Friday, June 6, 2008

Destiny

It was inevitable.
*
It was inexorable. It was irresistible. It was fate.
*
It was destiny.
*
Even before the tournament, everyone knew who was going to clash in the final. Rafael Nadal, #2 in the world, greatest claycourter who has ever lived, undefeated at Roland Garros, seeking to emulate Bjorn Borg. And Roger Federer, the most transcedent player in history, the most dominant player in history, arguably the greatest player in history, who no longer plays against opponents, but against history, the measure of his own greatness.
*
Destiny.
*
I got my wish last night. I've been rabbiting on and on about how Rafa Nadal needs to teach the upstart Novak Djokovic some respect, and if he didn't do it in that semi final, I don't know what he did. He crushed Djokovic - totally obliterated him. Djokovic staged a mini comeback to bring that third set to a breaker, but Nadal owned that match from start to finish. It was too little, too late for Novak. Rafa owned him - and showed him why he is #2, and Novak is #3.
*
They were talking about Rafa on Radio Roland Garros the other day - I think it was during his match against Almgaro - and they said that he is not only the best player in the wolrd on clay, but he is a 'claycourt boss.' This struck me as oddly appropriate, especially considering my stance in the Federer camp. I've never been one for video games and Playstations and whatnot (and yes, I realise that that last sentence made me sound approximately 844 years old!) but I remember watching my little brothers play them. At the end of every level, or every few levels, there'd be a 'boss' - a sort of super opponent that the hero had to overcome to ascend to the next level.
*
I believe that Federer has already proved himself to be the greatest player of all time, but there are many who believe he still needs the Coupe de Mousquetaires in his trophy cabinet to cement it. If he wins, if he, the hero, can overcome Rafa, the claycourt boss, then I don't think there will be a person in the world who can doubt his claim to be the best player to ever pick up a racquet.
*
That said, he has an uphill road ahead of him. Rafa has been playing sublime tennis. Much as I don't like Djokovic, he is a decent player, and it ain't just everyone who can bundle him out of a Slam in three straight sets. Federer's semi against Monfils was much more scratchy. Federer came through, which is the important thing - as long as you win, it doesn't matter how you do it, in my book - but he was less convincing.
*
Gael Monfils is a strange player. I follow the Russians, especially Safin and Tursunov, and so I understand how a player can run hot and cold, but he takes it to extremes. I have never known a player who can suck so totally one moment and then be so brilliant the next. I sent in a question to Radio Roland Garros the other night, asking who they thought was the most naturally gifted players on the circuit. Both said Federer without skipping a beat - which was the answer I was fishing for! - but it would be interesting to see who these tennis professionals rank next. Federer is the most gifted on the tour, no doubt about it, but it seems to me that Monfils has an obscene amount of talent which has never been actualised. (The same goes for Richard Gasquet, but to a lesser extent.) Sadly for Gael, I don't know if it ever will be, despite his excellent run here: he gets injured too easily to be a constant presence in the top echelons of tennis, as his career up to this point demonstrated,
*
But the semi finals are over now. Djokovic and Monfils have faded into the background, with the other players who have lost this week. Of one hundred and twenty eight men, two remain. Roger Federer. Rafael Nadal. The titans of the game.
*
In some respects, it is such a shame that these two great players had to exist at the same time. Without Rafa, Roger would have won certainly the last two and maybe the last three Roland Garroses, which would have given him the Grand Slam two years in a row and have put him past the Pete Sampras Slam record. Without Roger, Rafa would have won a couple of Wimbledons and would have been #1 - and a dominant one - a long time ago. Outside the claycourt season, I feel Rafa is underrated, but if he were not living in the shadow of Federer, then I don't think that'd be the case.
*
But they do exist at the same time. Roger stands between Rafa and Bjorn Borg's record, Rafa stands between Roger and history. This title is so important for both of them, and they both deserve it.
*
This is why, even though I want Roger to win so badly, I am not going to pick a winner for this match. No one can doubt the might and the dominance on clay of Rafa Nadal - who has grown up and become a lovely young man, and Federer's friend. I talked about this a few days ago, but I think there is a period in every Federer fan's life when they hate Rafa for being the roadblock on Roger's road to greatness, on being the 'boss' that Roger just can't quite get past, but to view Rafa just as a roadblock is very disrespectful. Rafa Nadal is a great ambassador for the sport, and I'm glad that he and Federer get along so well, because tennis needs men like these.
*
It is only fitting that these two meet in the final. If Federer is to win Roland Garros, it is only fitting that he beats Nadal to do it. If Nadal is to win his fourth title in a row, it is only fitting that he overcome the best possible opponent to do it.
*
It is destiny.
*
I make no bones of it - I want Federer to win. I will be cheering for my Roger with everything I have. But if Rafa were to win, that wouldn't be so bad either. If there is ever time when it is understandable to lose a tennis match, it is against Rafa Nadal in his playground, at Roland Garros (or, looking ahead, against Roger Federer on the green grass of Wimbledon.) Whichever man wins it, they will have deserved it, and even though Federer will always come first for me, I admire them both greatly.
*
*
Roland Garros Results - Day #13
*
Men's Draw
*
Roger Federer def. Gael Monfils, 6-2 5-7 6-3 7-5
Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic, 6-4 6-2 7-6 (7-3)

No comments: