And Finally, In The 'Completely Stupid' Category...

It's Davis Cup week. Yawn. At least until Friday, there's going to be pretty much fat nothing to write about. Except the INEVITABLE GLORIOUS RUN of my main man Nicolas Mahut in Cherbourg (antijinx). He is the second seed in the singles (after Grigor Dimitrov) and the top seed in the doubles with Edouard Roger-Vasselin. And they just won their first round doubles match. So... yeah. Awesome.

But due to this very little 'actual tennis' thing I have to write about, I thought I would write about this. It's a study. Possibly one of the worst studies of all time. The formula it uses analyses and tallies up how many wins players had over other 'quality players', regardless of arena, and then churns out a Greatest of All Time.

The GOAT, according to this study of stupidness? Jimmy Connors.

We all know where I stand when it comes to GOATness. If one has to pick, I'm Team Federer forever. But even if this survey had come out and said that yes, Federer is the greatest of all time, their methodology is clearly more than a little specious. Did you know that Federer has only, according to this, won 39 quality matches in his career? So that's eight victories over Rafa, thirteen over Djokovic, six over Murray, eight over Agassi... that's 35. Oh! one over Sampras. Make that 36. Chuck in a few others, and hey presto! Roger Federer has never won anything else ever.

And that's not even starting on the Rafa stats. He's only won 21 matches of quality. Because that's how you win five Roland Garros titles, bitches.

Surely when results like this came out of the study - Connors at #1, followed by Lendl and McEnroe - they should have realised it was a bit, how shall we say it... not very good? I mean, those dudes were great, and they did great things, but the greatest? I think not. If they're the results you're getting, your scale is wrong, bro.

I don't know if it is possible to quantify a Greatest of All Time. But if it is, this is not the right way to go about it.

I wonder how the system decides what a 'quality win' is, as well. Does Federer's victory over Andy Roddick in Wimbledon in 2009 count as a quality win? Because it was pretty freaking spectacular. But Roddick has been his bunny for a while now, so I'm sure that twenty-odd wins against Roddick can't be counted in those 39 wins he's apparently had. There's no regard to situation either, so matches like Roger's AO win over Baghdatis probably doesn't count.

I hope this 'prestige ranking' thing doesn't catch on. Because I am telling you right now that I think it is stupid. And you should all listen to me. Just because.

Sixteen Is More Than Eight. This Is Maths.

So there are all these articles floating around asking if Rafa is the greatest of all time.

To which I say, guys, come on.

Maybe, in the future, there will be a case to be made for Rafa. If you want me to believe that he is one of the all time greats - maybe even in the top five - I have a lot of time for you. Rafa is going to go down in history, that is for sure. He has eight Slams now - as many as Agassi - and considering that he's only 24 and I'd lay money on him winning, absolute minimum, two more Slams, then there is definitely a case to be made for him to be one of the greats.

I know Federer lost in two consecutive quarter finals. I know this. But he still has sixteen Slams. He still has pretty much every record there is in the history of tennis. The title of 'greatest of all time' - which, I would argue, and I would have a good case for, is rightfully his - still sits firmly on his shoulders. Just because he did not have the six bestest weeks of his life ever does not mean it suddenly switches to Rafa.

This is not to say that Rafa might not end up eclipsing Roger's records. He's improving all the time. I wouldn't say it was a probability, but it's a possibility.

But right now? As of July 2010? Nadal might have won the last two Slams, but Federer's still the greatest. He's still got the sixteen Slams, the 285 weeks at #1, the 23 semis, the 25 quarters, the billion other insane records. And while Nadal might eclipse all of these, he hasn't yet. Federer's still the greatest. Six not-so-great weeks (by his standards) aren't going to change that any time soon.

Greatest Of All Time

"The big moments are gonna come. You can't help that. It's what you do afterwards that counts. That's when you find out who you are."

*

That quote isn't strictly tennis related - yeah, okay, it's from Buffy - but my God, does it apply here one hundred percent, especially considering the theme of monster-slaying we've been considering as regards my man Roger Federer. The big moment came, and he fought to get there. I can't remember a tournament when he's fought harder - and of course it should be hard. This is a Grand Slam, and this is history. He made it to the moment. The moment came. And the world found out exactly who Roger Federer is.

*

The greatest tennis player of all time.

*

This cannot be disputed now. He has now won fourteen Grand Slams, putting him in equal first place with Pete Sampras - but unlike Sampras, he has won them on all four surfaces. He has made twenty consecutive semi finals. In addition to three runner up finishes at Roland Garros, one at Wimbledon and one at the Australian Open, Roger Federer owns five Wimbledon titles, five US Opens, three Australian Opens and one Roland Garros title.

*

It was the title they said he could never win. The gaping hole on his resume that was to put a question mark over his greatness. Three times he made the final, and three times he lost, including an absolute drubbing against Rafael Nadal last year. But not this year. Not this year.

*

With one monster left between him and history, Roger Federer did not falter. We did not see him waiver, not for one instant. From the moment that he won the first point I think the world knew, in their hearts, that it was time. This moment has been coming - for too long, some thought, writing off this great man. But Roger was patient, and he fought, and he got there. And when the moment came, he stood tall. He looked history in the face and seized it with both hands.

*

This is his time. This is his moment. And this, my friends, is history.

*

It is often the case, I find, that people who are not otherwise into tennis at all have a special place in their hearts for Roger Federer. As great as other players like Nadal and even Sampras and Agassi are, no one has ever captured the heart of the masses like this man. He has walked with kings and kept the common touch. He has personified every 'if' Rudyard Kipling could possibly throw at him. He is the greatest champion our sport has ever had, but, perhaps, more importantly, he has been our sport's greatest sportsman. He has personified everything that sport should be - fair and honest and beautiful.

*

He is the greatest of all time.

*

I have waited so long to say these words. I believed them already, I think, long ago - his case for greatness has been convincing for some years now - but if people doubt him now, then they are completely deluded. The moment has come, the time has arrived when we can fete our hero as we ought to - for he is our hero. He is the hero of the masses, of the people, in a way that no one else has ever been. He has been the sentimental darling of our hearts for many years now, this gentle, beautiful, brilliant man - and now we have arrived at the moment where this man has made history, where he has transcended everyone, where he has achieved total tennis immortality.

*

I saw him play once. I can tell my children, and their children, that I once saw the greatest tennis player of all time in the flesh - and the man who was the personification of everything that should be great in sport. He is a hero to so many, an inspiration, and I don't know if people have ever willed anyone to succeed more. But in the end, take away all the fans, everyone in the arena, everything but the tennis and the moment. Take away all that. There was Roger. There was Soderling, his opponent. And there was the moment when greatness was within his grasp.

*

He was tried and he was tested, and he was not found wanting. And now history has been made.

*

We live in the age of Roger Federer - the greatest tennis player of all time. And what an honour and a privilege it is.

*

*

Today's Results

*

French Open (Roland Garros)

*

Men's Draw

*

Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling, 6-1 7-6 (7-1) 6-4

The Stephen Hawking of Tennis

The top story on the ATP website today is about a poll they did of fans - I remember voting in it - about who will be the year-end #1 at the end of next year. The winner? Roger Federer, with 42% of the vote.

*

I'm unable to decide if this is surprising or not. Rafa is #1 now, and I think most people have finally caught up with that fact - not to mention the fact that Roger is ten points away from slipping to #3. But taking nothing away from Rafa and yes, even Novak Djokovic, I think this is an indication of the faith people have in the immense genius of Roger Federer. He may not be as young as he used to be (an old man at 27) and he may not have had the bestest year ever this year, but in the public mind and ideology, if that is not too strong a word to use, Federer is still #1. The legacy of his incredible dominance is this profound belief that he is too good to be #2 for long.

*

And I'm right on that bandwagon. Much as I was saying the other day that Rafa is one of the greats too and we're living in an age of true tennis greatness (for men - women is a whole other story), the genius and the greatness of Federer transcends even that. What he has done is so phenomenal that he can lay claim to the title of Greatest of All Time. Rafa Nadal is great, one of the greats, but I doubt anyone would call him the greatest: certainly not yet, anyway. Greatest dirtballer, maybe, but when it comes to Greatest Player Ever, my mind only goes one place, and that is straight to Federer.

*

Historical competition includes Rod Laver and Pete Sampras, both of whom were fabulous, as well as a whole pantheon of other tennis greats. But I don't know if any player has ever had quite the same mystique as Federer. If he is on, playing to the best of his ability, there is only one player in recent memory who has even come close to beating him, and it isn't Rafael Nadal - it's Marat Safin. (Australian Open semi '05 - heartbreaker, but one of the greatest matches ever.) He is a prodigy, the Stephen Hawking of tennis - his genius for the sport is so great I don't know if we will ever see anyone with so much pure, unadulterated talent. He is tennis clinic and tennis statesman all in one - because have we ever seen more evidence that tennis is a gentleman's game than in this man?

*

This wasn't meant to turn into a paeon of praise, but all of it is deserved. I'm part of that posse whom thinks Federer will get back to #1 - and it's good to know I'm in the majority.

An Age Of Greatness

I think we have to admit it - when it comes to men's tennis, we are living in an age of greatness.

*

The word 'greatness' is one that tends to get bandied round a lot - it's something I especially notice in Australian sport. We have some really, really good teams, yeah? Our cricket team, for example. I'm no cricket aficiando, but it seems to me that our team has been lauded here as the 'greatest ever' for about fifteen, twenty years now: certainly as long as I can remember. But surely the team has changed almost totally over these years - so how can it make the claim to be the greatest ever?

*

Team sport and individual sport are different, I know - maybe cricket is a bad example. But I think we may be able to safely say that this era in men's tennis is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, ever.

*

Why do I make this claim? You have to go straight to the top. No one can contest Roger Federer's claim to be one of the all-time tennis great - if not the greatest of all time. He has an amazing genius for the sport while being an outstanding statesman. But now - I say now, it's been coming for a while - we have the emergence of Rafa Nadal. He's not just some schlep who usurped Federer's position at the top because Roger was having a bum year. He's genuinely an amazing player - and I mean amazing. That's what sparked this rant off, actually - there's an article in DEUCE magazine about Nadal's pursuit of various tennis historical geats and his claim to all-time greatness. And I think we have to realise this. We are spectators in one of the most intriguing, high-level sports rivalries of all time. Even Sampras/Agassi had nothing on Roger/Rafa. We only have to look at the final of Wimbledon to understand the intensity and the high-level of their rivalry. And it's not a rivalry in the antagonistic sense - I get the feeling Roger and Rafa quite like each other, really. They're certainly always very cordial to each other: and, moreover, both are gentlemen. I feel that's part of being a true great - it extends off court as well. And on court - can anyone deny these are two of the most phenomenal players world tennis has ever seen? Rafa is certainly the greatest claycourter of all time. Roger has got a pretty good grip on that Greatest of All Time trophy. We are so privileged.

*

And, just to bring it down a notch, it really shows up what's going on with women's tennis at present... I don't think anyone would say this is one of the greatest ages for women's tennis ever. The top level is confused at best, and I think a lot of people have felt that those who have reached #1 this year haven't really deserved it. Would anyone say that of Roger or Rafa? I think not. We have too many #1s in men's tennis and too few in women's - and I know which problem I'd prefer!

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)

The Roger Federer Bagel Bakery

How good is Roger Federer?

*

I don't think there are enough superlatives to describe it. That was a phenomenal performance against Diego Hartfield last night. Phenomenal. I mean, Hartfield is not exactly the greatest player in the whole world, but you have to be pretty darn good to get into a Slam, and Federer spanked him like a recalcitrant schoolboy.

*

My theory? Roger is trying to make his claim to the 2008 Golden Bagel Award totally uncontestable as early in the year as possible. I love it when Roger bagels people. It makes me smile.

*

It was an emphatic performance last night. It was a complete demolition. Sometimes you can tell in matches when Roger really wants to make a point, and this was one of them. Last year, when he played Djokovic in the fourth round of the Australian, and Djokovic was making all that noise about how he was going to pull Federer down, Roger came out with steel in his eyes and destroyed him. Likewise with Roddick in the semis, especially after Roddick had beaten him in Kooyong the week before, Roger had something to prove... and we all know how I felt about that 6-4 6-0 6-2 victory. Now, everyone's been questioning his health after that stomach flu, and I think our Rog is a bit sick of it.

*

He's not ill. He's oh so very healthy. Ain't no one can doubt it now.

*

I love that he can just ratchet it up. He's got gears. He knows what level he has to play and when. And he's just so great, all round! Jim Courier referred to him as a 'highlights package' last night, and I certainly know what he means!

*

And he's just so nice. I was talking in my last post about my 'Life Lessons I Learned From Roger Federer' article, and one thing he said a few years back has always stuck with me. 'It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.' I wish I could live by that rule more than I do - it would be nice to be nicer! - but it just blows me away that someone in his position can believe that. Despite fame, fortune and undoubtedly numerous offers of wine, women and song, he's still Roger. He's grounded. He's real. He thinks that being nice is better than being important.

*

There are a lot of celebrities - and people - that could learn a lot from Roger Federer.

*

*

Australian Open Day 2 Results

*

Men's Draw

*

Roger Federer def. Diego Hartfield, 6-0 6-3 6-0

Novak Djokovic def. Benjamin Becker, 6-0 6-2 7-6 (7-5)

Lleyton Hewitt def. Steve Darcis, 6-0 6-3 6-0

James Blake def. Nicolas Massu, 6-3 6-2 6-2

Marcos Baghdatis def. Thomas Johansson, 7-6 (7-0) 6-2 3-6 6-3

Hyung-taik Lee def. Chris Guccione, 7-6 (8-6) 6-3 6-4

Fernando Gonzalez def. Konstantinos Economidis, 6-4 7-6 (7-2) 6-1

Peter Luczak def. Mariano Zabaleta, 6-1 6-7 (2-7) 6-3 6-4

Janko Tipsarevic def. Joseph Sirianni, 7-5 6-2 6-7 (6-8) 0-6 6-0

Marat Safin def. Ernests Gulbis, 6-0 6-4 7-6 (7-2)

David Nalbandian def. Robert Smeets, 6-1 6-1 7-6 (7-3)

David Ferrer def. Edouard Roger-Vasselin, 6-2 6-2 6-1

Sam Querrey def. Olivier Rochus, 6-3 6-2 7-5

Juan Monaco def. Carlos Berlocq, 7-6 (7-5) 7-5 6-1

Juan Carlos Ferrero def. Nicolas Kiefer, 6-4 6-3 6-1

Tomas Berdych def. Werner Eschauer, 6-4 6-4 6-4

Alun Jones def. Albert Montanes, 6-4 6-3 3-6 6-2

Amer Delic def. Robert Kendrick, 6-4 7-5 6-2

Michael Russell def. Fabio Fognini, 6-1 4-6 6-2 3-6 6-3

Oscar Hernandez def. Ivo Minar, 1-6 7-6 (7-5) 6-2 6-1

Denis Istomin def. Lukas Lacko, 6-3 6-7 (1-7) 7-6 (7-4) 6-1

Jurgen Melzer def. Jiri Vanek, 6-3 6-4 6-4

Simone Bolelli def. Rajeev Ram, 7-6 (7-5) 6-4 2-6 6-3

Fabrice Santoro def. John Isner, 6-2 6-2 6-4

Fernando Verdasco def. Thierry Ascione, 6-4 6-0 6-3

Denis Gremelmayr def. Sergio Roitman, 6-1 0-6 6-4 7-5

Robin Haase def. Ivan Ljubicic, 6-7 (2-7) 6-3 6-0 7-6 (7-1)

Dmitry Tursunov def. Xavier Malisse, 6-7 (1-7) 5-7 6-2 6-1 6-3

Marin Cilic def. Nicolas Almagro, 7-6 (7-4) 7-5 6-2

Vince Spadea def. Radek Stepanek, 2-6 2-6 7-5 6-2 6-3

Sebastien Grosjean def. Filippo Volandri, 7-6 (7-3) 6-3 7-6 (7-0)

Juan Martin del Potro def. Santiago Ventura, 6-3 6-1 6-3

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Svetlana Kuznetsova def. Nathalie Dechy, 6-3 6-1

Ana Ivanovic def. Sorana Cirstea, 7-5 6-3

Anna Chakvetadze def. Andrea Petkovic, walkover

Venus Williams def. Yan Zi, 6-2 7-5

Daniela Hantuchova def. Vania King, 6-3 7-5

Sofia Arvidsson def. Marion Bartoli, 6-7 (3-7) 6-4 6-3

Nadia Petrova def. Nicole Pratt, 6-1 6-3

Sabine Lisicki def. Dinara Safina, 7-6 (7-4) 4-6 6-2

Ekaterina Makarova def. Agnes Szavay, 3-6 6-4 7-5

Alona Bondarenko def. Alla Kudryavtseva, 6-4 7-6 (7-4)

Catalina Castaño def. Lucie Safarova, 6-1 6-4

Li Na def. Severine Brémond, 6-2 4-6 6-4

Maria Kirilenko def. Meilen Tu, 6-4 4-6 6-3

Katarina Srebotnik def. Lourdes Domínguez Lino, 4-6 6-0 9-7

Agnieszka Radwanska def. Olga Savchuk, 6-0 6-1

Sania Mirza def. Iroda Tulyaganova, 6-4 6-2

Tathiana Garbin def. Eleni Daniilidou, 6-2 6-2

Akiko Morigami def. Michaella Krajicek, 6-2 6-2

Pauline Parmentier def. Martina Müller, 7-5 6-3

Alizé Cornet def. Clarisa Fernández, 6-3 6-3

Caroline Wozniacki def. Gisela Dulko, 6-1 6-1

Yvonne Meusburger def. Laura Granville, 6-1 6-4

Anastasia Rodionova def. Angelika Bachmann, 7-6 (7-3) 6-4

Virginia Ruano Pascual def. Roberta Vinci, 6-4 6-4

Anne Kremer def. Evgenia Linetskaya, 7-6 (10-8) 6-0

Camille Pin def. Monica Niculescu, 5-7 6-1 6-1

Tsvetana Pironkova def. Olga Govortsova, 6-1 6-1

Maria Elena Camerin def. Christina Wheeler, 6-1 6-2

Mariya Koryttseva def. María Emilia Salerni, 6-2 6-3

Timea Bacsinszky def. Sophie Ferguson, 6-4 6-3

Marta Domachowska def. Mathilde Johansson, 6-1 6-1

Alisa Kleybanova def. Peng Shuai, 7-5 4-6 9-7

Why I Love Tennis

It's the one day of the Australian tennis season I hate most - boring Sunday. The day between the end of the prelim tournaments and the beginning of the first grand slam of the season. No tennis is played. Nothing happens. Channel 7 has their usual crappy programming. In fact, I think that they might deliberately make it crapper than normal on Boring Sunday, just to irritate people.

/

But the thing is, as a blogger, Boring Sunday actually provides me with a great opportunity - especially in the type of blog I hope I'm writing. There are no matches to distract me, so here goes. The big discussion. Why I love tennis.

/

There are a number of reasons, many of which I've discussed at length, but really, when it all comes down to it, it's one name, one man.

/

Roger Federer.

/

I've been following Roger for a long time. My earliest memory of him is when he played the bronze medal match at the Sydney Olympics, and he lost. I've never seen anyone look so crushed. That kid - because he was a kid then, only nineteen years old - that kid wanted to win.

/

The next Federer match I remember seeing was that epic in the fourth round of Wimbledon in 2001. Federer vs. Sampras. The only time they ever met on the ATP circuit. Five sets.

/

Federer won.

/

That match, though no one realised it at the time, was emblematic. That was the changing of the guard. That is, if you ask me, the beginning of when Roger Federer became great.

/

I watched Roger for many years - watched him at that awful Davis Cup match against Hewitt, where he had match points but Hewitt ended up winning, watched him win his first Grand Slam at Wimbledon in 2003, watched as his temperament changed from Safin-esque fury to implacable, unflappable. I watched him become great, but I didn't realise what I was watching - and, to my shame, I didn't care enough.

/

And then the Australian Open happened in 2006, and because of Roger, I fell head over heels in love with tennis.

/

That is one of the most compelling Grand Slam tournaments I have ever seen. Roger played some awesome tennis - the third round against Max Mirnyi comes to mind, where he only made 10 unforced errors in the match - and then it was like the wheels fell off. Five sets against Tommy Haas. Another tight match against Nikolay Davydenko in the quarters. I clearly remember the commentators saying that this was the game of a man who was well out of form. He was coming back from the Masters Cup '05, where he basically played on one leg. He didn't play especially well at Kooyong. Roger Federer was not all there.

/

And he still found a way to win.

/

I remember, very clearly, watching that fourth round match against Haas. I can't remember ever being so nervous during a tennis match. I was sitting in my little room on the third floor of my college, and when the fifth set rolled around, I just couldn't take it any more. It was a hot, sticky night, and I was sweating with nerves. I couldn't watch it. I couldn't watch this man, whom I had been watching and admiring for years, lose.

/

So I left. I walked around the college - not far, it probably only took me ten or fifteen minutes - and then came back. It was two all, I think. It was tight, it was close, and I was digging my fingernails into my palms. I remember telling myself to calm down, that my life would be totally unaltered if Roger lost here. This was a man I had never met, whom I probably never would meet.

/

But the facts remained the same. I cared - so much.

/

And then, when Roger reeled off a double break to win the match, I felt like he had won that match for me.

/

That year was the year of the rise and rise of Marcos Baghdatis, and Australia as a whole was much more occupied with him to notice the best player in the world grinding through his matches. I watched Marcos too. I was going for him in those matches he won against Roddick and Ljubicic and Nalbandian. I like an underdog as much as the next person. But for me, Australian Open 2006 was all about Roger.

/

He beat Haas. He beat Davydenko - God, I was nervous in that match as well! He beat Kiefer. And then it was time for Baghdatis.

/

Marcos, to his credit, played phenomenally in the first two sets. He won the first and was up a break in the second. And then it was like someone hit the Roger Federer on-switch. Errors became winners. Everything was fluid. This was the game that he had been missing. He's implacable on the court, but I still thought I could see it in his eyes. He didn't have to grind any more. The King was back in town.

/

The final score was 5-7 7-5 6-0 6-2. That third set is one of the most beautiful displays of tennis I have ever seen. But what was more beautiful was afterwards.

/

He cried.

/

Roger Federer, undisputed king of tennis, was so proud and relieved to have come through, even though he wasn't all there, even though he wasn't playing his best - Roger Federer, the best player in the world, wept, because he was overwhelmed by victory.

/

I am not ashamed to say that I cried too.

/

That, for me, is one of the greatest sporting moments of all time. I had always liked tennis, liked Roger before that point, but that is when I fell in love with them both.

/

It is incredible to me that a man in Roger's position - the best player in the world and genuine celebrity - can maintain such humility. Because that's one of the things that's best about Roger. He's modest. He's humble. He never makes excuses for himself. He never takes anything away from the other guy. In fact, I think I read about him saying something like that once, after he lost a match: 'you should never take anything away from the other guy, because I was trying my best.'

/

This man, this amazingly gifted, talented man, could be forgiven for being an arrogant arse. He's undoubtedly one of the greatest, if not the greatest, tennis player ever to play the game.

/

But he's still humble.

/

I still get nervous for Roger. Whenever I watch him play, my heart is in my mouth. It's a double-edged sword, really - I love to watch him play, but I get so nervous that it's sometimes hard to appreciate the beauty of his game. But often, he puts that to rest. That semi-final at the Australian Open last year comes to mind. He was playing Roddick, who was in the great form. Roddick had actually beaten Federer at the final of Kooyong the week before. Everyone was talking about how this could be the match where Roddick dethroned the master. 'When you're talking about Federer and Nadal,' I remember Jimmy Connors saying, 'you can't leave out Roddick.'

/

Federer won, 6-4 6-0 6-2. It is the best tennis match I have ever seen. A lot of people - including me - like tennis because of the tussle, the struggle of personality. But this match was different. This was a total display of dominance from a man who plays the best tennis ever.

/

One shot in particular sticks out in my mind. Roddick was serving, Federer returned, then Roddick slammed the ball down the middle of the court, right on the baseline. A winner, surely. Federer had been pushed out into the corner by the serve. If he could even touch it, there was no way it'd go in.

/

Federer played a running volley off his toes. The ball bounced in the right-hand baseline corner on Roddick's side. A clean winner.

/

The expression on Roddick's face was priceless. If I wasn't so wrapped up in Federer's amazing game, I would have felt sorry for him. That moment, I think, is where Federer broke his spirit.

/

I've been worried about Roger this week. He's had stomach flu, which put him out of Kooyong and disrupted his practice. Channel 7 - those wise gods of tennis - have been talking about there being a question mark over his health. The newspapers have been all over the fact that his side of the draw is incredibly hard. I've been getting nervous for him - and he hasn't even started playing yet!

/

But then I read his press conference from this afternoon. Someone asked him if he was one hundred percent. Roger said he was happy with his form, that physically he was fine. Yeah, he said, he was a hundred percent.

/

And I believe him.

/

If Roger says he's fine, then I am not going to doubt him. I'm getting excited again about the Open (where I'm going tomorrow and Tuesday!) and not just nervous for him.

/

But you know what? Even if Roger doesn't win - if he never gets the French, never gets Sampras's record - then it doesn't matter. I don't doubt for a second that he can and will achieve these things, but if he doesn't, then it doesn't matter. Because this man is a lovely, honest, humble man. This man has kept his head while those around were losing theirs. This man is man enough to cry. This man is the model of what a celebrity - or, indeed, a person - should be. This man is an exceptional human being. And whether he's ranked #1 for the next fifty years or whether he gives tennis up tomorrow, I will always follow his career, and I will always, always be thankful to him, because this man, Roger Federer - this man is why I fell in love with tennis.