Roger in need of a rival

UMPIRE'S POST

The flip side of Federer's dominance is that there is no one to provide a context to his wins.

Roger Federer was on his feet, chatting with Fernando Gonzalez. The two had just finished playing the Australian Open final. Federer was not bouncing on his feet, but appeared to be, and looked good for another match. Gonzalez sat in a heap in his chair, slumped on the right armrest. The pictures, beamed on television, spoke a hundred thousand words, all of which were about the gap between Federer and whoever he'd beat in the tournament finals.

At 25, Federer, with last Sunday's victory in Australia, has become the fastest to win 10 Grand Slams, taking only 43 months since his first, the 2003 Wimbledon, to get there. The next fastest, Roy Emerson, took 60. Federer has become the first man since Bjorn Borg in 1980 to win a slam without losing a set.

The odds against him winning all four this year have shortened to just 3/1. He has reached the final of the last seven majors, winning six. Peter Sampras's record of 14 slams may well fall next year. Rod Laver says the way to beat Federer is to hit him on the head with a racket.

But statistics, while extremely important, need to be put in a context. Sampras, despite winning the largest number of Grand Slams, is not acknowledged as the best ever. Laver, who won 11 and missed playing in about 20 for turning professional, often is. Andre Agassi, who won only eight, ranks among the finest for being one of only four men to win all four in their careers.

Borg never won the US Open or Australian, but is still thought of by many as the best. By the time he is done playing, Federer will have the most awesome record. If only he could also have a worthy rival. Someone with whom he would play memorable matches.

Someone who would test him, push him to greater heights. Someone who would stand up to him and put his wins in context, not sit heaped in a chair.

Borg achieved greatness when McEnroe pushed him to it. Sampras's esteem rose when a rejuvenated Agassi became a worthy rival to him. Jimmy Connors, Borg, Ivan Lendl and McEnroe made one another great. As did Laver, Emerson and Ken Rosewall.

Rafael Nadal, though he reached the last Wimbledon final, is a major force on clay alone. Andy Roddick, who dared to suggest before his semi-final against Federer that the world had closed in on the Swiss, was pulverised when play began.

That's where Federer will most miss the demise of the serve-and-volley exponent. Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg or Sampras "" three of the finest of this genre "" would have added a new dimension to his game. Sampras sums it up thus: "If I was playing, I'd be licking my chops on grass."