ShareThisAs he stood alongside Roger Federer for a post-match interview at the French Open Sunday, John McEnroe wore a look of reverence. It's a look we've seen in recent years from Rod Laver, Bjorn Bjorg and Pete Sampras, as well as Andre Agassi during Sunday's trophy ceremony. They all stand in awe of the man who dismantled Robin Soderling 6-1, 7-6, 6-4 to lodge a solid claim as the greatest player of all time.
Everything about Federer is perfection: his game, his lifestyle and his comportment. Addressing the crowd after his historic win, Federer breezily alternated between French and English, and he could have added two more languages -- German and Swiss-German -- if asked.
"I am so happy for you, man," Agassi told Federer, and you got the feeling that Rafael Nadal, wherever he might have been, felt the same. Few people in tennis, perhaps even Federer himself, envisioned him hoisting the French Open trophy so soon after a discouraging sequence of tournaments that transformed his image from unbeatable champion to sympathetic figure.
Now he stands in select company, joining Agassi, Laver, Don Budge, Fred Perry and Roy Emerson as the only men to have won each of the four majors, undeniable proof of multi-surface mastery. His 14th major title ties him with Sampras for the all-time record, and with Nadal on the mend from a knee injury, Federer could grab his 15th title as soon as the upcoming Wimbledon.
In the end, it won't matter that Nadal, upset by Soderling in the fourth round, wasn't there to confront Federer on Sunday. When Agassi scored his French Open breakthrough in 1999, it was Andrei Medvedev on the other side. Laver got a break during his 1962 Grand Slam season, drawing unseeded countryman Marty Mulligan in the Wimbledon final. It's not always a matchup for the ages, nor are such details relevant in the end.
Regrettably, for those who love "greatest ever" comparisons, tennis' lamentable political history stops every argument cold. Until 1968, professionals were not allowed to compete in the major tournaments, and you almost had to turn pro to make a decent living in the 1950s and '60s. For those who saw Pancho Gonzalez and Lew Hoad on the old pro circuit, that's where the "greatest ever" discussion begins.
Laver's case still carries massive weight, for he not only won the calendar Grand Slam as an amateur (1962) and a professional (1969), but he also missed five full years (1963-67) of Grand Slam competition because he was not allowed to compete. That would be from 25-29 for Laver, his absolute prime, and many think he would have as many as 20 major titles, not 11, if politics hadn't done so much damage to the sport.
Other complications cloud the picture. Laver played in an era when three of the four majors (all but the French) were played on grass. For many years, players bypassed the Australian Open because of the travel inconvenience (McEnroe played it only twice in his first 12 years on tour, Jimmy Connors twice in his life, Borg just once).
What separates Federer from everyone but Laver -- and I haven't heard a single all-time great dispute this -- is his total command of the game. McEnroe didn't have that kind of power, Connors that kind of touch, Sampras or Borg that kind of variety. Federer is a master of every conceivable shot, and no one, not even Nadal, can even imagine reaching 20 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals, or 15 out of 16 finals.
What everyone would like to see, I've found, is Laver playing Federer with today's equipment, each man at the age of 25, in a clay-grass-hardcourt sequence. So the debates rage, inconclusive but highly engaging.
--THE WOMEN'S GAME: The No. 1 player, Dinara Safina, is an emotional wreck who has been humiliated in each of her three Grand Slam finals. How is this even possible? Though the caliber of men's tennis seems to soar at every turn, the women's game is at an all-time low, made worse by the disturbing number of players shrieking like assault victims on every shot.
The NBC crew tried its best to talk up Saturday's Safina-Svetlana Kuznetsova final as something potentially special, but everyone knew that was a terrible matchup, the latest yawner between unwatchable, glued-to-the-baseline players with a history of choking. Credit Kuznetsova for a marvelous personal comeback, to the point where she truly believes in herself. But the WTA badly needs a solid, consistent player -- so superbly personified by the retired Justine Henin -- at the top.
"I miss her excellence," NBC's Mary Carillo said. "She was such a ferocious fighter, so well coached, so technically and tactically adept. When she showed up at tournaments, she was fit and there to win. You felt like you were in good hands watching her."
Serena Williams pulled her usual classless stunt after losing in the quarterfinals to Kuznetsova, saying, "I think I lost because of me and not because of anything she did." On occasion -- the times when Serena scatters groundstrokes all over the place -- this reflects a brutal honesty. This time she was just plain wrong. Serena had fought hard, and Kuznetsova played better when it mattered most. Outplayed, Serena. Get it right.
(E-mail Bruce Jenkins at bjenkins(at)sfchronicle.com.)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
columnMust credit the San Francisco Chronicle
