FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Sports

Tennis Will Suffer Without Federer v. Nadal

Tennis needs a good rivalry to make things interesting. Current top player in the world Novak Djokovic has yet to find a good rival.
Photo by Presse Sports-USA TODAY Sports

Eventually, we fold up our favorite memories and put them away neatly on a shelf somewhere. They become part of our history while we move into the future. Tennis' favorite memory is the 2008 Wimbledon final, when Rafael Nadal beat Roger Federer in the greatest tennis match ever played, setting up the greatest individual rivalry in sports.

And this past Wednesday, that rivalry became irrelevant. The Match moved from tennis present to tennis past.

Advertisement

Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal doesn't matter anymore, and that's a frightening thought for the sport.

READ MORE: The Beaten Earth: Rafael Nadal in Paris

It happened when Novak Djokovic beat Nadal Wednesday at the French Open, the tournament Nadal has owned. A day earlier, Stan Wawrinka beat Federer. And these weren't just any two matches. This was the end. The new era belongs to Djokovic. He's fun; he's great; who knows how far he can take this?

Only there's one other thing: Tennis is in big trouble. Djokovic isn't going to sell. It's not his fault. He just isn't Federer or Nadal. Make that Federer and Nadal. The problem isn't that Djokovic can't be a leading man--it's that he can't do this all himself.

No one can.

Novac Djokovic is the best player in the world. But he needs a rival. Photo by Susan Mullane-USA TODAY Sports

Tennis is a sport built on rivalries. Djokovic doesn't have a rival, unless you count Andy Murray. But here is a cold truth, and I say this as someone who loves tennis: When Djokovic plays Murray, it is entirely unwatchable. Downright boring.

Why is that? The answer gets to the nature of rivalries. The good, memorable ones require friction. Differences. Here's a little more cold truth: Before Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon, Federer was the most ignored sports superhero in history.

It took Nadal. It took a left-hander storming the court in pirate pants (remember?) vs. the ultimate gentleman with perfect hair, perfect posture and a running style that didn't pound on the court so much as float over it. Rafa and Roger were opposites. That's what made it interesting. One style was beating another, and you could cheer for the style you liked.

Advertisement

Pete Sampras was quiet, fluid power vs. Andre Agassi's loud, attacking color. John McEnroe was a left-handed screaming brat vs. Bjorn Borg's looping spin and stone face. Martina vs. Chris--what do I need to say?

The form is part of the substance.

I once went to an exhibition match for charity in Indian Wells, Calif. Sampras and Federer faced Agassi and Nadal. Agassi was dogging Sampras so much over the mic he was wearing that Nadal told him to shut up. Then Sampras made fun of Agassi's waddle. And Sampras actually served one at Agassi's head.

I mean, this was in retirement.

For charity.

Djokovic and Murray are the same guy, playing almost exactly the same game. Medium-paced serve, great return, great footwork. Djokovic wins because he does what Murray does, only two percent better.

This is tennis' worst nightmare, but it was also inevitable. It's a problem in the women's game, too, where Serena Williams vs. Maria Sharapova is a natural, dream rivalry. But Sharapova can't ever beat Williams. You can't have a rivalry if both sides don't take something important from each other.

But it's more than just a missing rivalry. On Wednesday, tennis moved into what I'm going to call its Larry Holmes Era.

Years ago, Muhammad Ali's time passed and boxing was left with a new champion. Holmes. Ali had been such a big persona that Holmes never had a chance. Holmes was actually an excellent champ, but under his leadership, boxing began a long, slow decline.

Advertisement

It wasn't his fault. No one could be Ali. Holmes didn't have an infectious personality, just a really good jab, the least thrilling of boxing's punches. And when he was champ, the feeling of the sport wasn't about what he brought, but about what was missing.

Basketball went through its Larry Holmes Era, too, after Michael Jordan left. Eventually, it worked out. It took a while for Kobe Bryant, no matter how great he was, to be more than not-Michael. Even today, when LeBron James is clearly the greatest player on the planet, the question is whether he's as good as Jordan (No, he's not).

The advantage Djokovic has on them is that he has beaten Nadal and Federer when they were still at the top of the game, or close enough. That adds legitimacy. Djokovic can hold up his end, but it won't be enough.

The match Wednesday against Nadal was just so shocking. Djokovic won 7-5, 6-3, 6-1. And coming into the tournament, there were already questions about whether Nadal had any confidence. So Djokovic was the favorite even though Nadal had won nine French Opens. Nine!

But after the second set, Nadal, who never stops fighting, stopped fighting. He has had so many injuries, and plays the game so physically and with such abandon that it always seemed inevitable his body would break down.

But his mind? His heart? Nadal became old Wednesday. I still think of him as the greatest player ever. He's just not the greatest right now. And he's 29. He can win another major or two, but he just won't dominate the game anymore.

Nobody ever broke down Jordan in his prime that way. He won his sixth title and left, coming back a few years later, a few pounds heavier, when no one would judge him. Ali lost to Holmes, but he was so far past his prime that it wasn't telling. Just sad.

As for Federer, he's 33 now. It would take a miracle for him to win a major. What a great rivalry he had with Nadal, for a while, anyway, until Nadal had him figured out.

Now, it's time to focus on Djokovic and Murray. They'll play each other in the semis on Friday. It won't be their first big match in a major, but it will be their first as the dominant rivals of men's tennis.

It reminds me of a great fight Holmes once had against, um, uh. . .