Well, that was it. Roger Federer will never have a better chance to beat Rafael Nadal at the French Open than he did last Sunday. He was doing everything right in the first set and still managed to lose it, somehow dropping five straight games after having set point on Nadal’s serve. He fought back to reach a tie break in the second set before throwing it away. He wins the third set and has Nadal 0-40, triple break point to start the fourth and……………………. And then he remembered who he was playing. Let’s face it. Federer will never beat Nadal on the red clay of Roland Garros. It will be interesting to see if he ever has the chance agaon. If he stays at his current number three ranking then the chances are that he will have to once again go through both Nadal and Novak Djokovic to win the title. As he showed this year, he may be able to beat Djokovic, but he cannot beat Nadal.
Which brings us to the matter at hand. The question arose during the final as to how can Federer be considered the best player of all time when he is not the best player of his generation? The general consensus is that Nadal, having a career 17-8 edge over Federer, is the better player. Why then, is he not called the best of all time? The numbers favor Federer, 16 Majors to Nadal’s 10. But that difference is shrinking fast. Nadal has won four of the last five Majors. Federer has been in the finals of just one, last week’s French. Not a good sign for Federer. If he stays healthy, Nadal will eventually pass Federer for the most Majors. By virtue of his career dominance over Federer we will concede the title of “greatest player” to Nadal. We’ll call Federer the “greatest champion” of all time. For the time being.
