Before starting to read this ... let me tell u don't be mistaken by the picture that precedes this .. this isn't just any other post that dwells on who is the better man Rafa or Roger or whether Roger will ever win the French Open and whether he is the greatest of all who have played the game. For sure the post would dwell on these topics but i intend to make a much more general observation and assessment of Men's Tennis and hence bring out the "Metamorphosis" that it has undergone from the late 70-early 80's to 2007.
2 names or 4 words sum up today's Men's Tennis and they are Roger Federer & Rafael Nadal. No disrespect to the other players on the circuit, but this is the fact. Roger seems to be playing in a planet of his own and only Rafa seems to be able to get there and challenge him and beat him(on clay of course). This is purely the reason as to why these two players define today's men's tennis. Every week we see a new star popping up with media giving him the title "Next Big Thing", "Next Federer" etc etc: and the end result .. they wither away or just stay in the middle bracket behind Roger and Rafa and flattering to deceive as many have done ... Roddick even with Jimmy Connors as coach has showed improvement but still can't get hold of Federer, Andy Murray plagued by injuries and so goes the list.
Gone are the days of fiercely fought tennis between Borg, McEnroe, Connors & Lendl. of course Lendl came a little late and couldn't mix with Borg. In those days one never knew or could predict the finalists let alone the winner .. It could be any of these .. People have had different opinions on who is the best among them. Its still undecided .. much more undecided than Federer vs Nadal to be frank. that's the beauty of that era. Such suspense drama and surprise are missing from today's tennis. Today the real drama will be as to find out who the other 2 semi finalists are beside Rafa and Roger .. is it Roddick and Djokovic .. will it be Hewitt again or will Safin make an upset or will it be Murray .. and so on... a glorious triplet of McEnroe - Connors - Borg is nowhere to be seen.
Towards the late 80's came the serve and volley avalance in the form of Becker(one of my favourites), Edberg, Stich and Cash. Lendl became the senior statesman then with McEnroe and Connors fading into autumn of their glittering careers. So the transformation was complete one set of legends giving away to another headed by Becker and the process continued with Becker heading the pack and Sampras and Agassi taking over. then started the Sampras era on SW 19 and coronation of Sampras as the greatest that was untill he was found wanting on the clay of Roland Garros. But in my personal opinion he was found wanting lot more on Monte Carlo Masters where he hardly won a match or so in his whole career. the fact that he dint have the skill set to survive in clay threw him out of contention for that spot, but still i believe he is one of the top 5 all time players and few would disagree.
i think i have made clear that there has always the pattern of a set of legends in every era handing the torch to next set of legends. Borg - Connors - McEnroe to Lendl, Becker and Becker - Sampras & Agassi. the pattern still persisted when Sampras hung up his racquet the crown was taken over a bit unexpectedly in 2003 july by the Swiss Master ... there were opinions that Hewitt and Roddick would challenge him .. well after 7 years how many matches they have in combined won against the swiss master ... well this is where the metamorphosis has taken place , the pattern seems to be ending. Richard Gasquet everyone expected to come up and has disappointed so far untill Wimbledon 2007 .. he has given me hopes again as t
o the next generation torch bearer ... Besides him its a huge vacuum and there seems to be a huge hole that will be left wen Roger gives up. One must be wondering whether i forgot Nadal . .well no i haven't .. the only reason i haven't mentioned is that i have my apprehensions as to whether he would be the Legend everyone expects him to be at this age of 21. well he is already a legend at Paris and he will always be .. but i'm not sure in totality of the game he would be .. he definitely has shown signs of proving me wrong it in this years Wimbledon and definitely i believe will take over when roger 
finishes coz simply he is much younger than Swiss master. But eventually wen he finishes will he be this close to Roger as now .. i have serious doubts on this matter. even if that is so and Nadal takes over .. who else .. well look to the horizons and not a soul to be seen ... we can all pray and hope legends would come around by the time .. personally i don't believe any of the current ones are eligible for that step-up.The metamorphosis that i have described have solely revolved around the players but the racquets and courts have changed and that has definitely catalyzed this in a big way. Balls getting heavier allowing the evolution of baseline players alone unlike the earlier era where allround game and serve and volleying was the notion and the grass courts getting slower to accommodate them has definitely taken the shine off the game a bit in my opinion. Even the best player on grass(Federer) hangs on the baseline lot more different from Sampras and Becker the former kings of SW 19. but he does use the "slice" which is a key stroke on grass from the baseline so we needn't dwell on that. The fact that Nadal has made 2 Wimbledon finals in 2 years has been the biggest evidence for this. But i'm not taking away the fact that he has put a lot of effort on his game and this year we saw him volleying and slicing as good as anyone in the circuit .. Hats off to him and i do admire that commitment. this is one thing that makes me believe after all Nadal could also be a great. but the image of bounce of the grass beating him in almost all matches and Nadal standing embarrassed seeing it will always be in most people's memory. the racquets have improved immensely that has helped the baseliners and also the big servers.
How can i round off this post without going into the controversial part of it all .. the best ones of all time and the questions that i mentioned at the beginning of the post. As to the question whether Federer will win the French Open or not.. Answer is simple .. "YES" .. unlike Sampras and McEnroe Roger does have the skillset to tame the clay.. just couple of obstacles are the bounce that is there in the clay of Roland Garros different from other clay courts around the world.
eg: Hamburg very little bounce and federer beat nadal... and the second problem is ofcourse the "Muscular Mallorcan" named Rafael Nadal. But i believe he would get over these 2 some time soon. but i still think Vijay Amritraj hit the nail on the head when he said . "Nadal would win Wimbledon before Federer wins the French" ... think it may come true. Federer needs to seek help of Thomas Muster i feel, to get better on clay ..High bouncing ball over the backhand side of Federer is the technical weakness of Federer, the only one. But more than this i think the main weakness is that which grips every great player in any sport .. The "MIND" .. its very evident in 3 people --- Woods, Tendulkar and Federer - greats of their trades. Of a decade of watching sports this is one big conclusion that i have reached on greats. greats have a mentality to conquer everything and when they feel that they aren't able to do something which is natural for a human being .. it disturbs them. they just can't accept it. and in trying to do so , they work up so much in their mind different stratergies and thought process, preparations (as in Sachin's case) which
really overpowers their mind and curbs their natural game preventing the fluent array of strokes. i have seen in Federer a very fallible mind he jus goes to sleep at times in mind with 2 sets up especially against weak opponents .. its only when he loses somethng it may be a break or a set or smethng that he wakes up and then there is almost an explosion he blasts the opponent out 6-0,6-1 .. anyone reading this could remember a number of such instances .. this Wimbledon - Robredo .. he lost a set to Robredo on grass damn it !!! thats the latest .. there are number of such instances. Similarly when he comes up against Nadal there is too much going on in his mind especially against Nadal especially on clay .. He just has to believe that he is good on clay and that is exactly what is missing. He isn't believing on clay against Rafa who i think is the master of clay and has of course dethroned Thomas Muster .. think this enough of an invitation to Muster to help Federer so that he could see the "usurper" (if u wanna call it that way) beaten on his surface.As to Roger's credentials on being the greatest of all time, well keep it on hold untill he wins the French . if he doesn't he wouldn't be .. the crown would remain with Rod Laver. he has all the makings .. the throne and crown are locked and the doors leading to it could be unlocked in may 2008 at Paris and i'm hoping so. whatever happens he would atleast be the 2nd greatest behind Rod Laver and also the most graceful player to have entertained tennis fans all over the world. there is something about the beauty of Federer's game that one cannot explain.. it just feels as though GOD is playing tennis , the beauty of his strokes , especially the backhand .. wat a follow through to it.. jus awesome ... there is no other word to it ... also there have been fingers raised as to Federer's ability in 5 sets .. Phew .. Wimbledon 2007 final for all those people who raise their fingers.
His record may not be great in 5 setters but he hardly allows them to go into 5 sets !!! he jus murders them within 2 hours and max of 4 sets. so he is terribly a stranger to 5 setters and also one more statistic .. Federer against Nadal in 5 sets have always won .... so he's beaten the best of the rest in 5 always .. ya he did lose to safin but safin is a ferociously strong person who is physically a lot stronger and that day in Australia he was the better man ...Well if you thought reading this article that I'm a Nadal detractor you have
n't gone too wrong :P ... kidding ... he isn't my favourite .. but i'm starting to like quite a few of his traits especially commitment to getting better on his game and on all other surfaces .. thats commendable and the starting of being great .. Hope he does fulfill the promises that he is showing. But the reason i believe he won't is because like Hewitt his strength is not any tennis shot but instead his pace on court and ability to pick and return balls from unbelievable situations and positions. this is what has put Federer off many a time. as Hewitt he also has been plagued by a variety of injuries at a young age which is usually the fate of such variety of players. and this doesn't bode well for Rafa and this is the prime reason why i believe that he can be beaten by anyone on any surface other than clay on a given day whereas Federer is almost invincible except when he faces Nadal. Also i feel that Nadal's peformance in hard courts aren't anything to write home about. he is yet to make a semi appearance in Melbourne or New York."Federer can be beaten by nadal alone" -- Tomas Berdych's comment at this Wimbledon .. i add a prefix to it ... A good player like a roddick or hewitt or a djokovic can beat Nadal on any surface except clay on any given day but + Berdych's comment ... :) this is the general attitude that players have and i m happy that Berdych was candid about it !!! the chance that a player other than Nadal beats Federer is less than 1% .. of course Canas and Volandri beat him this year .. but this was a bad year for FedEx ...With my take on the greatest players of all times and era's i shall round off this article which has my take on Tennis after having observed a decade of it. in the late 70 - early 80's .. the competitors would be Borg McEnroe and Connors .. can't separate them :( .. but if i'm forced to pick one i shall pick Borg coz of his mazing feat of winning the french and then coming straight to SW19 and reigning as the champion for 5 years. i know majority would be for McEnroe by a slight margin and even sachin likes him a lot :D still i dnt thnk he was better than Borg though Bjorn was poor on hard courts .. this is my own take.. then late 80's period .. Becker hands down .. i know this isn't what majority would agree and majority would say Lendl ... but nope .. Becker bought somethng extra into the game enthusiasm exuberence and romantic victories of 85 and 86 at SW19. Lendl never had such a charismatic influence .. he never won Wimbledon. Then .. Sampras & Agassi ... Still undecided .. i know .. but personally Agassi .. won on all surfaces .. as becker had more a charismatic effect on tennis instrumental in transforming tennis into today's shape, of course the rebel(only for Wimbledon).. skillset of Agassi was a much wider one than that of Sampras's.
There has always been comparisons drawn between Federer and Sampras .
. as Roger himself said its impossible with the difference in styles. But i personally feel Federer coz of the same reason as that of Agassi's the skillset. Sampras always relied on the Pistol shot serve of his to get out of difficult situations .. whereas Federer has much more than that. His game remnided me of Sampras at this year's championships with him bailing himself out on numerous situations with a sampresque service.i think its time that i put my head on the chopping block and opened my mouth on the best ever ... As it stands now .. its Rod Laver undisputed follo
wed by Roger Federer and Then its gotta be Roy Emerson and then the best returner of serve Andre Agassi and 5th in the list would be Pete Sampras(pipping Borg narrowly). andre won on all surfaces and was more complete as a player compared to pete. as for pete yes he is the king of the grass but he is not rated by anyone as the greates volleyer .. Even Pat Rafter of his era was better .. was the best volleyer and of course Henman was also better than sampras in volleying .. its the serve and half volley pick up and a tremendous slice which made Sampras the king. these are my justifications for Agassi being ahead of Sampras. Also Andre came back from depths of despair and rose like a phoenix like a true champion twice in his career where Sampras managed to do such an act only at US Open 2002 which was his last competititve game.Don't know how much more tennis and sports i would get to watch but i do hope that players good enough to take the baton from Roger come up. As of now i dnt see any eventhough John McEnroe as always has shot his mouth out and said Andy Murray can be the next Federer .. Oh puhleeezzzzzzz John .. Not Again !!!!! have heard enough of such impulsive declarations of urs .. too funny you are at times ... :P Murray has beaten Roger once but that doesnt mean anything.
and as for my best ones .. the true legends you put the great players in any era u wish to and visualize ... they will still be able to survive win and beat the best in that era .. and thats true greatness and thats the hallmark of legends and champions .. consider the 5 i have mentioned in their prime playing in each other's era and see whether wat i have told is right or not ?
