Federer is not the second

Pat Cash, the Wimbledon champion in 1987, he made a statement in Ubitennis, also closely followed by AS digital readers, in which he questions Roger Federer not only as number one in history, but even as number two in his era. His reflections coincide with the same thesis defended other times in this column, in the face of the noisy discrepancy of many tennis fans. Cash's conclusion is that Federer, even being a superb player, has not managed to have a face to face favorable against the two great rivals of his time: Novak Djokovic (27-23) and Rafa Nadal (24-16). The Australian arrives at this deduction with words of enormous admiration for Federer, of whom he says that he would have been “exceptional at all times” and that he is “the most entertaining” and “the best player” he has ever seen, but then the balance declines due to his negative record against the other two members of the Big three. This same argument used to point out that the best of the three is Djokovic. And, by discard, Nadal rises to the second rung of the ladder.

Cash's opinion transports me to an official dinner in which the same stubbornness arose among several of the best former Spanish players ever, who opted mostly for Federer. Nadal, by the way, did not share that table. The main argument of that night coincides with that used by the hiking prevailing: the beautiful, technical and elegant tennis of the Swiss, not lacking in effectiveness. There is no one capable of playing like this, there is consensus, but, apparently, it is not enough to beat their two competitors. It is difficult to compare athletes from different times, but in the era of the Big Three yes there are direct confrontations, that dictate what they dictate. In any case, tastes are free. And the best thing about this debate is having been able to witness an unequaled rivalry.