Pete Sampras and Roger Federer. Federer has now tied Sampras’s record of 14 Grand Slam championships.
I am in France right now, and this is the beginning of my seven-country, four-continent tour de mundial this summer. I just went to Mexico over Spring Break, so I suppose I could “up” that to eight countries on five continents this year, with Asia being the lone exception to my travels (OK, and for all you wise guys out there, no I’m not going to Antarctica—be assured that you’re not the first one to ask that question!).
Anyway, I’m traveling to different countries for various reasons, but this first stop is purely just for vacation, after a satisfying but exhausting first year teaching at Biola University. I’m a huge tennis fan, and I just watched Roger Federer win his 14th Grand Slam title here in Paris, tying Pete Sampras for the all-time men’s record. Perhaps even more importantly, by winning the French Open, Federer also completed his career Grand Slam—the French was the only major tournament missing from his resumé, and he has been chasing this one tournament title for the last eleven years. When asked which achievement (the all-time record or the career Slam) was more significant, Federer balked and called it a close one. I’d say the history books will call the all-time record greater; but based on Federer’s history (I’ve been following him for most of his career), I’d bet that the career Slam was the more personally meaningful for him. I’ll explain why in just a moment.
By the way, I didn’t watch the men’s final live—rather, I watched it on TV from a pub in the Latin Quarter (the student district, near the University of Paris), but I did manage to watch the women’s final live, with Svetlana Kuznetsova defeating Dinara Safina. The women’s final, frankly, was pretty unexciting, but the real news is Federer. I wish I was at the men’s match, but alas, the latter was much more difficult to score tickets. I did have a fun encounter, however—right before the men’s final yesterday, I happened to sit on the Paris metro (subway) right next to French Open TV announcer Dick Enberg! I talked to him, and he was very courteous. That made my day! And right after the men’s final, Enberg made this video, commenting on Federer’s achievement.
Why do I like tennis so much? Two reasons: beauty and symmetry. Soccer is often called “the beautiful sport” but I think tennis should be. The graceful ground strokes, the booming serves, and the requisite acrobatics make it wonderful to watch. It is international in its scope (the players come from every country) and in its venues (the tournaments are held all over the world, from the four Grand Slams in Melbourne, Paris, London, and New York, to the Masters-level tournaments in places like Indian Wells, Shanghai, Monte Carlo, and Dubai. The symmetry is also nice, with each of the four Grand Slam events held in a different season (Australian Open in the winter, French Open in the spring, Wimbledon in the summer, and U.S. Open in the fall), and each played on a different surface (synthetic, clay, grass, and hard court, respectively). To master all four surfaces in one’s career is an astounding feat (thus only three men have ever held a career Slam, winning each tournament at least once—besides Federer there is only Andre Agassi and Rod Laver), but to master all four in a calendar year is the rarest of the rare (only one man, Rod Laver, has ever done it, and Federer still hasn’t). However, though Federer does not have a calendar Slam, he combines a career Slam with fourteen championship trophies, tying Pete Sampras for the all-time record but surpassing Sampras in that Sampras could never master the clay of the French Open (incidentally, Biola’s board of trustees member Michael Chang was the youngest man to ever win the French Open at the age of 17)—so Federer can already be considered greater. Plus, Federer still has some years ahead of him since he is only 27, and he potentially can surpass twenty Grand Slams in his career!
Roger Federer & Rafael Nadal, one of the greatest rivalries in sports
But for every Superman, there needs to be a Kryptonite, otherwise the story would not be intriguing. For five years from 2003-07, Federer was nearly invincible, winning every Slam with ease. The only thing that stopped him was his arch-nemesis, Rafael Nadal, the king of the clay. Federer was the second-best clay-courter in the world, but for four years straight, he was knocked out of the French Open by Nadal. It got to the point where he despaired of ever winning the French. And then, to add insult to injury, Nadal got the better of Federer on grass and hard court too. Not only did Federer fail to close the gap between him and Nadal on clay, but Nadal improved his game on the other surfaces, taking the Wimbledon trophy from Federer last year in an epic five-setter for the ages (which many people consider to be the greatest tennis match ever played), and also the Australian Open title this year. After the loss at the Aussie Open, Federer openly wept. This was only a few months ago. Then, it all changed—Nadal inexplicably lost to a little-known Swede named Robin Soderling last week, being defeated at the French Open for the first time in his career. That opened things up for Federer—everyone said, “This is it—this may be your only opportunity!” Talk about pressure! But Federer withstood it all, and as he defeated Soderling in the final yesterday, he wept again, but this time in joy. Considering his history with the clay that so often flummoxed him, he had a right to weep—he finally won the title had eluded him for so long. In addition, not only did he complete his career Slam, but he tied Pete Sampras’s record of the most all-time Grand Slams, making it doubly sweet.
Now consider: if Roger Federer had no rival in Rafael Nadal, and no weakness on clay, he would have triumphed and waltzed over everyone for five years straight. He would be so invincible, that all the drama would be sucked out of his play (that’s what’s missing from Tiger Woods’ game—a worthy rival; and incidentally, while golf has four Grand Slam events as well, it lacks the international scope [three of the four are played in the U.S.] and the four different playing surfaces [imagine if golf can be played on clay!]). Federer would not have despaired at having a gap in his Grand Slam collection, and he would not have appreciated winning the French Open so much as he did yesterday. And I wonder what kind of inflated ego he might have been subject to, had he not been humbled time and again by Nadal on clay. In order to complete his career Slam and to tie Sampras’s record, it had to be a long hard road. It is much more sweet to achieve success after hardship, rather than just to be handed it on a silver platter.
In the long run, how much do sports matter? Not much. However, I think we are endlessly fascinated by them because they are representative of real struggles. We are elated when our team wins, and devastated when they fail. We live vicariously through them. And sports with history matter more—would the Boston Red Sox’s 2004 World Series victory have meant as much if not for 86 years of futility and dominance by the rival New York Yankees? I think not. In sports, if there is history, there is a great potential for catharsis. Just ask any Chicago Cubs fan (though I think there is some level of masochism involved there as well).
I am going to Oxford next week to “walk” in my D.Phil. (doctor of philosophy) graduation ceremony (I finished all the requirements last year, but I wasn’t able to fly out there to my ceremony until now). Of my four degrees (B.A., M.Div., M.Th., D.Phil.) the last was definitely my hardest. Similar to Federer, I felt like it was the one which was the most difficult to surmount, the one I despaired of ever achieving, and the one which I struggled with the most. But how sweet it will be when I walk down that aisle to receive my diploma. It didn’t come easy to me, but I’m all the more grateful for that fact. I will definitely appreciate it more, and I will not have a big head about the achievement but give the glory to God. I of all people know how hard it was to get there! And, like Federer, I will probably weep when I finally get the fourth and final piece of the puzzle, completing my own personal “career Slam.” But the appreciation is in the struggle, and I think that achieving a great accomplishment without the anguish to get there diminishes the value of the end result. As the old adage goes, “No pain, no gain!”
Me with Biola board of trustees member, Michael Chang (the youngest man to ever win the French Open)