Both players have been around in my life as a sports fan for a very, very long time. Both broke out in 2001, Federer in beating Sampras at Wimbledon, and Pujols having one of the great rookie seasons ever. Federer took a bit longer to fully form - only winning his first major in 2003, but soon enough the by the mid-2000s, each were dominating their respective fields, and each were sworn sports enemies of mine. The enmity was driven more from fear and astonishment than hate (unlike say a certain skeleton-like QB). I feared both because I was in awe of both. Federer was too perfect. Pujols much the same.
They both played roles in some of the most memorable memories of that decade, from Federer's umpteen wins, and finally getting toppled by Rafa at Wimbledon, to Pujols hitting .450 (my math may be a bit off) against the Astros, culminating in the most beautifully horrible home run ever hit to win Game 5 of hte NLCS in 2005. As the page turned over to 2010, and again I started this blog, things changed. They were replaced by others - the focus of my tennis rivalry energy shifting from Fed to Novak. Pujols changed teams, and spent a decade languishing in Anaheim. Federer remained a top player, and even won four more slams, but he also spent large swaths of the 2010s not a serious threat to Nadal, and a couterbalance against Novak.
It is sad in a way it took them not being so great for me to finally appreciate their greatness. I wrote a piece in 2011 saying how I've come to like Roger Federer, but even that was largely due to him beating Novak in the 2011 French Open. It really crested later in the decade, as I grew older myself and grew to better appreciate not only him but the way his rivalry with my favorite evolved. It became hard to really hate Federer, when the guy I'm backing unabashedly loves him. The Nadal v Federer rivalry is one of the most beautiful things in sports history, truly.
For Pujols, it was easy to turn around on him because he was not a threat. He was a sad imitation of what was the greatest player (bar Bonds) I've ever seen. Pujols from 2001 - 2011 was unconsciably good. For years we've heard about how unparalleled Mike Trout has been to start his career. Pujols was as good if not better. Granted, some of that is driven by Trout's injury issues these last few years, and the 2020 Covid season, but Pujols had a better start to his career than even Trout. His worst year from 2001 - 2010 was either his second season where he slashed .314/.394/.561 or in 2007 when he slashed .327/,429/.568. These are not real things.
But then his body broke down, his historic bat speed slowed. His big frame did not age well. But seeing Pujols this year, back in St. Louis, back in front of the fans I wish he never left, we saw something truly beautiful. Sure, his performance this year has been aided by feasting on lefties, while sitting out a lot against righties. But weirdly throughout his whole Anaheim tenure he was bad against both, so this really is just a fundamental change in his play back to something resembling Albert the Great. Made even better by the fact #700 came against a righty hanging slider.
Time does not only heal all wounds, but makes us appreciate things. I appreciate the fact that I got to watch Roger Federer (and of course appreciate that more often than not my favorite player got hte better of him). I appreciate the fact that I got to witness Albert Pujols, even if one of the most prominent memories will be him ripping my heart out. I appreciate I was there to see him hit 700. Maybe it is just a factor of aging that you start appreciating these elements of the games so much more.
