FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Sports

The Tennis Time Traveller: Roger Federer's Ongoing Greatness At Wimbledon

Despite a loss in the Wimbledon final to Novak Djokovic—or perhaps because of it—Roger Federer continues to amaze, transcending eras in a rapidly-evolving sport.
Photo by Susan Mullane-USA TODAY Sports

When Serena Williams won Wimbledon Saturday, the talk on ESPN wasn't about whether she is the best women's tennis player or even the greatest of all time. No, that isn't big enough anymore. Is she the greatest American athlete? Is she the most dominant athlete in the world? In the history of the world? The universe?

It seems important to sports television networks that we think everything we're seeing now is way, way better than everything from the past. Today is better than yesterday. Tomorrow will be even better. If you don't watch, you'll miss it. In the old days, sports were in black and white with smaller, slower, weaker athletes in funny, shorter shorts.

Advertisement

And on Sunday, when Novak Djokovic beat Roger Federer to win Wimbledon, there was ESPN's John McEnroe saying that Djokovic has the best return of serve in history. Really? Have we studied film of the serve returns of Don Budge and Big Bill Tilden?

Let's be real: there's no way to put such a definitive point on history. It's all guesswork. I've argued that Rafael Nadal is the greatest of all time in men's tennis even though he has won 14 majors to Federer's 17. He has beaten Federer 23 times in 33 tries.

But in watching Federer lose Sunday, I came to have a new appreciation of where Federer stands in history and what that even means. Maybe how it should be judged, too. I'm still going with Nadal, but in Federer's defeat Sunday, while fighting nerves, he made his case stronger. Again.

"I still think I had a great tournament," he told reporters afterward. "But of course, you walk away empty-handed.''

Well, no, he didn't.

READ MORE: Too Much, Too Soon: How American Men's Tennis Sabotages Young Stars

Greatness shouldn't be invoked so casually, or measured simply by the numbers. It requires context. An appreciation of history, and not just a recitation of it. Federer's greatness is that he keeps finding ways to amaze us no matter what point in history he's playing from.

The fifth set against Andy Roddick in the Wimbledon final. The great match, which he lost, with Rafael Nadal. Even the semifinal against Andy Murray this past Friday. Bjorn Borg told ESPN after the match that that was the best he'd seen Federer play in a decade. Is that possible for a 33-year old? You bet.

Advertisement

And the second-set tiebreaker against Djokovic, which Federer won 10-8. Djokovic led 6-3, with three set points. He had it won, but Federer amazed again.

Murray and Djokovic, and even Nadal to some extent, represent the next generation after Federer. Yet, there was Federer on Friday, crushing Murray's spirit and showing more than a flash of what people remember about his prime. Part of Federer's greatness is his longevity, and his ability to amaze over and over. Part of it is that after all these years, his body hasn't broken down the way Nadal's has.

Sure, Federer's level has dropped. Some. He hasn't won a major since Wimbledon 2012, and he has spent the past five years fighting off not only age, but also obsolescence. Frankly, sometimes he has lost that fight.

But he's not just hanging around the way Jimmy Connors did, hoping for a lucky draw so he can make a final run at the U.S. Open. He's not even Sampras, who had dropped into a steep and injury-riddled decline before rallying to win one last U.S. Open.

Those were great things, too. But Federer is 33 years old and ranked No 2 in the world. He was supposed to be where he was, at the Wimbledon final.

Livin' the gluten-free life. --Photo by Susan Mullane-USA TODAY Sports

ESPN is sensing, rightly so, that Federer is no longer going to be able to beat Djokovic. He was still close Sunday, but at some point, maybe now, you figure he can't get any closer.

Djokovic is now the dominant force in the game—though Stan Wawrinka might catch him—and so, we already are hearing noise about whether he might go down as the best ever. ESPN jammed it down our throats. That's pretty hard to see, honestly. And it's not because of numbers (He has won nine majors, Nadal 14 and Federer 17).

Advertisement

It's this: You can't really think of anything Djokovic has ever done, other than great impressions of players and also tearing off all his clothes after winning the Australian Open and throwing them into the crowd.

No magical moment on court, other than a hell of a return of serve against Federer at the U.S. Open.

There are stories suggesting that Djokovic is jealous of all the love and attention that goes to Federer, and also to Nadal. Djokovic wants some, too, and possibly thinks he has earned it.

He hasn't. He has won, yes. But greatness is more than that. The task for Djokovic is to prove that he's not just feasting in a time when the greats are starting to slide—including Federer, who just won't quit. He's going to need his own magical moments. That won't be easy for a guy who plays defense for a living.

Then there's this: Will Djokovic be the same as Federer when he's 33?

Comparing different eras is a fool's errand. The best you can do is see how a player has dominated their own era and, and then decide if the era itself was any good. And that's where Federer is shaking—a little—my belief that Nadal is the best ever.

What era, exactly, should Federer be placed in? The truth is, Federer is a tennis time-traveler.

A little history lesson: There really wasn't much difference in the game from the 1920s and Tilden to the early 1980s and McEnroe. This is overstating and oversimplifying, but let's put it this way: 1920-1982 was one era in tennis, 1982-1995 was another, and 1998-ish to now is four or five more.

Advertisement

The latter span pretty much covers Federer's career.

It might not seem obvious to the casual fan, but tennis has been undergoing rapid evolution, mostly because of technological changes in racquet, string and even court surfaces. Nadal and Djokovic have been around for one, maybe two eras.

Federer? He keeps surviving, keeps transcending.

Don't rule out a 2016 rematch. --Photo by Susan Mullane-USA TODAY Sports

When Federer arrived, the sport was just at the tail end of a serve-and-volley era. Crush a massive serve, run to the net behind it and never hit another shot. Bang-bang. Boring. When Federer was young, he beat Sampras at Wimbledon—a dominant serve-and-volley player in his own right—by coming to the net.

Since then, players have moved back to the baseline. They've gotten bigger, too. Stronger. More fit. When Federer arrived on tour, 6-foot was the perfect height for a champion. Anything taller would take away too much agility. Then Tennis Man grew to 6-foot-4, 6-foot-5. The kid who won junior Wimbledon this past weekend is an American named Reilly Opelka. He stands 6-foot-11. When he held the junior championship trophy over his head, it scraped the bottom of the blimp.

More evolution: when Sampras dominated and when Federer started, the grass at Wimbledon was much faster than it is now. They slowed it down. They sped up the slow clay at the French Open. New strings and rackets have allowed players to hit with much more spin, meaning more control, all while hitting with much more power. That means when someone blasts a serve, an opponent can use those strings to comfortably crush returns from anywhere on the court. Even from five feet behind the baseline. Today, it's nearly impossible to serve-and-volley, and the tactic is only used as surprise change-of-pace.

Advertisement

Point is, Federer has survived all of those eras—and amazed us in each.

That doesn't mean he hasn't made mistakes. It took him far too long to switch racquets a few years ago, even though he clearly needed to. The old ones he was using were from the Sampras era, and less-talented powerful players were pushing Federer backward with his old, weak, flexible racquet. At times, Federer has played in black-and-white when the game was in color. He likely cost himself some majors through sheer stubbornness.

His psyche wobbled over the years with his weak racquet. It still wobbled a little at Wimbledon with the new one, and with his attempts to take more chances and not play the odds on every shot. He is running slower now, too. But he has forced himself on a new generation, still amazing us. According to The New York Times, someone in the crowd on Sunday yelled out to Federer "Come on, old man" during the match—but afterward, there he was, still ranked No. 2 and competitive in the Wimbledon final, all these generations later.

"I'm right there,'' Federer told reporters after losing to Djokovic. "My game is good … I played on my terms. Things are all right.''

As Federer got his runner-up trophy, his wife, Mirka, took pictures. They're probably not the snaps he wanted to see, but she's preserving the movement for the future.

As if Federer won't still be playing then.