Sorry Sports Spectacles

Fed & Rafa

Roger Federer is the rare sports figure who commands superlatives: the way Bach, Mozart did in music, the way Michelangelo, Picasso did in art, the way Shakespeare ... Etc. Wagner, Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis ... Jack Johnson, Ali ... I followed Rod Laver on the tennis courts in 1968. I've been saying he's the greatest ever since. I lauded Bjorn Borg, Pete Samras ... saying they are the greatest: after Laver. On the women's side I'd praise Chris, Martina Navrotilova, Martina Hingis .. saying they are the greatest: after Suzanne Lenglen.

With Federer I began saying that Federer was the greatest since Bill Tilden (whose quality we can't really know): so Federer is the greatest ever including Laver! People like me enjoy making such pronouncements: it's part of fandom, never mind that it's untestable, meaningless in more than one respect.

By a few years ago others began saying parallel things: John McEnroe to wit: on TV! But something unbelievable happened: before a consensus about Federer became universal, we all had to acknowledge that Rafael Nadal had become on clay what Federer was on grass and on hard court. Rafa beat Federer on clay. Fed beat everyone except Rafa, Rafa then beat Fed, repeatedly. So we had the ridiculous situation that Fed was the best, ever, but Rafa was better, in at least one respect.

The air was full of superlatives and some clowns started using simple analogies and declaring that Rafa was better than the best!

Currently, till today, we've had the giddy prospect of a Rafa Slam: Rafa holding all four major titles at once, even if spread over two calendar years: 2010, '11.

Now, before I continue, let me say: stars rob light from non-stars. A minor near-by star can eclipse a major far away star. Fed and Rafa are a step above the field. But there's a small crowd of great guys close around third place. Nadal just had a mediocre match against compatriot Ferrer. Excuses for Rafa dim Ferrer's accomplishment. That ain't right. Rafa had a chance for a Rafa Slam, but he didn't cash the chance. Fed had chances against Rafa: he cashed some, not all of them. Good, they're human. But there's a terrible pressure on the stars to be more than they are, to be more than possible. And much of the problem relates to the media pandering to the throng's yearning for certainty: in advance. Today's report from Australia includes this verbiage: "Murray won't have to get past Nadal this year, but he will have to beat Ferrer and either defending champion Roger Federer or 2008 champion Novak Djokovic to claim his first major title." Note again the diction: "Claim his first major title."

Murray has no major titles. Murray is not owed a major title. The golfer should score a birdie before being awarded the birdie. But no, the commentator will say "he's standing over the ball for his birdie." No: it's a birdie after it's been scored; not before. It's like Christians counting themselves in heaven's census while they're still alive. Will God have nothing to say about it?

The public "should" be allowed to grow up. I chastise the media. My own ridiculous claims about who's the greatest are relatively harmless. Awarding combatants prizes before the outcome is known retards our maturity: same as telling God what his judgment must be: before the facts can be established.