The question that anybody who’s anybody in tennis is asking right now isn’t about who is going to win the end of the year championships for either the men’s or women’s tours. It isn’t about the end of the year rankings, and, believe it or not, it isn’t even about Serena Williams’ wardrobe of absurd tennis/street thug attire.
No, the question on the minds of players and commentators alike is one of history, and the possibility, however slight it may be, that some of the greatest records in tennis may be shattered by the amazingly talented Roger Federer of Switzerland.
Federer first became known to most of the tennis world in 2001 when he defeated his idol, then first seed Pete Sampras, in the fourth round on the lawns of Centre Court at Wimbledon in a dramatic five set match, ending the seven-time champ’s 31-match Wimbledon winning streak. Sampras noted at that time that Federer was one of the most talented players he has ever seen, and Federer has continued to live up to that distinction.
As Sampras faded from the game, Federer began to emerge as a possible replacement for the late 20th century’s king of tennis. In 2003, he earned his first career grand slam title on the same court where he had just barely defeated Sampras only two years prior.
While 2003 was a big year for Federer, it was nothing compared to his achievements so far in 2004. He recently became the first man to win three of the four grand slam tournaments in one year since Mats Wilander in 1988.
Though he suffered a disappointing loss at the Athens Olympics, Federer has developed a near-stranglehold on the men’s game, with a near-perfect record over top ten players this year. He managed to secure the number one ranking for the year only two weeks after the Open, and his win over Lleyton Hewitt in the final at Flushing Meadows this year set records as the worst rout in a U.S. Open men’s final since the 19th century.
With statistics like these, some might say that the records are in danger, that Sampras’ record of 14 career grand slam singles and seven Wimbledon championships could fall, and that we soon might have a new holder of the true Grand Slam for the first time since Rod Laver won all four majors in 1962.
My response is simple: Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. Not only did Sampras have a head start on Federer (he won his first slam—the U.S. Open—a year younger than Federer), he also had a much safer margin over the competition at Wimbledon. Federer has the same clay court weakness that Sampras did, which may result in him never winning the French Open at Roland Garros.
As for the other important records? In a time of such unpredictability and power in the men’s game, I think Laver’s record is safe. Not only are there players chomping at Federer’s heels, but he will also have to face the injuries and other issues which have become such a part of the modern game.
Does anybody else have a chance of becoming the next Sampras or Agassi in the age of Roger Federer? I don’t think it’s likely, but I have a nagging feeling that a player by the name of Andy Roddick might tend to disagree. With 150-plus mile per hour serves and a blisteringly fast forehand, he might just have what it takes force an Agassi/Sampras style rivalry with Federer.
I tend to think, though, that if he’s going to provide a serious challenge to Roger Federer in the coming years, he’s going to have to avoid pulling a McEnroe and bathing in the Hollywood limelight. Maybe now that Mandy Moore is out of the picture, he can focus on his tennis game again.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual writer and are not necessarily held by The Poly or the sports department.
