* !Picby Pete Bodo*
One of the best means by which to judge the magnitude of Roger Federer's achievement at Wimbledon and the dividends it continued to pay as late as yesterday, when Federer officially cracked the Sampras code (most weeks at No. 1 since the beginning of the computer rankings), is to revisit the landscape of tennis just 12 months ago.
Coming off his win over defending champion Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon, Novak Djokovic was the new, official No. 1. The record he amassed in 2011 up to and including Wimbledon (43-1), and the way he mastered Nadal even on European red clay in the spring, all positioned Nole as the game-changer.
Even when Federer halted Djokovic's winning streak in the semifinals of Paris to pin the single "L" on his record, it seemed more an act of insolent bravado performed by a fading icon who could swing from the heels because he had nothing to lose. The way Djokovic was playing, it seemed things would never be the same again.
Over the same period of Djokovic dominance (though Wimbledon of 2011), Federer was 39-9, an outstanding record by most standards but this was, after all, Roger Federer. He didn't win a tournament after Doha, and he'd lost to the likes of Jurgen Melzer and Richard Gasquet. In the eyes of most pundits and fans he was a distant No. 3, fighting a rear guard action on behalf of the top two in order to keep Andy Murray and other pretenders at bay.
One of the major subtexts in all this was that even as critics conceded that Federer probably still had a Grand Slam title dormant in his golden right arm, the idea that he could return to the No. 1 ranking was borderline preposterous. That Federer had fallen one week short of equaling Sampras' record for most weeks at No. 1 (286), one of the very few gold standard records in tennis, seemed written into history as just one of those things. A "strange but true" episode.
It was hard to imagine Federer stringing together enough wins, on enough different surfaces, to demonstrate that this was indeed a rare "trivalry." Not when Djokovic was playing with such panache; not when Rafa's head-to-head against Roger was an inarguable 17-8 after the 2011 Wimbledon.
So what happened?
Very intelligent scheduling happened, for one. At the U.S. Open, Federer pushed Djokovic to five sets in the semifinals and had two match points, on serve, but failed to convert either. He ended up losing the match. But the lesson lost in the hue and cry following Djokovic's win over Nadal in the final was that Federer had flat-out outplayed Djokovic in their final two Grand Slam meetings of 2011, even if Nole walked away with a title and Federer did not. Bouyed by the pyrrhic victory, Federer did not play another tournament until Basel, his home tournament, at the end of October. He finished the year on a 15-match winning streak and set himself up beautifully for 2012.
Federer lost to Nadal in the semis of this year's Australian Open in a so-so four-setter. It underscored what many astute observers knew all along—Federer did not really have a Djokovic problem; he just had a Nadal problem. But that one was not likely to go away. Soon after Melbourne, Federer put up a terrific win over Nadal in the semifinals of Indian Wells. If you had to pick a moment when the worm turned, and when a return to No. 1 suddenly seemed at least feasible, that was it. Or it could be, so long as Djokovic didn't go on another tear. It was just too early to make a call about that one.
As it turned out, Djokovic was less capable than in 2011, and again Nadal flourished in the spring. As long as Federer maximized his chances indoors (after Rotterdam, that point was moot) and on surfaces other than clay, and somehow found a way through or around Nadal, he could still consider himself in the hunt for No. 1.
We all saw what happened at Wimbledon. Federer's remarkable return to No. 1 was facilitated by a 6-foot-5 journeyman from the Czech Republic who was ranked No. 100, Lukas Rosol. When Rosol blasted Nadal off the court in a withering display of firepower, the door for Federer swung wide open, even if Djokovic still blocked his way. But down deep, I believe both men probably knew that Federer did not have a Djokovic problem. He wasted no time showing it.
In a typical Nadal vs. Djokovic encounter, it may take half an hour to play four games, or half a set. In the semi between Federer and Djokovic, the first set flew by in 24 minutes and ended in Federer's favor. The genie was out of the bottle, and he soon had the title—and that coveted No. 1 ranking, with a bonus: There was no way he would not remain No. 1 long enough to log that critical 287th week.
That Federer could surpass Sampras in that "most weeks at No. 1" department is the detail that will resonate most forcefully in the history books, I think. It was certainly the most important and significant dividend of Federer's win at Wimbledon, even if adding No. 17 to his Grand Slam title take and reclaiming No. 1 were the highlights of the moment. After all, Federer had already surpassed Pistol Pete in almost all of the meaningful statistical categories: Roger already had more titles (74-64, before Wimbledon), a higher career winning percentage (.816 to .774), and an incomparable record on clay (10 titles on a 176-53 record, compared to Sampras's three titles on 90-54).
In my book, the number of weeks at No. 1 ranks as the fifth highest accomplishment in the game. When it comes to records, I think there are five major ones. Let's see where Federer and Sampras, friends and rival, stand in each of them. We'll start with the most significant:
1. The calendar year Grand Slam
Only two men have accomplished this, Don Budge and Rod Laver, and only Laver completed a sweep of all four majors in the same year in the Open era (in 1969). It's unlikely that Federer will have another shot at this; he's closing rapidly on 31 and the depth of the field is just too good these days. In all honesty, Sampras never came close because of his difficulties mastering the red clay of Roland Garros.
It's easy to forget how close Federer came to a Grand Slam in back-to-back years, 2006 and 2007, when he was runner-up to Nadal in Paris and won at the three other Grand Slam venues. But let's not forget that going into the U.S. Open with three majors and a chance at the Grand Slam would have been a lot more stressful than it was without that possibility in play.
2. Most Grand Slam singles titles
No matter how you cut it, this is the first line item on a champion's resume. Unlike my top choice, it isn't an individual accomplishment with a time-tested, supreme degree of difficulty. It's a comparative measure of greatness, rather than a task; therefore it's a good baseline for comparing the prowess of the players.
3. Most consecutive years at No. 1
This ranks third because it's the best measure of day-in, day-out dominance. There just isn't a better benchmark. It's also a record at which everyone gets just one crack, given the relative brevity of a career at or near the top. Federer has no chance to equal the mark of six consecutive years, held by Sampras. He stalled at four at the end of 2007, and added another top finish after a one year interval.
4. Most years at No. 1
While Roger can't catch Pete in the above category, if he hangs on and finishes this year at No. 1, he'll be the only other man to finish in that position six times. I don't think Federer will build the rest of his year around this task, and for him to pull it off might be more astonishing than was his victory at Wimbledon.
5. Most weeks at No. 1
This may be the ultimate tribute to longevity, because it leaves open the possibility of miracles like the kind we witnessed a few weeks ago, while also demanding an extraordinary degree of consistency over the course of a career. Roger has this one sewn up.
*
So Federer finishes on top in the second and fifth of my five categories, and could wind up in a dead heat with Sampras in the fourth. That leaves Roger with one more mission to contemplate, should he run short of inspiration as this already amazing year in tennis rolls on toward the Olympic games, where Federer is hoping. . . oh, never mind. You get my point.
*
