WATCHING this year’s Wimbledon, you get a sense of inevitability. In every great career there comes a time when envied experience turns into irreversible closure. It’s been that kind of a month, after watching the NBA Finals 2013 and seeing the once immortal San Antonio Spurs overcome by a comparatively youthful Miami Heat team that simply hustled the injured and aging Spurs out of another championship. It happens in every sport- where age overtakes experience, and the changing of the guard is complete once and for all. Sometimes stars fade away, gradually becoming insignificant, and sometimes they take the high road, retiring once they’re just past their peak. Sampras retired after a shock U.S. Open championship, Becker retired after handing over the torch to Sampras at Wimbledon. Ivanisevic had one of the more compelling fairy tale endings, when he retired after winning his maiden and sole grand slam- as a wild-card in Wimbledon. The stars of the greatest era across sports and time- Raga and Roger, aren’t close to retiring just yet, but the writing on the wall is there for all to see. And on a personal level, it’s a reality check: having seen a decade of brilliance, genius, finesse, grace, charisma and guts, it’s hard to come to terms with the end of an era that defines most of us who have played a sport like tennis, or followed with passion the career s of the odd couple.
I have no doubt in my mind that Roger Federer is the greatest sportsperson, perhaps of all time. I also have no doubt that if Rafael Nadal either continues at this level for another five years, he may stake a claim to this title, but I have every doubt as to whether he will be able to. Just like Roger’s surprise victory last year at Wimbledon, I think Nadal’s French Open victory too ought to be considered in isolation (unless he stays injury free for a 12 month period- unlikely since he was hobbled at this year’s Wimbledon as well) rather than a feat he will continue to replicate year after year, despite the fact that he’s just about 27 years old. There are younger, stronger, fitter, and hungrier players out there now. And I say younger, not young. Neither Darcis (29 years old) not Stakhovsky (27 years old) are young from any stretch of one’s imagination in tennis years. And, they may not accomplish much beyond what we saw them do over the last couple of days. But, it’s not the sheer greatness of any current player which signals the end of this era, rather it’s the depth of the men’s circuit which makes it that much harder for aging champions to string together 7 rounds of best of five sets over two weeks. Like it or not, it’s been a trend for a few years now- that over time, Rafa and Roger become vulnerable during the course of a match or of a tournament. The unforced errors increase, the pressure point conversion decreases, the fatigue seeps in, and the opponent actually believes that he’s in with a shot to win. For that matter can one consider Djokovic or Murray (both 26 years old) spring chickens, although in tennis years, they appear a lot younger than Roger and Rafa. In today’s hierarchy of supremacy, there’s little doubt that Djokovic is superior to either Roger or Rafa- the litmus test being he goes in with a shot at winning each set, game, point, and therefore match that he plays. In many ways, much like Federer from 2003-2007 (with some exceptions on clay) and Nadal from 2006-2009 (on clay his dominance still continues). Their individual records will likely stand the test of time, because players’ longevity is no longer what it was, given the surface (hard courts), and the gruelling schedule.
Today, most players would go into a match with Roger believing that they may just pull out an upset- and the same would hold true for players against Rafa on any surface but clay. Ask a player or a fan who in their minds is the toughest player on the circuit right now, and if they don’t say Djokovic, then they’re either not following the sport, or are oblivious to the clear dominance that you see on display when Novak walks onto the court. To a lesser extent, Murray too more often than not comes out on top in a match that he’s seeded to win. So, if the new era signals champions of the ilk of Djokovic and Murray, what we’re likely to see is a shorter period of supremacy within a deeper field, making up for longevity with furious intensity and adrenaline. The sport is so gruelling now, and the off-court commitments significantly increasing each season, that a shorter career will likely be the norm, not the exception. We’re seeing that across sports- even in golf, the career window of the average professional peaking in the late twenties or mid thirties, as opposed to earlier when the forties were still contending years for most.
The end of the Federer era may not lead to a void in tennis, and Federer is still likely to contend for a couple of grand slams given that he’s still hungry, fit, and for the most part competitive with the elite players. Nadal too has some good tennis left in him which would make most competitors wary of what he brings to the court, but he’ll need to stay injury free, and become more of a surface specialist given his injuries in recent years, and the high impact game that he possesses.
The brand of tennis may suffer at the end of this era unless an enduring and endearing superstar picks up the slack, and it will need to be soon. Tennis will likely survive but not thrive, and one thing’s for sure- Brand Federer is impossible to replace. Which is why for many of us Wimbledon now holds merely academic interest this year, and until the next time he competes for a title. Hopefully that’s no longer a pipe dream.
Category