Tiger Woods lets Roger Federer down

Sunday June 10, 2007 | 17:37:14 286 words, 4603 views

Watching the final round of the French Open today, in which Spaniard Rafael Nadal pretty much dominated World No. 1 Roger Federer, I kept wondering one thing: Where’s Tiger Woods?

I thought I had read somewhere that these guys had developed quite a close friendship (it’s lonely on top, isn’t it?) - each attending the other’s big moments, bonded in the unity of simply being the best in their respective sports.

Here in Germany, the television kept flashing to a rather unfortunate looking woman I took to be Federer’s significant other (I for one have no idea if Federer is married), but alas, no Tiger.

Too bad.

Because really only Tiger could understand what Federer was trying to do today in Paris: Win his fourth major tennis tournament in a row (he followed last year’s loss at the French Open with wins at Wimbledon, the U.S. Open and this year’s Australian Open).

In golf, we call that a Tiger Slam, when Woods won four straight majors during the 2000-01 season. Tennis was waiting to coin a similar, silly moniker for it, but it hasn’t been done on the men’s side since…actually, since I don’t know when (will a faithful reader help me out?).

So, Tiger was a no-show at the hallowed grounds of Roland Garros - no doubt instead deciding on a few practice rounds at Oakmont. The US Open, of course, is this week.

As for the Roger-Slam that wasn’t, Federer might be the best player in men’s tennis overall, but Nadal pretty much had his way with him on the red clay of Paris, as he did last year (he’s actually sent Federer packing in three straight French Opens). We’ll see how Tiger fairs this week.

6 comments

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: maria s [Visitor]

Athletes got to do what they do best...I don't think they get to where they are in the world relying on support or depending on who is on the sidelines watching them. Each got a fight to prepare and win. If there is friendship between them - they both understand that support does not always mean being present physically specially when travel with a pregnant wife is difficult if not impossible...think it's a shallow commentary - it's better to say 'pass' when you really have nothing to say.

Permalink 2007-06-11 @ 01:22

Comment from: Dave [Visitor]

You can't compare the difficulty of winning on clay in it's variance to anything in golf. It is essentially a different game, being played by players who are specialized for that sport. It would be like having a golfer going against people who only putt, and play miniature golf. The difficulty of winning all four in golf is the quantity, in tennis there is a qualitative difference between surfaces.

Permalink 2007-06-11 @ 02:22

Comment from: Borg Fan [Visitor]

Achieving the grand slam in either tennis
or golf is an achievement of a lifetime
or career. With respect to Dave, there's
a reason why the grand slam in golf hasn't
been achieved in decades (as it hasn't in
men's tennis). While not played on
unique surfaces, each of golf's majors
present contendors with a unique challenge. B
Be it length, rough, greens ... only one
who hasn't played the game could come up
with something as idiotic as the slam in
golf is about quantity. Roger and Tiger
are in the same league - they're on a
level far above their closest peers.
There's a reason why the Grand Slam is the
ultimate goal in both tennis and golf - it''s
the hardest, amost impossible to achieve for mere mortals. If I were a betting man, I would bet that both will achieve those goals within their careers.

Permalink 2007-06-11 @ 03:02

Comment from: Brandon [Member] · http://www.worldgolf.com/blogs/brandon.tucker

Dave,

Golf and tennis are essentially different games?

Permalink 2007-06-11 @ 07:57

Comment from: SEMI ATHLETE [Visitor] · http://www.google.com

Golf and pool.

Tennis and soccer.

Good comparisons.

Tiger in pool.

Roger with Real. Nadal at Real.

Golf till 74.
Soccer zidane 34.
Tennis sampras 31,agassi 36.

Chess and golf.
Alekhine and Capablanca.
Alekhine and tiger.
tiger petorsian.

Permalink 2007-06-13 @ 23:36

Comment from: andre [Visitor]

TIGER vs. ROGER - Both are great athletes with a lot of class. But if your talking about who is the more dominant RIGHT NOW? I would have to say Roger. Why? Golf and Tennis have 4 majors every year. Tiger won his first major in 1997. From 1997-2007 he has won 13 out of 44 majors. A wining percentage of 29.54% and Tiger is age 31. Roger won his first major in 2003. From 2003-2007 Roger has won 12 out of 20 majors a wining percentage of 60% and Roger is only age 26. Looking at the stats who would you bet on to win more majors in 2008? Tiger is more popular and better recognized in the U.S. because he is American and who else has a name like Tiger. Finally Tiger himself and Pete Sampras called Roger Federer the most dominant athlete on the planet. Who is gonna argue with those 2 athletes?

Permalink 2007-10-25 @ 09:46

Jeff White

by J.B. White

WorldGolf.com's Jeff White is based in Berlin, Germany, and writes on all matters of golf and travel, with a particular emphasis on the European golf scene, keeping you informed about what's happening on and off the golf course.