The incredible hall of fame of men’s tennis

Rafael Nadal’s victory at the center court of Roland Garros was exhilarating and emphatic in equal measure. He wasn’t expected to win by most of the pundits because of a mediocre clay court season when he won only one tournament. I wasn’t expecting him to win because he was up against Novak Djokovic who had defeated him in three clay court finals this season and he is the only man who can beat Rafa on any given day on any given surface. When Rafa lost the first set in the final, I knew it was definitely going to pump him up and when the second set went down to the wire, I started thinking whether this was the beginning of the end for Rafa. When he let out that roar after wrapping up the second set, I realized he was mentally back in the game. But the way he dismantled Djoker in the next two sets left me shell shocked. Rafa has already kissed the skies of success and tying up with the record of the great Sampras only enhances his greatness, but how does he stack up with the greats from the past?

I grew up listening to the exploits of Bjorn Borg, the flamboyance of John McEnroe and the mastery of Jimmy Connors and the nail biting contests between these three. Those were the days of the serve and volley era of tennis and the three were masters of it. Ivan Lendl, someone who is so similar with Rafa with regards to physique and mental toughness. Stefan Edberg and Mats Wilander, the great Swedes who became exponents of the serve and volley game. One player I distinctly remember is Miloslav Mecir, a master at serve and volley and an amazing match, the 1988 Wimbledon semi final between Edberg and him. Mecir demolished Edberg in the first two sets in no time and was up with the lead in the third. When I thought Edberg was down and out, he dug deep and won the next three sets to pocket a most unlikely win. It was one of the best tennis matches I have ever seen. Boom boom Boris Becker, who brought his booming serve into the game and his epic games with Edberg is never to be forgotten.

Enter the American duo of Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi into the picture. Sampras quickly settled down with his incredible serve and an unmatched forehand while Agassi chose to play with his flamboyant and maverick demeanour and developed his best weapon, return of serve. The Sampras-Agassi duels are part of tennis folklore, the most legendary one being the 2001 US Open quarterfinal match where they couldn’t break each other’s serve in the entire match and all sets had to be decided by tie breakers. There was one match I vaguely remember between Sampras and Becker. Both were of largely similar playing styles and Becker started in his normal bazooka style. I watched in amazement as Sampras lifted his game in extraordinary fashion and dismantled Becker to win the match. For me, Agassi was a much better player than Sampras though he won far fewer Grand Slam titles. Sampras could never master the slower clay courts and win at Roland Garros while Agassi completed a career Grand Slam through a spectacular turnaround from his career slump. The exit of Sampras and Agassi dimmed my interest in tennis and that was the time Roger Federer was taking giant strides to conquer the world of tennis. Federer is a unique combination of flair and flamboyance who chose to adapt to playing both serve and volley and from the baseline to make his game suited to all surfaces because of which he found astonishing success.

What rekindled my interest in tennis was the arrival of Rafa. He made his debut at Roland Garros like a fish taking to water and began his complete domination over the tournament. This is the first reason why I rate Rafa above every other tennis player because all the other greats took their time to get into winning ways on their favourite surfaces. The second reason why I rate Rafa as the best is, when Federer was demolishing everyone in his path and winning titles and Slams in heaps, his game unravelled against only one man, Rafa and the fact that Rafa could beat him in the game and in the mind and bring out his mental frailties puts Rafa on a much higher rung in greatness. Not only did he deny Federer a victory against him at Roland Garros, he took his game to Wimbledon where Federer was lording over and snatched the Wimbledon title from Federer’s seemingly invincible grip. The third reason is, he was marked off as a clay court specialist early in his career because of his baseline game and his style of playing was taking it’s toll on his body. He overcame every obstacle with true grit and completed a career Grand Slam in 2010.

Rafa’s success rate at one championship is unlikely to be surpassed anytime in the near future. I am wondering who among the greats from the glorious past can take the fight back to Rafa. Ivan Lendl? Bjorn Borg? Mats Wilander? Andre Agassi? His one blip at Roland Garros, the loss to Soderling in 2009 is assuming greater significance every year he wins the French Open. I guess it is nature’s way of not allowing anyone to attain complete perfection. When we battle the biggest odds in front of us, we will fail in the least likeliest situation.

The bar of the game has been set so high, now we are looking at someone who can touch 20 Grand Slam titles. Every great player’s victories have been skewed towards one type of court or the other. Rafa’s 9 at Roland Garros, Federer’s and Sampras’s 7 at Wimbledon. What would be perfection is 20 titles split into 5 titles across the four Grand Slams. Federer was at the cusp of that glory and he would have been sitting on another 4 French Open titles and more than 20 Grand Slam titles if he had not run into Rafa. It is really unfortunate that Federer and Rafa had to be in the same era, but I guess this is nature’s way of not allowing anyone or anything to become equal to the Almighty.