Nice article, first? But steve, now I could very well be mistaken but I thought Federer lost that match in 2003?

I could be wrong though

Federer....the best ever.

No, 2004........6 years back x 4 majors per year = 24....2010 - 6 = 2004.

For sure an incredible streak. Calls to mind DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak.....sustained excellence (10 straight Grand Slam finals isn't bad either)

oh ok I checked, nermind you were right Steve.

Steve, what is your prediction if it comes to a Nadal-Soderling final? Should be fascinating with the history between them and everything that happened with last year's French

Nice post Steve. I am still down from yesterday's loss. This article is little bit consoling.

Steve, excellent article. To me, this is the most impressive of Roger's records. There was no shame in his loss yesterday. He played well but got hit off the court. Of course, who knows what would've happened if Robin had missed that backhand smash of the Rodge circus shot in the third set.

Nice piece, Steve. The last thing I wanted to see was the end of 'The Streak', and Fed's #1 status in jeopardy ... but for some crazy reason, I'd just assume it be Sod. I wasn't as sad as I thought I'd be. I felt the same way when Delpo took out Fed at the USO. Mad at first that he lost when he had his chances, but feeling good for Delpo that he was able to experience the rare chance at a slam. Will Sod enjoy the same? We'll have to see ... both Rafa and Fed are very stingy when it comes to letting others in that elusive club. ;)

Interesting when comparing Sampras-Federer in this light: Fed 23 straight major semis, Sampras 3. That highlights how much more versatile and complete Federer is: Sampras made the semis at the French once, whereas Fed won it once, 3 finals losses and one semi. If you're only as strong as your weakest link/surface, then this fact puts to rest any debate about Sampras vs. Federer (if there was any doubt)

Mike, I was just thinking that point......Either Fed or Nadal has won 18 of the last 20 majors. Has such a duopoly ever dominated the sport like this?

Nice perspectives, as usual, Steve. But, I wouldn't call for Fed's retirement, yet. Losing in the quarters at the French (albeit, as the title holder) is not exactly the signal for any player to hang up their rackets for good. Think about the implications for someone like Djok, who also lost in the quarters, and who for the last few years has been expected to be the beneficiary of any early exits by Fed or Rafa. Not to mention Murray, Roddick, et al.

Its not likely that Fed will ever dominate the tour again, the way he has for so many years. But, I expect him to still compete at the highest level for at least a couple more years, and he's still capable of winning majors. He won in Australia this year, after all.

Yes Steve, even nadal's game is changing. He needs if he's to beat those big ball-hitters. Today's match against Almagro is prove of it. Don't know but, right now I just don't see Nadal beating a boomer like soderling...we'll see.

Am I entirely crazy to think that Fed ... even at 28, might consider bulking up a little bit to add more sting and spin? Or would it potentially hurt his natural movement and balance? It's not at all impossible for him to be in the best shape of his life, and if it would help in terms of fire power against the new breed of big power players ... thoughts?

Maybe it's not what most people will remember in a couple of years, but I'm a bit surprised that I don't read any mention -- or a recapitulation -- of the just how much the conditions of the court were a factor in Soderling's win.

Or put the other way - in Federer's loss. It's striking even from a weather phenomenon perspective that for six years, he didn't run into some strange weather (windy, wet, you name it) on semi finals day that tipped the balance away from him and his natural tendency to dominate. (He also managed to avoid Rafa in semis!)

Soderling could swing away at Federer's second serves (first serves too!) because the soaked clay neutralized Federer's serve (along with Federer's forehand) and put it right in Soderling's wheelhouse, so to speak. Both Federer and Soderling said as much yesterday.

Federer was beat by someone, who in these conditions, was clearly superior. It was no contest. Strangely, watching Federer lose to Soderling was like watching Federer beat any other number of players who just don't come close to matching up with him.

Look, it's wonderful for Soderling, and I like him, but this was a chance of a lifetime, and I bet 10 of out 10 times on dry clay court, or any other surface, the score is turned around.

I was disappointed by yesterday's result, but took my hat off to the way Soderling played. Steve is bang on the money with this observation: "He’s always had the serve, but what about the return? On many points, Soderling had the gall to take Federer’s second ball and aim about a foot inside the baseline. More important, and surprising, was that he had the confidence and accuracy to put it there."

Before the match, I looked up the two players' stats in clay matches (1 in 2008, 2 in 2009). Soderling had won 41% of the points, and was 1/5 on break chances spread over 7 sets. I thought this was playing out yesterday as the first set went on, and I wasn't too nervous at the end of set 2 - I didn't think Soderling could keep it up to win three sets. Shows what I know.

I will hold off on Federer retrospectives - he's been playing good tennis recently, although he was beaten by the better player on the day (helped to be 6' 5" for that stretch BH OH to save set point, of course). I think early valedictories are as appropriate as Pete Bodo's "Spartan in a Cardigan" post proved to be after Wimbledon 2008.

Brilliant writing as usual Steve, thankyou. I am praying Rafa gets his crown back & the CLAY Slam, but if I were a betting person, I would have my money on Soderling to win R.G.

I admit flatly that I have no affection for Sod. I find him coarse, brusque, ugly in nature (for heaven's sake, they had to train him to be gracious in his post-final speeches). As I've pointed out before, he blows his nose into his towel, then rubs the towel onto his hair, which puts him way over the top in disgusto-factor in my eyes.

What strikes me is the uneven level of his play this clay season--finals in one location, out on his ear early on in the next. And now, in the FO, playing like he did last year, all rage, roar and oomph. Is anger (as Steve mentions it) that powerful? Will it last, do you think?

By the way, re "This reporter said that Soderling was a 'typical Swede'": I know many Swedes. They are not angry, rude, coarse or mean-natured.

They use tissues.

Sounds like an obituary.

To the point about Federer never encountering a windy day or poor weather conditions, go back and watch his 2004 US Open match against Andre Agassi. Or the 2008 US Open semifinals against Novak Djokovic. Sometimes a player wins so often as to allow us to forget such things.

Welcome back Steve Tignor, C.O.W. (Citizen Of the World). I will miss your posts from RG.

Kate, there is a coarse quality to Soderling. I remember last year that Bodo described him as looking like a sort of back-hills Appalachian type, with a scary crazy sort of look in his eyes. If he is destined to be our new champion it will be an interesting transition.

Don't give up, Federer fans. Roger got rogered yesterday. But he is nowhere near finished.

Lets get one thing straight. Roger Federer played very well against Soderling, at times sublimely, particularly in the first set. And he lost the match. The match turned on the set point Federer nearly won with a smash-lob off a smash. Soderling did well to volley it for a winner. It would have been monumentally unjust for Federer to have escaped, and he nearly did. Soderling was superior in almost every respect. At times it looked like a man against a boy. Or rather a mountain against a man. I have seen Federer blasted off the court by two superlative, career defining performances (well we shall see with Soderling). This match and the Del Potro US Open final. In both matches Federer started brilliantly. In both matches Federer lost concentration in the second set, a career long failing of his, even at this most dominant. Now Federer finds it harder to re-ignite the genius once it lapses though.

I was supporting Federer in this match, but something in me also wanted Soderling to win, to prove his win against Nadal was not a fluke, that it had nothing to do with dodgy knees etc. Well he now has that chance. The mutual antagonism between the men also makes it interesting. I really hope he makes it. Not because I have anything against Nadal, I don't, I am frankly in awe of him - but because I want to see something different in mens tennis. Soderling is different, a harbinger of the future. I also prefer to see a great champion like Federer lose a good tight match than be thrashed by Nadal in the final.

Anyhow Federer has some extra time for Wimbledon - to get used to the rain and grass (that takes him about 30 seconds). I am rooting for him to equal Sampras and then surpass him. I think he is done as a world No.1, but can win sporadic GS titles here and there ie Wimbledon predominantly and perhaps the US Open, though the crazy scheduling there will increasingly hurt him as he ages. The tennis gods have been kind to Federer - he got the complete set, the most - a fulfilled career. Frankly there is not much left for him to achieve. One more Wimbledon and one more US Open puts him into rarified company - two more Wimbledons grant him enduring immortality. I think he is going to be OK somehow.

Chris Evert, as I imagined most people knew, DID NOT achieve a streak of 34 consecutive Slam semifinals. Her "record," more accurately, is 34 straight semifinals __of the Slams she decided to play.__ During this "streak," Evert skipped the French Open three times and the Australian Open _eight times_. Her actual streak, as measured by the same criteria as Roger, would be 14 consecutive Slam semis: French Open 1983 to Wimbledon 1987. (She also streaked 11 semis from French Open 1980 to U.S. Open 1982, and seven earlier on.)

As one observer noted, there's a huge difference: "This isn't just consecutive semifinals of Slams *played* - it's consecutive Slam semifinals *period*. People seem to forget that little detail, but even if the next contender is as good as Federer, he still needs to be as durable, *and* as lucky, as Federer has been. No sprained ankles, no car accidents, no getting stung in the playing hand by a poisonous insect at the wrong time of year... Not happening."

*Sigh* A lovely homage to an amazing streak. I'm still processing.

Thanks Steve, not a Fed fan....despite his beautiful play. But maybe that's just because it became clichéd to cheer for him! ;)

I hope someone close to him gets him to read this....it might soften the sore, if only a little bit.

"Federer faced all of the variables, including opponents who were playing their best tennis, and mastered them every time."

Yeah, except that Nadal *owned* Federer in the Slams during that period.

i think del potros wins over nadal, and then federer, in last yrs USO was a harbinger for the new direction of tennis... which is, namely, more and more pace off the ground, and attacking without attacking the net

in soderlings case, especially on clay, its not only attacking without attacking the net, its actually attacking from behind the baseline, as he routinely rifles half his winners from like a meter behind it

it used to be tht players would set up the point and then step into the court to knock off the kill shot... but these days, theres no set up, a big enough groundstroke can end the point with pure pace, from anywhere on the court

theres significant parallel with what soderling did to nadal in last yrs french 4R and this yrs french SF versus federer, controlling the court with depth and power, and taking the opponents time away... like last yr, this yrs SF against federer didnt display much use of angles or finesse... from soderlings side it wasnt a chess match, it was plainly a slugfest and a straight mauling thru sets 3 and 4

in every era theres been the coupling of a big serve with a big forehand to bonafide degrees of success, so the power baseliner isnt necessarily a new idea, but it seems like bigger and bigger hitting has pushed the threshold even higher

It was indeed since Wimbledon 2004. Just check any player's stats at Wikipedia, and it will be all there in one page (wonderful work) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics

Steve-Nice and right perspective as always. I've been watching GS tennis for about 27 yrs now and was always amazed by the incredible competitiveness of Men's tennis in particular. Always some lowly ranked guy would simply blow a top player....think Peter Doohan and many of his ilk. Given that Tennis has become even more powerful, competitive where a top 100 guy has the same standard barring the key points, Roger's streak is truly epochal. It simply didn't cross anyone's mind until it happened....since it was so ludicrous to even imagine such a streak. Take a bow Roger(this coming from a Rafa fan)!! When i watched Roger shove 2 bagels to Hewitt in 2004 USO i thought the perfect tennis player has arrived....the one who had incredible smooth movement, all the artsy angles and touches and importantly serious power. When Roger beat Sampras in 2001 Wimbledon, his serve was just par and his backhand was doing the damage while forehand was still not a weapon(Pete said as much in the presser). The same year Agassi handed a humiliating loss at USO(6-1, 6-2, 6-4)and Mario bumped at Wimbledon at 20002. Obviously Roger learnt well and began the streak in 04 not overcoming all opponents but beating them hollow. The next 6 yrs are too well documented to bear any repetition....in fact Rafa helps us understand the enormity of Roger's achievements.

Back to Soderling's win.....well it's not much of a shock if anyone has seen him play this year....though Capitala was exhibition he was absolutely crushing the ball. Another thing Sod did well in addition to the red-hot crushing strokes from baseline is his approach shots....when he moved to forecourt and and a low ball came his way he still hooked it cross-court with ferocious power and depth....imagine that....no soft drop volleys pls!

In the event of Sodal final I am honestly a lil nervous but given the good health I am hoping Rafa will keep the strokes deep and work the angles for a gritty victory. Any semblance of a short ball will be crushed, plain and simple. SaSo proved me correct;-)

Brian,

Oh, you mean the way Nadal owned Federer at Wimbledon, where he was 1-2 against Fed? Or in Australia and the U.S. Open, where he went 1-0 against Federer, while making only one final in those two events?

I love Rafa and think very highly of him.

Just a little perspective. Rafa's major-tournament ownership of Fed begins and ends with the French. 2-2 in the other three tournaments combined.

Reminder. When Pete Sampras ran tennis only 16 players were seeded at majors, and the variances in surface were far greater.
The fact Sampras finished #1 6 yrs in a row, despite having as bad a clay game as you guys paint it out to be, shows something for how good he was otherwise, seeming that he never gained points during the clay season.

Federer is the greatest, but lets not compare b/w eras. Way too many variables to consider.

Federer's run was nothing less than incredible, and will never be duplicated.
He's still got to catch Connors in the Quarterfinal streak! haha

Soderling won me over with his finalist's speech at the French Open ceremony last year. He didn't appear remotely brusque or angry, quite the opposite. Ironically, Federer also told him there that he hoped he could keep up his great play - his hope has been fulfilled.

Fed's records are phenomenal and vastly underappreciated in the general sports world. They certainly are enough that he should have been proclaimed Athlete of the Decade in a canter.

Hey Djokovic, why don't you hire a coach of Rochus, Ljubicic, Melzer &co? Because they know to teach how to beat top 30 player in the world!
.
Djoko wants to be world #1? Yeah, sure. I want to be King. The guy played tennis for a ywar and ahalf and then thinks that's enough to get atop? lol...Better ask vajda for your money back. Cuz he didn't and CANNOT teach you tennis game.
.
Good luck to rafa! I am sure you'll put Melzer off in straights and back to where he belongs: to retirement. I wish you to regain your #1. Because you are definitelly the best player out there.

Love Roger and Rafa...tho Roger has always been my favorite.

Having followed tennis for 35yrs what amazes me the most is how ATHLETES have entered the fray. It's easy to imagine Roger at shortstop or point guard, Rafa at cornerback or point guard, Soderling at linebacker, Del Potro at small forward etc...if they'd grown up in the U.S. It's not surprising to find that Federer and Nadal were great 12yr old soccer players. Murray is obviously a tremendous all-around athlete...in the states he would have been the high school kid that made all-state in three sports.

There was little to none of that 35yrs ago. Very few top players had had those kind of athletic chops and virtually none of them were nearly big enough.

And it looks like the trend is continuing. The next great player may well be a 6'4 215 lb Federer. And he may struggle with 6'8 235lb guy who is 95% as quick and fast as himself.

Mighty Wind: "I remember last year that Bodo described [Soderling} as looking like a sort of back-hills Appalachian type, with a scary crazy sort of look in his eyes. If he is destined to be our new champion it will be an interesting transition."

Oh, please, no.

(BTW, I used to live in Appalachia. They also used tissues. Or, at the very least, sleeves.)

Who else is happy for Jurgen Melzer? Just me?

Ok then.

if rafa wins RG'10 two other fed related streaks would end, first rafa would have won a major without having to beat roger, secondly anyone would have won a slam since AO 2004 without having to beat roger enroute.

love your ending steve.. just the way you epitomieze federer's achievement.. it's untouchable!!!!!

nice piece, steve. I really enjoyed all your coverage of paris this year.

It's crazy to say Fed should retire before he looses in Rd 16 of another major. what if that happens? Many greats in the past lost early in one major and went on to win another major. It happend to Rafa last year at RG and he is playing well again. So it;s naive and Ignoramus to say Fed should retire prior to loose in Rd 16 of a major. Is it that terrible to loose to an apponent once in 13 times. I am sure Fed will come back strong and win few more majors and still media would be bashing him if he looses early.

and really good depiction of soerling too..

he's been playing really well in this trouney..i think what he needs now is more consistency to play at this high level..

in terms on his mental strenght.. he does have that personality of "i dont care what you think" ...the boos of the crowd did not affect his style of play ..HOWEVER..soderling is stillup and coming.. and does not really have a lot of pressure on his shoulders as no one barely talks about him until he beat rafa last year..

so for the meantime..i'l wait and see if this high level of play continues over a longer period of time and once he will become the haunted bearing all the pressure as THE top player like ROGER FEDERER or nadal...

@ Matt Zemek

Hi there!
I wanted to ask your opinion on this because I realy like your points of view whenever I read some of the post..

i dont think anyone really discussed this on any of the analysis or even in TW but I thought even before the Soderling and Federer match .. the stats already favored soderling.. I'm big on observing patterns of number..because they have been reliable over time.. so i really paid a lot of attention to stat results.. the fact that up until yesterday.. Federer was 12-0 (excluding exhibition this year) against Soderling... his number was up or to put it simply .. it's bound to crack.. there are barely perfect results.. this is not the first time the opponents finally won against Federer after many matches.. like Davydenko, Karlovic, blake etc!!

WOW i really have to say though that Federer's record of 23 streak is untouchable.. and you knw what. 23 looks better than 24 hahahahahaha.. reminds me of michael jordan LOL

Nice blog Steve! Check mine out here: http://www.chicagonow.com/tennisanyone

I agree with Mike on the first page, however I don't beleive Fed really needs it for the upcoming grass season, but it is definetly something he should consider in the next few clay seasons. I still don't understand why he went away from his forehand of 04-06, and if it was the K-factor then shame on Wilson for ruining the greatest shot in history. Somebody tell them to start remaking the ncode- that way we can all shove the BLX line where it belongs, back in the ground

Wow. Lovely post, Steve.

One effect of the streak has been to make Fed fans, myself included, incredibly greedy. We mourn the lost opportunities: match point against Safin in Australia in 2005, serving for the second set against del Potro in last year's U.S. Open, and so on. We forget all the first-set tiebreaks won, all the key break points saved: think of the 2007 Wimbledon final, or last year's French Open. (One way to console myself about yesterday: be thankful it didn't happen in last year's final!) Fed really did make it seem that all the important opportunities could be taken.

kj - I don't recall anything wrong with the Fed forehand in the 2010 AO. It's just the damn slow, wet clay. Nothing to see here, move along to the fresh green lawns of Wimbledon!

The only thing is Federer might want to consider upgrading to the BLX 95 sq" model for larger sweet-spot. He might need it against these bigger hitters.

The key difference, I think is that Nadal moving and playing well could expose the relative limited mobility of Soderling. I did say "relative". Which means Nadal has to exploit the angles and topspin and not let Soderling tee off as he did with Roger's ball. And Nadal has to keep him guessing with his serve placement.

Easier said then done I admit if Soderling is playing lights out.

Which brings up the other point, if this is truly a new Thomas Berdcyh, this matchup is moot.

I'm still processing the French Open...still reeling over the loss of Federer and Serena. ~~sigh~~

I was ok with Federer's loss because it is true the French Open is Federer's weakest slam and he always ran into the immovable force (or what was that Agassi said, that "freak of nature") called Rafa Nadal. Besides, I was ready for the dialogue to start that if Roger / Rafa had made it to the final, if Rafa had once again beat Roger, the dialogue would start that Roger only won last year because Rafa was not in the final.

Since Roger played the same player in last year's final in similar conditions I will concede that perhaps nerves figured in Soderling's performance in the final last year. But since he's to be cast in the role of giant killer, I think he should go all the way, but I think that's unlikely. Rafa would not have it, if he's waiting in the final.

Ironically, the last two men who beat Roger Federer in a Grand Slam (not named Nadal) Del Potro & Soderling overpowered Roger by hitting harder. I would fervently hope this is not what we have to look forward to in the future...I thought we were over the power hitters era. After all, that's why the courts have been slowed down. Now where is Del Potro? Out for the rest of the year having wrist surgery. Its almost if Del Potro paid the price for his GS victory. Which makes Roger's longevity all the more amazing...no major injuries, he simply unleashed his magic, a silent assasin. He beats you with a thousand cuts not by bringing out the heavy artillery.

But I applaud Federer for sticking to what he's done best for 23 GS semis...unleash his artistry. It was a winning formula for 23 straight GS semis. I can see it continuing to be an effective winning formula to the end of his career.

If I wanted to see a tennis player beating another one by hitting him off of the court, I would watch boxing.

But Soderling adapted to the conditions better than Federer and for that he deserves all the credit.

I just hope that Roger doesn't lose the #1 ranking after reaching week # 285, 1 week short of tying Pete Sampras although it seems likely. I can't see Rafa getting so close to the finish line and blinking now.

But it will be interesting to see Rafa beat someone besides Roger Federer in a Grand Slam final for a change. Now THAT will be an interesting dynamic...

If its Sod vs Rafa on Sunday morning, I will have to tune in..

Vamos, Rafa!!

@Liz
Although I too am a huge Rafa fan, if he's there on Sun, it's not simply in his hands. There'll be another player on the other side of the net, and that player's name will likely be Robin Soderling. If that is the case, I expect a really difficult match for Rafa. Although Rafa scrambles better than Fed, the Fed hits a more penetrating ball. Of course, if the weather is warm, Rafa can expect to penetrate the court deeper than the Fed was able (the court was just too slow and it hurt him disproportionate to how it affected Robin). Also, it's likely that more of Robin's balls will go long.

That said, those are all factors that do not bring the match into Nadal's hands. It was, however, interesting watching him play Almagro. In most ways, Almagro plays a very similar game to Soderling. He doesn't return as well as Soderling did against Fed and that could wind up being the real difference in the outcome between Rafa and Soderling as opposed to Rafa v. Almagro. Off the ground, I think a Soderling Nadal match looks similar to Rafa Almagro. In fact, it's possible that Almagro hit the ball with more pace than Soderling.

For those bemoaning the probable return of the era of huge hitting (and the demise of pretty or nuanced tennis), I would offer this. That game receded because it was just too difficult for the huge hitters to hit through Federal without hitting an untenable number of UEs. The question for Soderling will be whether he can do this. I'm personally not sold yet. But hey, Nadal was asked once years ago after yet another win at Rome how would he recommend players play him on clay. He answered, "play very aggressive and do not make too many errors, no?" That's always been the way to beat him. And if Soderling, or some other player can achieve that, then too good.

re: greed. As a big Fed fan I consciously made an effort to move on after he finally won RG last year. I couldn't reasonably ask for more after that, so I looked around for players who played the game the way I like. I thought I'd found 'the one' with Delpo, but he got just as I thought he was ready to dominate. It's been a pretty miserable last few months for this tennis fan.

I'm so glad fed lost. I read on his website that he enjoys beating americans in the US open.not too much in other countries He wants to do in our faces.( I call that,, beating us then rubbing our noses in it.Two years ago an american fan threw a hotdog at him while he was beating roddick in the US open )

Alex - "The only thing is Federer might want to consider upgrading to the BLX 95 sq" model for larger sweet-spot. He might need it against these bigger hitters."

I agree. I'm surprised he hasn't done this already. His racquet is tiny compared to most players. A larger head would reduce the shanks, expand his sweet spot and probably give his shots more pop. Sampras once said one of his regrets was not experimenting with more racquets.

Shut up, Phil. Fed is the most gracious and popular person in tennis.

Power has been a big factor in pro tennis for a long time now, Fed hit the likes of Hewitt and Agassi off the court. Safin blew Sampras off the court a decade ago. This is not a new phenomenon. The bar is just edging up incrementally.

What I will always remember about the Federer era was indeed tied in with the "23" along the way, and in virtually every other tournament in the years where he was only losing 3 to 5 matches a year.

Federer just had so many matches where the guy he was playing was just cranking every shot, with no pressure, and no matter how many went in Federer seemed to have the answer. I remember Djokovic playing that way a couple of years ago at the AO and the look on Djokovic's face was priceless, he just could not believe he was not winning the match!

During that same time period, a meme was going around that Federer was not actually playing well, but everyone else on tour was pants. Not true.

Fed only needs 1-more week to tie Pete Sampras for number of weeks as number 1. The the following week he will surpass him. Fed only has Wimbledon (which he'll win for the 6th time) and Cincinnati to defend his winning points from last year. He lose in the final at the US Open which if he wins this year he will gain points. There are still several masters that he can participate in and win. Also, London calling for end of year. Even thou Nadal didn't win any tournaments last year after clay (prior to French Open), Fed can add and surpass Nadal again as number one for end of year. Also, Fed has hunger to do this. Forget what Brad Gilbert said about Nadal will be ahead of the #2 by (3,000 points). Brad Gilbert is someone who only has garbage coming out of his mouth and doesn't know anything. No one likes being around him, even when they are bring interviewed. Look at the faces of Federer, Nadal and Roddick when Gilbert is interviewing them. It's that last place they want to me. We will see Federer as #1 as the end of 2010 (maybe for the last time, but he will break Sampras's record)!!!

Steve:

I can't agree with you more about Federer overcoming the odds. To me, especially in '04 through early '07, the fact that he could not lose was consistently mind-boggling.

Maybe he'll break the record, maybe not. I for one am satiated. I'm fine to see these younger players slug it out and have the old master swipe the occasional grand slam.

What used to be unthinkable - Fed getting overpowered - is happening more frequently now. The only player who was able to beat him consistently was Nadal who used the overall game. Gunslingers were no problem for Fed. Now Delpos, Soderlings, Berdyches are getting better of him.

But I think the hunger is not there so much either. Yesterday's match Fed would have pulled off a victory if it was before 15 slams - can you believe it match points in 3rd set, comes back after rain delay and loses a 5-5 game after being 40-15 up (not to mention throws in a double fault at deuce). Fed didn't seem to want to work his way into the match the way he used to.

I felt similar thing in last USO. After cruising he lost his way. When was the last time he would let things slip badly after winning the first set?

Even if he doesn't admit or realize it, hunger is diminishing even subconsciously.

But then he bounced back in AO I guess because he hates losing. So we'll see what happens in Wimby. If he has lame result in Wimby, maybe retirement is near.

But can't complain as a Fed fan, he has given so much to the fans and the sport - what more can we ask for.

Moreover after last year's close calls (Hass, Delpo in French, Roddick in Wimby) I would take this loss any day - at least Fed was able to capitalize on golden opportunity of Nadal's absence. And after all, The same guy can't keep winning razor-thin margin matches forever. Others should get a turn too. Others' time has come - people who have never beaten Fed in life, now it's their turn. Maybe Roddick will win Wimby :-).

culver, you are brilliant.

As a Rafa fan - seeing him play Almagro, he will have a uphill battle on his hans if the final is Rafa-Soderling. I'm hoping for a Rafa win; but his returns will just have the spin pulverize by the fast powerful Soderling

tennisfan @10:31pm

i've also noticed that!

Posted by Gillian 06/02/2010 at 06:24 PM
Who else is happy for Jurgen Melzer? Just me?
___________________

I am happy too. I am Nole's fan! Believe or not.
.
why happy then??
Coz finally someone taught him a lesson. His coach Vajda doesn't know much about tennis game. Djokovic seems to heavily depend on his father and does 100% whatever he suggests. So, despite of his falling steady for last 2 years, nothing seriously was done to cure it.
.
I hope this Melzer's lesson will finally do something good for Djoko: Fire your father first, because you need independence and maturity. Then, hire a serious coach, a big name and great champion (MacEnroe, Gilbert, Anacone...). Then let Vajda go. That's it.
.
That'll do. Coz you are great talent and potential. If you with your talent can't make it to #1 and cannot win more than one Slam, then throw your racket and go play baseball or cricket.
.
Hey Novak: stop receiving orders from someone else; regardless of who they are; grow up! Be a man. Be independent and on your own. With 23 your life is absolutelly your own choice. Make decisions by yourself. Stop paying to someone for their previous investment in you. Slavery must end once forever.
.
I remain to be your biggest fan, Nole.

"He lost his No. 1 ranking and then became one of the very few players to get it back."

He got it back for one crucial reason, Rafa was not their to tame him!

When Rafa won Grand Slams on other surfaces he beat Fed on both finals, where Fed won the French just because Rafa was not there and Soderling did NOT believe he could win that final.

There is NO question about Federer's talent BUT ppl and media made such a big deal of him to the degree where his opponents cheered him before, during and after the match. No one could look him in the eyes apart from the real MAN; RAFA.

Del Potro (and other 2 players) were so close last year to beat him in the French open but he did not, and then he won the US open against Fed!?

Again no doubt about his talent, but a lot of his records came because a lot of his opponents did not believe that they can win against him.

I hope that Federer stays healthy and continues to play just to see Rafa beats the ALL time grand slams record before Federer's retirement!

Vamos Rafa

Nadal "owns" Federer at some slams.

Federer just owns slams.

Good point Daniel I didn't actually know that about Chris Evert. Why on earth would she have skipped the French 3 times? She could have had as many titles at Roland Garros as Martina did at Wimbledon (9). I know why they skipped the Aussie at the time, but the French? seems strange.

There are maybe 3 comparisons to be made to the Federer-Nadal duopoly. I think by far the most accurate one would be Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert. The fact that they were THAT good and dominant and still won 18 slams a piece (9 years worth of Grand Slam titles between them) is still insane.

The other comparison would be Steffi Graf and Monica Seles - which as we all know was cut short by Seles' stabbing - one of the great mysteries in tennis is how much farther would they have pushed each other.

Between the 1987 US0 and 1996 USO, Graf and Seles won of 30 of 37 possible Grand Slam singles titles. Only Martina Navratilova (1), Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (3) Mary Pierce (1), Gabriela Sabatini (1) and Conchitz Martinez(1) managed to win slams during this period. Graf also got to 13 straight Slam finals during this time, while Monica Seles reached 6 straight.

Agassi and Sampras had their Slams interspersed between a lot of other men's winners, except Pete at WImbledon.

I don't care about what media and MOST ppl think, I don't care about the records, I do believe that Sampars is better than Fed, period.

To his credit Fed is talented, no question about that. He was lucky in a number of ways; 1) he was never injured (which I never saw in any sport!), 2) no body believed that he can beat Fed for a long time until the arrival of Rafa 3) Sampras' retirement was premature, I believe that Sampras had at least a couple of Grand Slams in him before his retirement.

If Sampras only had the "Sand of Time" ;)

Jim - Murray was definitely NOT an all around athlete in his high school days. He was scrawny and lacked endurance, and only went on a tough fitness regime after he faltered in numerous long 4 and 5 set matches.

Quite fit today though ;)
Now Rafa could easily have been a pro soccer player.
Roger Federer I see him as more of a pro handball player (very European sport).

It really must be conceded that Fed got his #1 ranking back mostly because Nadal was injured, though his play at the YECs was certainly poor.

However, I still think Federer wants to win, I don't question his motivation. I also don't see any preciptious decline in his game anytime soon. He has 4 Grand Slam losses aside from Rafa, who will always be a bad matchup for him - to Safin and Djokovic, who were just better on the day, and Delpo and Soderling - these latter two are the problematic losses because Fed was capable of winning them but stubbornly refused to adapt his game to a more high percentage strategy.

You can understand, a guy like Fed thinking - I won 16 slams playing my way, I should keep doing what I'm doing and it'll work - but this stubbornnes alone lost him these last two matches as he kept feeding the big hitters pace and didn't switch to his finesse game. So he played good tennis, he just didn't play smart tennis, and against a hot opponent good tennis isn't always enough.

Hani, I think the more important hope you should have is for Rafa to be on a tennis court come September ;)

- Great article Tignor

- To the people who claim that Federer only regained #1 because Nadal was injured:- That's screen-writing. The fact is that no one knows what would have happened if Nadal hadn't been injured. For all we know guys i many tournaments guys like Soderling may have taken Rafa out before he even made the finals.

- Does anyone reading this know what other current top players have a wife and children?

Heckuva piece. Not easing putting that SF streak into perspective, Steve. A damn admirable job. Federer, indeed, changed the standard for the open era. That streak, I don't believe, will be touched in our lifetime.

Btw, the current longest SF Slam streak in the men's game is a four-way tie between Rafa, Soderling, Berdych and Melzer. Each with one.

Twenty-three, Fed. We won't soon forget it.

P.S. Liked the analysis of Sod, too. Would enjoy seeing him win the title after last year and further upset the balance of the men's game. Much as I've loved this era, it's probably in need of it.

"In both matches Federer lost concentration in the second set, a career long failing of his, even at this most dominant. Now Federer finds it harder to re-ignite the genius once it lapses though. "

Fascinating observation .... You know at one point during his utter domination I really felt the second sets were "pity sets" he gave up just to make the match interesting :)

I agree with MJ it sounds like an obituary (very interesting-one)

"Shut up, Phil. Fed is the most gracious and popular person in tennis."

Well said, and I second that, also noting my distaste for the tribal mentality that pervades the fandom of some followers of one of the truly international sports, not to mention their incredibly irritating jingoistic booster-commentators, who have on more than one occasion irked me into rooting against the Yanks. And I say this as an American, albeit one who has studied the history of nationalism, found it worse than wanting as an organizing principle for social interaction and relating to each other as human beings, and to sports like tennis, in which we are treated to superhuman feats of artistry, speed, courage, grit, prowess, sheer, clean, beautiful power, and all the wonderful diversity the particular features of the sport have to offer. Why, with such a feast before us, must we let discussions degenerate into the pettiness of the artificially constructed collective identities that make patriotism, that refuge of scoundrels (Samuel Johnson) the easy out for so many? As a rabid Monica Seles fan since the age of 11, watching a valiantly contested, tight match between Monica (who, ironically, would later become a US citizen) and Jennifer Capriati in the US Open semifinals, and observing how the vast majority in the stadium, not to mention some of the commentators, were fully behind Capriati despite both of them playing their hearts out and despite Monica's highly admirable nerves of steel under the circumstances and the laserbeam-like precision of her line-seeking missiles, sealed my tennis-specific anti-nationalism for me.

Rant over; just had to get that out as I've been irritated by a number of posts cheering on players with whom they share a passport mostly because of that fact, as if the Davis/Fed Cup scenario were the governing rule of the game, rather than the exceptional situation it is. On topic, I must say I enjoyed this article, and to posters who took Steve at his word when he mentioned that Roger's legacy would be toast if he lost in the, gasp, round of 16, I think the remark was made tongue-in-cheek, indicating that that coming to pass would in no way tarnish said legacy.

What amazes me is just how desperate the media is for a new champion. It happens again and again. Djokovic carried the torch, then back to Roger-Rafa. Murray becomes the great new hope, then back to Roger-Rafa. Now because Soderling has beaten Roger by outhitting him, narratives are being constructed faster than you can say "wait, really?" Soderling will be #1, tennis has fundamentally shifted as a game (somehow overnight?), etc.

Look, it's always interesting when a new player moves up in the ranks, but honestly, as amazing as Soderling's streaks have been at the French, let's not forget for most of the clay season, he wasn't exactly a threat. Not taking anything away from his achievements, but I don't see him being able to consistently do this kind of thing. I'd say that makes him more dangerous rather than less, but I don't see where this "next #1" business is coming from...

"Shut up, Phil. Fed is the most gracious and popular person in tennis."

Well said, and I second that, also noting my distaste for the tribal mentality that pervades the fandom of some followers of one of the truly international sports, not to mention their incredibly irritating jingoistic booster-commentators, who have on more than one occasion irked me into rooting against the Yanks. And I say this as an American, albeit one who has studied the history of nationalism, found it worse than wanting as an organizing principle for social interaction and relating to each other as human beings, and to sports like tennis, in which we are treated to superhuman feats of artistry, speed, courage, grit, prowess, sheer, clean, beautiful power; in short, the wonderful diversity the particular features of the sport have to offer. Why, with such a feast before us, must we let discussions degenerate into the pettiness of the artificially constructed collective identities that make patriotism, that refuge of scoundrels (Samuel Johnson) the easy out for so many? As a rabid Monica Seles fan since the age of 11, watching a valiantly contested, tight match between Monica (who, ironically, would later become a US citizen) and Jennifer Capriati in the US Open semifinals, and observing how the vast majority in the stadium, not to mention some of the commentators, were fully behind Capriati despite both of them playing their hearts out and despite Monica's highly admirable nerves of steel under the circumstances and the laserbeam-like precision of her line-seeking missiles, sealed my tennis-specific anti-nationalism for me.

Rant over; just had to get that out as I've been irritated by a number of posts cheering on players with whom they share a passport mostly because of that fact, as if the Davis/Fed Cup scenario were the governing rule of the game, rather than the exceptional situation it is. On topic, I must say I enjoyed this article, and to posters who took Steve at his word when he mentioned that Roger's legacy would be toast if he lost in the, gasp, round of 16, I think the remark was made tongue-in-cheek, indicating that that coming to pass would in no way tarnish said legacy.

Well, Ted Williams actually had a higher batting average than Joe Dimaggio during his 56 game hit streak. Also, hits and batting average are a poor way of evaluating a batter's production. Statistically inclined writers and fans know that one base percentage (OBP) and slugging percentage are a much better of evaluating the offensive production of a player. Why look at one aspect of their game when you could evaluate the whole?

Even the OPS statistic is flawed; OBP is vastly more important (three times more important) than slugging percentage in terms of run creation. Oh, well. People can keep on talking about their "clutchiness and guts" when the most important thing is production.

If there are 32 players, one has to play an extra match each grand slam to get to the semifinals.

Söderling deserves his results since you simply can not deny how effective his game is at times.

However, should Söderling & similar players take over on clay courts, I'll take a break from tennis just like I took a break from watching tennis in the 90s with all those serving machines.

Nice post. Federer has lot of fans in India. Vishwanathan Anand, who recently retained his World Chess title, stated in an interview that he is a fan of Federer. Perhaps father time is catching up with Federer, though it may be too early to write an epitaph. Watching Federer play tennis was an experience akin to watching a magic show. The tennis racquet is a magic wand in his hand and the sublime beauty of his strokes is a joy to behold. Some of the records that he has achieved on the way (winning 25 consecutive finals that he entered, 23 consecutive grandslam semis, 16 grandslam titles etc.) are sure to stand the test of time until another genuis comes along.

Fed has had health and injury issues, too, over the years that have allowed other players to take titles they may have not won if he were 100%. Short memories? Being fit and healthy is part of the game, and Rafa is not the only top player that has conceded potential victory because he wasn't at 100%. Please cool it with the double standards.

yea sure Mike....when was the last time Fed missed a Grand Slam due to a serious injury... that is a commendable performance in itself but no one can deny that there is a lot of luck required in staying fit as well. Oh and...if Nadal wins on Sunday hell have 2 more Grand Slam titles than Fed had at 24.

Damn you Le Sod for being so darned good on the day, effectively terminating one of the most significant records in sports and ruining my year. Pfftt!!!!!

Oh and by the way welcome home Steve.
Thanks for taking us along on your Paris ride.
Enjoyed every minute of it.

I just knew Nole would find some way to lose

Hitius > Nadal will not come close to what Fed has done in terms of dominance, GS records, semifinal streaks etc. He was never as versatile as Fed against other players and the upcoming years will prove that. Nadal if anything , may win fewer slams than Fed will win by the end of his career or just slightly more. If Delpo comes back strong, the Sod continues to play this way, Cilic improves, Tsonga wakes up and you see a few other big guns like berdych make there stand in the upcoming years, I think Rafa has real problems as the topspin he creates feeds to their sweet spot on both ends which is a recipe for disaster.

Rafa was able to grind himself through the red clay and the slower grass courts of today. But the problem now is he'll face not one but two , maybe three "match up problems " in his draw in these slams in the future. Look at Rafa's performance over the last few years just in slams against these big guns. Wimbi > 5 sets against the Sod in which he barely managed to get bye. US Open > destroyed by Potro last year. For the most part he was able to avoid everyone that "could" have hurt him to win the slams he's won on faster surfaces(best example being Aussie Open, in which he faced no real threat outside of Fed ). He's 0/5 against these big gun players of late in total matches, and these matches were worrisome, beat downs. Look for this Head to Head to be significantly worse than the 7/14 one we all know. Ironically the reason he's won the majority of his slams (match up advantage over Fed) will be his biggest problem in the upcoming years against these players.

I think Fed on the other hand will be able to keep it close and even take the majority of the matches down on the faster surfaces as he takes the ball early and doesn't let the big guns swing free in the faster surfaces, he takes their timing away. This garners their respect much more than Rafa:) Versatility people, versatility:) I do agree that the French will be a war of the big guns in the future, Sod/Potro in finals next year.

for last 7 YEARS, No One could win Grand slam except having beaten FEDY, this time Soderling has done that, not RAFA. So this major belongs to soderling....

Oh this record, it's Fed's most impressive feat to date and quite possibly the most impressive record in the sport ever. Check them all, and get back to me if you find one as ridiculous as this one.

hitius, the age comparison is nonsense unless both went full time pro at the same age ... which they did not. Also, you don't have to miss a tournament to be suffering injury/illness that can hamper you just enough to lose ... all you have to do is look at the reasons posted for the majority of Rafa's losses to see that. Injury and illness happens ... to everyone, and all will lose from time to time due to it.

hitius, your comparison of # of slams in the bag by age x doesn't mean that much....Consider McEnroe: slams at age 25 = 7; slams at career end = 7

I'm not saying Rafa won't win another Slam (probably far from it, and I hope he does win more), but his game is more taxing physically than Fed's fluid, efficient game. I don't deny there is some luck involved in staying healthy, but Fed's efficient game must count for something.

"for last 7 YEARS, No One could win Grand slam except having beaten FEDY, this time Soderling has done that, not RAFA. So this major belongs to soderling...."

Sick.

Taking that incredible streak one step further....

23 straight semis is incredible in itself, but Fed didn't just reach 23 straight semis, he won 14 titles, lost in 6 finals, and lost in 3 semis......To quote some, "that's scary good."

With typical Federer grace and wit, "Now I have the QF streak." Good one. I have a feeling he'll extend that streak for a while.

Just another perspective about what I call real men's tennis. The last time Federer lost to a one handed backhand in a major was that Kuerten match. Think about that. His only close call to a one hander was to Haas last year at the French.

If, and I realize this is an old man talking, if all real men still played with one handed backhands and more than that, with smaller racket heads, not necessarily wood, Federer would never lose to anyone. He would be working on his seventh straight grand slam. A voice crying in the darkness, but there has never been a player with Federer's combination of skill, variety, movement and classic tennis. He would have dominated in any era.

Frederer is....bradmanesque.This word-probably the first coined for an athlete is a result of The greatest cricketer of all time,Don Bradman
Every batsman desires one thing most desired while play.ing, and that is to be as good as the Don. Bradmanesque-Achieving the highest level in your area of expertise; almost perfect at what you do....eg the Don's batting average 99.9,the nest best player... barely 60.0

Nice article, Steve.

What about his appearances in the finals? Something like 17 out of 18 or a crazy number like that. Sure, it's not a streak because of AO08, but STILL. wow.

"Who knows if it’s a trend that will last, but clay seems to be shifting in an offensive direction. John McEnroe called Soderling’s style “21st century clay-court tennis” yesterday. If he or Berdych win this event, and beat Nadal while they’re at it, the new century on dirt may have arrived."

I don't know Steve, I am truly mystified that anyone would indentify Soderling as the "21st century clay player" - what clay tournaments has he even won??? In fact what tournaments of any kind has he won - hardly any and the guy is 25 already. Soderling beat a lackluster Roger yesterday - something several other players have already done this year - without going on to win the tournament. Sheesh. I just don't get this thinking.

This so called "new" offensive tennis style also seems to cause a lot of injuries - how many injuries have their been now between Soderling, Davydenko, Nalbandian, and Del Potro? By comparison, it makes Rafa's "run like a rabbit" style seem almost neutral on the body. I doubt the Spanish style of playing and winning, which has a lot more to do with just having a complete game, a strong work ethic, having a good game plan, and making the most of key match opportunities, is going to go out of style very soon.

Good points about Soderling not stringing together a lot of wins. Del Potro, on the other hand, built a very impressive hard court record before beating Fed at the Open ... he showed consistent excellence, and I really miss having him around.

I used to be a Fed hater because his dominance eclipsed Sampras's. Now I just reflect in awe. He really was, and still is, a step above everyone else. We are priveleged to have witnessed this athlete (and good guy) in his prime.

Now if he would become a serve-volley guy, I might just become a fan.

Since you mentioned Joe DiMaggi's 56-game hitting streak -- a reminder: After going hitless in one game, Joltin' Joe then had another 16 game hitting streak, if I remember correctly (making it 72 out of 73).

Is this the analogy to Federer you're looking for?

Just sayin'

JohnP... there are a lot of players with great grand slam winning starts like Jim Courier and Mats Wilander. What sets Nadal apart is that he genuinely wants to play and win everything he gets into. He doesnt seem to have a feeling of acheivement or show any loss of hunger. Infact i see him as an Agassi who realised late in his career what he had wasted and wanted to make up for it. About longevity... he is very determined to last for a competitive full tennis career which usually goes to about 30. He is surely targeting Feds slam record and will do everything to ensure his fitness as he has shown this year by being picky with his tournaments.

@b... Nadal has throgout his career shown that he improves against all players. Alot of people will beat him but he always comes back and then beats them consistently like he has done with Gonzalez, Blake, Tsonga etc. No one in 2005 said this guy would get close to a Qf in Wimbledon. He has made 3 consecutive Wimby finals. Alot it seems to me for a 'clay court specialist'. The first time he won a set off Federer. The second time Fed was lucky to get away in 5 and the third time there wasn't any doubt. He is having the exact same career beginning as Borg and this is the time in his career when Borg was changing his game to more suit the Grass and also lost once at the French. What I see is a Borg like career... only full tilt. And 'match up advantage' in tennis has another phrase for it.. it is 'better tennis player'. People keep forgetting that Nadal wasn't any good on Hard Courts when he came on tour and his pace of improvement has been unheard of.
I would like to see three grass court tournys before wimbledon for Nadal to face Federer before Wimbledon similar to when Federer tries n tries n tries n tries n tries n tries to beat Nadal before every French Open allowing him to try different strategies and shots...again going back to my Wimby explanation. Agreed Nadal isn't a complete player now but at his rate he will be a better tennis player at 27 than Federer ever was. If Ndal does play Soderling again this Sunday it will surely be a different story this time round as it will be when he plays Del Potro the next time be it hard courts or any court. And a gentle reminder a 17 year old Nadal beat Federer (in his prime) the first time he played him on a Miami Masters HARDCOURT.

Mike...people turn pro at an early age because they are better tennis players at an early age. Nadal got through to a Grand Slam main draw the first time he tried unlike Federer who lost twice in Qualifying. Nadal has never lost in a 1st round of a Grand Slam considering he turned pro at a very young age...that surely stands for something.

Stewart--didn't know that about Murray. But...I've heard that he started going to Spain for tennis at 14yrs. So I'm assuming he didn't played much of anything but tennis after that. Probably nothing. And maybe nothing before that.
At 15 he must have had at least the beginnings of the quickness and raw speed. And almost certainly the world-class eye hand coordination.
If he'd grown up here, and never cared about tennis (for the most part most Americans don't)but loved basketball I could see where he might end up playing at a very high level. No guarantee, but at least many of the raw tools were there.
I can't imagine Johnny Mac or Connors that way.
When I look at American players I mostly see kids that were really good at tennis when they were 12 and never did anything else. There drive to the top 200 seems to have been fueled by money--either the parents had it or were willing to sacrifice a whole bunch to tennis.
Most of the Europeans look like they were tremendous athletes first who were steered towards tennis after the athletic ability became apparent.

I DON´T THINK THERE ARE A NEW ERA OF PLAYERS WITH BIG STROKES, SPORTS ARE NOW MORE TACTICAL EVEN SOCCER.ROGER HAS TO LOOK FORWARD FOR NEW TACTICS.BUT ROGER RETIRED? WHY DON´T YOU SAY THE SAME OF MURRAY, DJOKO , THEY WERE CALLED THE NEW Ns1, NOW SOD AND BERDYCH THE NEW DOMINANCE,BUT THEN ROGER AND RAFA ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO ARE ALWAYS ON THE TOP.