Federer vs Nadal: So who’s the best ever?

By Warren Glam

I do love a good story. I’m especially fond of the ones which touch on what you might call heroic motifs — like the errant knight wandering through all manner of realms intent on making his mark in the world. Strong stuff, to be sure. And maybe I’m wrong in this, but I sort of feel that many sports fans share my taste for these tales. As proof I could cite cases like a) the rise of Tiger Woods and b) the rise of Wayne Rooney.

One of the great tales in professional sports revolves around whether a young, gifted athlete has it in him to be the best ever. The question is entertaining but, in the context of tennis, impossible to answer. As a Roger Federer fan, I didn’t always feel this way. Instead, my opinion was that the sport had a vested interest in leaving the issue in doubt: ratings. With one champion on his way out, the sport needed to invent another in order to cash in on this particular story’s appeal. Hence the narrative proceeded along these lines. Could he be that good? Has there ever been anyone to match him? Does he have records in him? Yes he does. Oh look, someone younger, faster and stronger has the measure of him. Could he be that good? Has there ever been anyone to …

Whatever! I figured this was bogus and entirely unfair to my boy.

I see things differently now. The truth, I think, is that every player’s legacy is venerable in some way. Not only for a market-related reason, but because there’s more than one legitimate ground on which to recognise who the sport’s best is.

If it’s true that to be the best, you have to beat the best, then Rafael Nadal is, indeed, the best. That he and Roger are engaged in some sort of rivalry is dubious. Rafa’s record against him is impressive, much of it achieved when Federer was still in his prime. However, what’s more impressive is the fact that Federer remains the one in need of a solution, a way to consistently stand a chance against Nadal.

Then again, has Nadal’s play ever truly been worthy of the banner: “Shhh, genius at work?” His results say he’s the best in the world right now. But I don’t want to believe it. The efficacy of his game appeals to my intellect only. He lacks Federer’s elf-like grace, the ballerina thing. Also — and I’m sure someone else has at least thought this — he enjoys a natural advantage. His forehand goes to Roger’s backhand. Leaving this out of the equation, and comparing the quality of each aspect of their games (like how technically refined they are), most would conclude that Federer is the superior player. He expends less energy when he plays and generates power from less effort. He also has more shots.

So who’s the best ever? My heart says Federer. But I guess arguing the case for one trumping the other in absolute terms is futile. There’s always something.

Warren is an aspiring writer/ sub-editor/ desk-top publisher who happens to have a genuine love for tennis.