Monte Carlo is well underway, and Fed Cup is right around the corner.  Both have made headlines over the course of the last week, but it is perhaps one off-court topic that keeps cropping up that provides the most food for thought.  For the second consecutive year, Roger Federer has announced he will skip the entire clay-court season, which includes three Masters and a major.  The media might very well be trying to stir the pot when asking players to give their opinions on the matter, but it does provide for an interesting debate as to whether this kind of a decision is acceptable.

It is easy to see the merits of the arguments on both sides of the equation.  It is bound to raise a few eyebrows when one of the top stars voluntarily opts to skip one of the most prestigious events on the calendar.  There is also the disappointment of the fans to consider.  But tennis is supposed to be bigger than any one player.  Although not the same circumstances, whether through injury, maternity leave, suspension, or some other unforeseen circumstances, stars have been forced to miss tournaments, including majors, and those tournaments still manage to provide enthralling and memorable tennis.  Most probably do not believe they ended up missing anything last clay season with Federer sitting out, and when the calendar shifts to the grass, they likely will not feel cheated at his absence this year either.

As the sport is greater than any one player, some perspective is also needed on Federer's decision to forgo the clay.  He is not the first player to opt to skip events.  In the early stages of their careers, both Venus and Serena Williams played less than the majority of the women on tour, and while they were criticized for it then, their decision is cited by many as the reason why they are still able to compete today.  It was also not all that long ago that many Spanish players willfully boycotted Wimbledon because they disagreed with the special formula for seeding that was different for any other tournament in the year.  Federer's decision to protect his body is an equally valid reason for opting to take off the next few months.

Some context is also needed when considering the man making this decision is Federer, someone who will always be more of an exception than the norm.  If he had yet to win a Masters on clay or Roland Garros, he probably would be more likely to compete this spring.  But he already has those titles under his belt.  In fact, he has achieved so much in his career and holds so many records that he has nothing left to prove.  Very few players will even come near that level of success, let alone match it, so they are less likely to be content to sit on the sidelines.  Furthermore, many of the players that were the initial contemporaries of Federer have long since retired.  That he is still competing at such a high level in the twilight of his career is and will remain an anomaly, so if that means he needs some extra time to recuperate, then so be it.

All things considered, Federer's decision to once again skip playing on the clay is not the huge deal some would like to make it out to be.  It is a shame for the tournament directors and fans at those events, and there is naturally going to be a defensive response when someone voluntarily chooses to not play one of the cornerstones on the calendar.  But Federer is one man, and his absence does not diminish the clay season.  It will still continue in the weeks to come, other top stars and Cinderella stories will capture fans' hearts, the grass court season will come to follow, and Federer's decision to skip the clay will once again be a mere blip on the season as a whole.  So, it is time to move away from the debate as to whether Federer has made a valid decision and instead enjoy what is sure to be some exciting clay-court tennis in the months to come.