Nadal

o "normal" in men's tennis, Rome saw everything go all topsy turvy once again with Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer losing before the semi-finals. Once again, Novak Djokovic took advantage of the absence of the Big Two to claim a Masters Series shield. But honestly, I think he might have one with Rafa and Fed still in the tournament. It's been THAT kind of year.

Continue reading "When in Rome?"

Taken a step futher, this questions usually boils down to "is Roger Federer better than Pete Sampras?"

Federer is far and away more consistent than Sampras ever was. Since winning his first Grand Slam title (Wimbledon 2003) he's been in the finals of nearly every Grand Slam event. And even more impressive, Federer has been in the finals in twelve of the last twelve Grand Slam events! If we define Sampras' prime as 1993 thru 2000 when he won seven out of eight Wimbledon titles, he never came close to accomplishing anything like this-- and Federer's streak isn't even over yet. If you look at Sampras' results during his prime, he lost early in the French Open numerous times, had several early round losses in the Australian and US Open, and many late round losses, too. Since Federer started rolling at Wimbledon 2003 he's pretty much dominated like no other player in recent history. If Federer can hold even some of his current form for the next 3 years that will give him the same eight year prime that I've defined for Sampras, and would give us a slightly better view of the two careers side by side, but right now, it's hard to imagine Federer not continuing to dominate in Grand Slam events.

Continue reading "Is Roger Federer the greatest tennis player ever?"