Australian Open
Hewitt at Brisbane
Almost without exception, each of those players was playing at their peak level when they defeated Roger. Tsonga was having the tournament of his life and had mowed down Murray and Djokovic as well, not to mention Dimitrov; Djokovic had to pull out all the stops to beat Roger at Wimbledon (and their 2014 record is still tied at 2-2); Gulbis was finally fulfilling his potential and having the best Slam of his career at Roland Garros, also beating Berdych before losing to Djokovic in the SF; Chardy might be the sole outlier in the list - I have no idea what happened there; Wawrinka was still playing at a very high level, in the best year of his career; Nishikori was also playing at a high level; Djokovic is Djokovic; Nadal - nuff said; and Hewitt was on his home turf, desperately wanting to beat the best player of his generation for the first time in over a decade (Hewitt was 8-2 in their first ten matches, 1-16 since).
I know I just wrote a post about how I don't think Roger has the full game any more to win a big tournament, that he will always either have to face a Nadal-Djokovic in the final, neither of whom he can seemingly beat anymore in a best of five, or a near-elite player like Tsonga playing his heart out - and in either case Roger doesn't quite seem to be able to muster the level required to win. But in a way I'm writing this as a counter, because I think you can look at the same data and see how Roger was always there, right in the mix to the end, but simply lost to a player who was playing as good as he possibly could.
As Niels Bohr once said, while the opposite of a fact is a falsehood, the opposite of one profound truth may be another profound truth. And so it is that my last commentary on Roger, and this one, both hold some truth - even though both are opposed in some way. I do think Roger is no longer able to get to that high level that was his hallmark during his extended peak of 2003-09, which we saw flash for awhile in 2012, but he does seem to be playing consistently at a level that is setting a standard in recent tournaments, a bar against which the eventual winner has to surpass. When no one is able to do so, Roger will win - because he's there, because he's setting that standard.
So if we look at the rest of Cincinnati, we have a hungry Milos Raonic wanting to win his first match against Federer (0-5), especially after a disappointing defeat at Wimbledon. For Raonic to do so, he's going to have to play the match of his life. Why? Because Roger will exploit anything less - he'll find a way to win.
And then after that we've got either Benneteau or Ferrer. Benneteau is known for having defeated Roger twice, and almost beating him at Wimbledon in 2012. Given that, he'll still have to play the match of his life to win. Ferrer simply can't beat Roger at all (0-15) and will have to play beyond his usual capacity to beat him.
We can look at those excellent players who have fallen to Roger recently - perhaps most notably Andy Murray, who has lost their last two match-ups after winning three of the previous four. We all know about Andy's recent struggles, and this is a case in point: A struggling Andy Murray cannot beat Roger Federer c. 2014. Or look at Lopez, Ferrer, and Cilic in Toronto - all players who have played well in 2014, yet none of whom could muster that extra something to defeat Roger.
At Wimbledon, Roger defeated Stan Wawrinka before beating Raonic. Wawrinka has slowed since his torrid first half, and when he isn't playing at his very best can't beat Roger.
I could go on. Again, the point is that Roger is setting a kind of standard that defines what a champion is right now. If you play better than Roger, you win, if you play worse, you lose. I know, it sounds like a truism - but I don't think any player is defining that standard in the same way Roger is right now. When Rafa and Novak are on their games they will defeat anyone (except, perhaps, each other). Yet Roger is beatable by any very good player if that player is playing his absolute best. But that's the thing - anything less than one's best, or very close to one's best, and it won't happen.
OK, I've gone on too long!
Consider who Roger has lost to this year:
Tsonga at Toronto
Djokovic at Wimbledon
Gulbis at Roland Garros
Chardy at Rome
Wawrinka at Monte Carlo
Nishikori at Miami
Djokovic at Indian Wells
Nadal at the Australian Open
Hewitt at Brisbane
Almost without exception, each of those players was playing at their peak level when they defeated Roger. Tsonga was having the tournament of his life and had mowed down Murray and Djokovic as well, not to mention Dimitrov; Djokovic had to pull out all the stops to beat Roger at Wimbledon (and their 2014 record is still tied at 2-2); Gulbis was finally fulfilling his potential and having the best Slam of his career at Roland Garros, also beating Berdych before losing to Djokovic in the SF; Chardy might be the sole outlier in the list - I have no idea what happened there; Wawrinka was still playing at a very high level, in the best year of his career; Nishikori was also playing at a high level; Djokovic is Djokovic; Nadal - nuff said; and Hewitt was on his home turf, desperately wanting to beat the best player of his generation for the first time in over a decade (Hewitt was 8-2 in their first ten matches, 1-16 since).
I know I just wrote a post about how I don't think Roger has the full game any more to win a big tournament, that he will always either have to face a Nadal-Djokovic in the final, neither of whom he can seemingly beat anymore in a best of five, or a near-elite player like Tsonga playing his heart out - and in either case Roger doesn't quite seem to be able to muster the level required to win. But in a way I'm writing this as a counter, because I think you can look at the same data and see how Roger was always there, right in the mix to the end, but simply lost to a player who was playing as good as he possibly could.
As Niels Bohr once said, while the opposite of a fact is a falsehood, the opposite of one profound truth may be another profound truth. And so it is that my last commentary on Roger, and this one, both hold some truth - even though both are opposed in some way. I do think Roger is no longer able to get to that high level that was his hallmark during his extended peak of 2003-09, which we saw flash for awhile in 2012, but he does seem to be playing consistently at a level that is setting a standard in recent tournaments, a bar against which the eventual winner has to surpass. When no one is able to do so, Roger will win - because he's there, because he's setting that standard.
So if we look at the rest of Cincinnati, we have a hungry Milos Raonic wanting to win his first match against Federer (0-5), especially after a disappointing defeat at Wimbledon. For Raonic to do so, he's going to have to play the match of his life. Why? Because Roger will exploit anything less - he'll find a way to win.
And then after that we've got either Benneteau or Ferrer. Benneteau is known for having defeated Roger twice, and almost beating him at Wimbledon in 2012. Given that, he'll still have to play the match of his life to win. Ferrer simply can't beat Roger at all (0-15) and will have to play beyond his usual capacity to beat him.
We can look at those excellent players who have fallen to Roger recently - perhaps most notably Andy Murray, who has lost their last two match-ups after winning three of the previous four. We all know about Andy's recent struggles, and this is a case in point: A struggling Andy Murray cannot beat Roger Federer c. 2014. Or look at Lopez, Ferrer, and Cilic in Toronto - all players who have played well in 2014, yet none of whom could muster that extra something to defeat Roger.
At Wimbledon, Roger defeated Stan Wawrinka before beating Raonic. Wawrinka has slowed since his torrid first half, and when he isn't playing at his very best can't beat Roger.
I could go on. Again, the point is that Roger is setting a kind of standard that defines what a champion is right now. If you play better than Roger, you win, if you play worse, you lose. I know, it sounds like a truism - but I don't think any player is defining that standard in the same way Roger is right now. When Rafa and Novak are on their games they will defeat anyone (except, perhaps, each other). Yet Roger is beatable by any very good player if that player is playing his absolute best. But that's the thing - anything less than one's best, or very close to one's best, and it won't happen.
OK, I've gone on too long!
