GRAND SHAM - Our loss, Federer's gain!

Roger Federer is the best men's tennis player ever. There's absolutely no doubt about that anymore.
14 Grand Slam titles place him at par with Pete Sampras at the top of the pile; but Sampras never won the French Open.

A career Grand Slam places him at par with Fred Perry, Rod Laver, Don Budge, Ross Emerson and Andre Agassi; but none of them won 14 Grand Slams.

No question anymore then. Nor, for the fact that no one - not even Sampras at his peak - dominated the sport the way Federer has.

And that's sad. Because I just can't bring myself to accepting this.

When Sampras was at his best, some of us losers preferred Agassi. When Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander were winning everything, we waited for Wimbledon to watch Boris Becker or Stefan Edberg win; and prayed that they did something worthwhile at the US Open or the Australian Open. They seldom did.

Once they became the best in the world, a sequence of One Slam Wonders crawled out of the woodwork to spoil their chances.

The logic behind the preference was simple - rage against the machine! You can celebrate more often by rooting for the Schumis and Federers of the world, but is it really any fun? Is it really fun watching a player who makes almost zero errors and is almost like an assembly line-produced Mercedes?

I still don't think so.

Which is why I am so, so irritated with Rafael Nadal. Who asked him to work so hard at Wimbledon and at the US and at the Australian to get tired at the French? This is where Federer had to be beaten. Forever. Kept away. Kept out. Denied.

It's so very unfair that Nadal had to lose at the French and not elsewhere? Federer's the best machine we have ever had, and it would have been fine if he had gone out to win some 20 Grand Slams but not the French. It would have been fine. He would have still been the most successful player ever, but not the greatest.

What happens now though? He's won it all. The history books won't remember the fact that Nadal wasn't around for Federer to beat at the French Open in 2009. No one remembers these things. Like no one will ever say that Schumacher was as good as he was only because no one managed to make a better car than Ferrari. Or that Sunil Gavaskar's 13 Test centuries DID NOT come against the deadly West Indies pace attack - most of them were in India, or against a pace attack depleted because of World Series Cricket.

No one remembers. And that's so unfair. And that's what Nadal should have remembered.
For now though, the 'crying shame' will rule.

Post Script:

An article in a leading English daily titled "She's famous and in love - how hard is it?" starts with the following lines: "What pointers can tennis player Sania Mirza take from pop icon Madonna, British actress Liz Hurley and Bollywood star Karisma Kapoor? As she starts to wed a relatively unknown businessman, Mirza can learn from the turmoil others have faced in their relationships because they are famous and famously women."

Lots of bad English, but that's beside the point. The point being that Sania doesn't need to take any pointers from any of these people. Truth is, Sania isn't worth much anymore. She's yesterday's news. She made news when she forehanded her way to the Top 30 in the world. But the fall was quicker, harder and more expected than anything else. Yes, she now has a Grand Slam title to her name, but even the girl herself knows it's Mahesh Bhupathi who won it for her. You seriously think Sania has to worry about tabloids dogging her every move? Nope - not a chance.