No matter who won the French Open men's final yesterday ... there was some history. Roger Federer was going for a non-calendar year Slam... something that has not been achieved in men's tennis in over 30 years... while Rafael Nadal was looking to win back-to-back French titles and extend his win-streak on clay to 60 matches.

Though you can't tell by their facial expressions, it was Rafa who took home the title (clue #1: a cup is always better than a plate). Roger pretty much would have cemented his place in tennis history with a win... but boy, the press can be rough. CNN/SI's Jon Wertheim usually gets it right, but I thought this was a bit harsh:
"Through the quirks of the rankings, Roger Federer actually increased his points lead by reaching the final of the French. Still -- his protestations to the contrary -- it's hard to imagine him leaving Paris a contented man. His oddly neutered play in the final provoked a vexing question: How do we anoint a guy the best ever when it's no longer clear he's even the best in his era?"
C'mon Jon, you know how the tennis rankings work?!? It is all based on defending points. Last year, Roger lost in the semifinals (to Nadal)... while Nadal won the tournament. So, Roger improved on his result from last year, while it was a "wash" for Nadal. So what quirks do you speak of?
And now with a loss in a Grand Slam final (something 97% of tennis players can only dream of), he is now no longer in the "best ever" race... but now, he's not even the best player out there today?!? HUH?!!
In the latest rankings, Federer has 7035 points to Nadal's 4545 (#3 Nalbandian is at 3360)... and Nadal has two more tournaments in his point total than Federer.
Now, I will certainly agree that Federer has a real problem with Nadal. If someone watched these two for the first time on Sunday, I fully admit one would wonder what all the fuss is about Federer. Nadal has won 6 of their 7 meetings... and probably should have won the one match that Roger (though on the other hand, there are a couple of matches in their that should have been won by Federer). So with that kind of record, it is hard to speak of this as a rivalry. But just because, Player B beats Player A doesn't make Player B the better (or best) player (this is the same faulty logic that was attempting to be used above re: the rankings).
But outside of Nadal, over the past two years Federer has an outrageous 95%+ win against all other players.. and he has not lost a match this year... again, outside of Nadal. While Nadal's dominance over Federer is wildly impressive, I still do not think it diminishes any of Roger's accomplishments. Heck, Federer's nearest "best ever" contemporary, Pete Sampras, never even made it to French final!
So, yes, the pause button was hit for "best ever" status for Federer on Sunday, but I certainly believe there is not an iota of doubt that he is the best player out there today.
And speaking of Nadal, is he tennis' version of Clark Kent/Superman, or what?
Check out this little photo montage:

Put him in street clothes and he's a long-lost member of the pre-pubescent boy-band Menudo... but get him in his Nike tennis attire and the 20-year old turns into a super-hero!!