Yeah, But He Never Won The French Open

As recent as last year, tennis people were willing to call Roger Federer the greatest player of all time (and it was tough to argue against). But now, the specter of never winning the French Open looks like it might tarnish his career, which isn't even over yet. Pete Sampras never won the French Open, and yet it doesn't seem to affect his legacy at all. So what gives?

That's right folks, we're talking tennis. Men's tennis.

(If this were Puddin's blog, this is probably where he'd drop a picture of a hot girl that's semi-related to the post topic, possibly Maria Sharapova, or newly-crowned French Open champ Ana Ivanovic, since we're talking about tennis. Knowing Puddin', I'm going with Sharapova. When in doubt, go with the blond.)

Pete Sampras is easily one of the top 5 greatest tennis players of all time. You make that statement, and no one's going to challenge you on it. And if they do challenge you on it, its with the line, "Yeah, but he never won the French Open." And while that's true, it doesn't seem to diminish his career at all. A record 14 Grand Slam titles, and no one really seems to care that none them came in Paris.

But they do when it comes to Roger Federer.

I thought about this over the weekend as I watched Rafael Nafal absolutely dominate Federer in the French Open final one, three, and love. Roger Federer is going to break Sampras'scareer Grand Slam record (he at 12 and could easily tie Sampras by the end of the year; would you bet against him at Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows?), and will probably end up near 20 when he retires. So why will the French Open haunt him as it doesn't haunt Sampras? Because if it weren't for Nadal, Federer would already have 3 French Open titles (and the career Grand Slam record).

To put it bluntly, Sampras sucked at the French Open. He never made the finals (NEVER!) and only made the semifinal once (ONCE!) in his entire career. So good as he was at Wimbledon, he was horrible in Paris. And that's why never winning there doesn't mar his legacy. He was so bad there over the course of his career that we was never expect to win (kinda like the Cubs- you knew I'd find a way to get baseball into this post).

But with Federer, he makes the finals (three years in a row), he just can't win it all (kinda like the Red Sox, pre-2004). And we look harsher on those that get to the end and can't finish compared to those that never get there at all, so he's seen as a disappointment while Sampras is not. As long as Federer continues to make the finals at Roland Garros, he's going to be expected to eventually win one. Sampras never had that expectation, so history will gives him a pass. And the fact that he's lost all three finals to Nadal is just insult to injury. Even for a great champion like Federer, its got to be demoralizing to know that you can beat everyone else on this surface except for this one guy (see: Franklin, Rich vs. Silva, Anderson; nice- tennis, baseball, MMA, all in one post).

It sucks, but unless he finds a way to win the French Open (and, after 3 straight losses, it has to be against Nadal, otherwise you'll get the, "but he hasn't beaten Nadal at the French" nay-sayers), he'll always be penalized for being both good enough and not good enough, all at the same time.