A swan dress in 2007. A shorts-and-waistcoat tu-xedo in 2008. A cropped,polo-neck jacket in 2009. Maria Sharapova unveils something vibrant every Wimbledon. The grunting may not add to her sex appeal,but when shes stepping on court in all her girlie finery,the Russian is a fashion diva unmatched by any tennis player before or since her arrival.
Except,of course,for Roger Federer.
The greatest sporting icon of our generation this guy? Arent great sportsmen moody and mysterious? Dont they talk tough before matches and kiss their biceps in their spare time? Surely,theyre not supposed to make us feel like weve died and gone to metro-sexual heaven?
The world is divided between those who are crazy about Federer,and those who grudgingly admire his genius but say they hate him. And its easy to understand why it must be difficult for some people to root for him both for his chocolate-boy image,and for how he plays the game.
Oliver Holt of Daily Mirror wrote after Federers third win in 2005 that Wimbledon was witnessing a tyranny of beauty. Any tyranny,no matter how striking,gets stifling beyond a point. It leads to an uprising,and the general mood swings in the direction of anybody who has the chance of ending it.
There is a distinction between controlling a surface or a tournament over a long period of time like Thomas Muster on clay or Bjorn Borg at Wimbledon,for example and having a tyrannical hold over it. In the first case,it seems that the player is working hard blood,guts,sweat,toil to hang on to his crown. In the latter,he repeatedly crushes opponents with such ruthless simplicity that it appears he will never be beaten.
In his early days,a great top-spin pass,hit at an unbelievable angle,was never enough reason for Federer to pump his fists in ecstasy. He could hit five variations of that same shot any time he wanted; what was brilliant for others was normal to him. He won,but for all his elegance,it made him incredibly boring once the novelty had worn out.
Over the last two years,however,the world has started to catch up. And Rafael Nadal,by beating him consistently since 2008,has done his Swiss rival a great favour hes made him appear more human. Even in this Wimbledon final,Andy Roddicks heroic all-or-nothing effort in the final which included the longest last set in any major championship in history allowed us to cheer Federers victory more freely,with more passion. Much better than when he had brushed Roddick aside in 2004 and 2005.
Every great sporting hero needs a great rival. In a game like golf,where youre not shooting bullets at each other but simply doing your own thing,that rival can be yourself which is what makes Tiger Woods,the other great genuinely great sporting icon of our times,more easy to appreciate. Now that Federer has found not one worthy adversary,but two or three (Andy Murray has a 6-2 record against him),its going to be a lot easier for many of us to applaud him,to admire him without reservations,and to celebrate his results with greater emotional investment.
But the funniest twist in all the discussions about whether Federer is the greatest ever is how were in a unique,never-seen-before moment in sporting history. Consider this: Nadal is sitting quietly,watching people fight about who the greatest is,observing the pundits bring up Rod Laver,Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras,and rubbing his hands with glee as they conclude that it has to be Federer.
So on one hand,youve got the best of all time,and on the other,someone who may lose to others but has been able to dominate him regularly even at the biggest stage.
I may not be the greatest player who ever lived,Nadal could choose to say,I just beat him every time we play.
kunal.pradhan@expressindia.com
