Department of Better Sports Writing Please: Tennis Division

Sure, Roger Federer has not been quite so magnificent this year as he has been these past three years. Defeats to Canas (twice), Nalbandian (also twice) and Djokovic in Montreal have dented his air of effortless (non-clay court) supremacy. But, seriously, how can you write an article with the headline "Federer's Ability to Dominate May Be Coming to an End" without mentioning that he won three of the four Grand Slams this year (and reached the final at Roland Garros too)? The only reason to think that he's not quite as good this year as he has been in the past is because of the absurd standards he set in 2005 and 2006.

In any case, the point of Roger Federer can't be measured by counting titles. It's all in the way he plays the game. No-one has ever been quite this brilliant while playing with such style. Watching Federer play tennis is an aesthetic pleasure that can legitimately be considered an artistic experience. For chapter and verse on this, see David Foster Wallace's excellent hymn to Federer from the New York Times last year.

Comments

[Sam]

Not directly linked to this particular article, but any comment on Bonds' latest little ethical dilemma?

[SamG]

Not directly linked to this particular article, but any comment on Bonds' latest little ethical dilemma?

[stuart]

nice to see this noted.

There's a weird tension about the way Federer is sometimes written about (don't get me wrong, he gets his fair share of adulation). The fact that he hasn't won all four slams in a year is considered a major obstacle to him being regarded as the best ever. But then when he dominates in the slams but less so in other tournaments that's also a problem.

But, implicit in the demand for a Grand Slam, is that the other tournaments don't matter so much.

[Jack Canby]

Listen: this poor sod Federer couldn't even beat Pete Sampras this week! Sampras?! The man's been retired for ages. And Federer lost to him.

What does that tell you?