Tiger Woods lets Roger Federer down
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.
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.
|« Colin Montgomerie will win 2007 U.S. Open||Michelle Wie simply pulled a Billy Casper at Ginn Tribute »|
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.
Golf and tennis are essentially different games?
Comments are closed for this post.