|
| Vijay Amritraj |
Chennai: At a time when the tennis world is enamoured by the ruthlessly graceful Roger Federer, it’s only natural to put his talent in perspective by comparing him with the game’s all-time greats. And who better than Vijay Amritraj to talk about it.
When The Telegraph requested him to pick the top-five men he has played against or seen, the iconic Amritraj didn’t take long putting forward his list. “It will be Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, with Pete Sampras and Roger Federer at joint-fifth,” Amritraj said during a 15-minute chat at the Nungambakkam Stadium.
Following are excerpts from the interview
On the reasons of his choice (in order of preference)
LAVER: He stands out all by himself. He’s the only one to have won a calendar Grand Slam not once but twice. He was just too good. I have played against him, so I know what he was capable of. He would have been just as successful had he been born 30 years later.
BORG: His feat of winning Wimbledon and the French Open so many times in the space of a month was quite amazing. Winning on clay came more naturally to him, but his six triumphs at the grasscourt Grand Slam... Mind you, he never played a warm-up tournament on grass prior to Wimbledon. You have also got to remember that most of the players of his time were good grasscourt players... He beat players who were better than him on that surface time and time again.
CONNORS: He was the toughest fighter, fiercest competitor you could come across on the other side of the net. I played him many times, winning some and losing some, but not in a single match did I find him giving less than 110 per cent. He won over 100 titles, much more than anyone else. His other great achievement was winning the US Open on three different surfaces.
McENROE: He is the second-most talented man (after Illie Nastase) to have played tennis. His versatility and genius made him one of a kind. He won 77 singles and 78 doubles crowns. That’s incredible. He is the only man to have been ranked world No. 1 in both singles and doubles at the same time.
SAMPRAS & FEDERER: There’s little to choose between them. There’s no question over the consistency with which Sampras won the big tournaments
winning 14 of them is no joke. Federer has got nine and has been top of the heap in the last two-three years, so you can’t ignore him. Both have the same flaw, the French Open is missing from their collection.
On those who missed out narrowly
Quite a few. Roy Emerson, Ken Rosewall, Andre Agassi.
On why he doesn’t agree with several experts that Federer is already up there with the very best
I can only talk from my viewpoint. He’s only 25... I think that’s too young an age to judge greatness. Yes, he has achieved a lot already, but there’s a long way to go for him. We have to see how long he can stay motivated, focussed and hungry. I’ll wait till he’s 30 before making a final judgement.
On how difficult it is to compare players of different eras and generations
It’s never easy to make comparisons, especially because of the wide-ranging changes the game has seen over the years. My selection is based on one simple premise: greatness will show up in any generation. Somebody who has that kind of talent will excel any time with whatever attributes he has been blessed with.
Finally on the most significant changes that have made tennis different from what it was during his playing days
Well, there’s no doubt that the game has changed dramatically from my time. Equipment, like the rackets, are much better now. There has been a conscious effort to make the courts slower. The grasscourts at Wimbledon, for instance, are closer to claycourts now. The grass texture is different from what it was till the early nineties. It was after the Edberg-Becker era that the authorities dug up the surface and grew a different kind of grass. That’s why you find so few players following the serve to the net. A Pat Cash wouldn’t have won Wimbledon now. And a Lleyton Hewitt wouldn’t have won it in my time.
| 
