INDIAN WELLS, Calif. - There was clarification along with advancement. Roger Federer had no problems with his opponent in the BNP Paribas Open, Juan Ignacio Chela. "I'm happy it went so well,'' said Federer.

What didn't go well was that Wimbledon quarterfinal last summer.

Federer arguably is the finest men's tennis player of all time. When one tosses in names such as Bill Tilden, John Newcombe, Rod Laver, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras and now Rafael Nadal, that is an accolade not easily awarded, but in Federer's case appreciably accepted.

What Federer found unacceptable, or more accurately unpalatable, was losing to Tomas Berdych at Wimbledon. It was the first time in eight years Roger didn't reach at least the semifinals of a tournament he had won six of those years.

He blamed a leg injury, mentioned a sore back. "When I did have my chances I played poorly,'' said Federer that day. "If I'm healthy, I can handle those guys.''

Such an explanation, bordering on an excuse, gained Federer numerous rips in the media, which long had fawned over him.

So, after dispatching Chela, 6-0, 6-2, in a tidy 58 minutes on a glorious 88-degree Tuesday afternoon in the California desert - who said Roger's finished? - Federer went back to last July and Wimbledon.

Why not? There was nothing of consequence out of the Chela match. Just quick point after quick point.

"I usually don't talk about injuries,'' explained Federer, alluding to the Berdych loss. "I just felt it was really - how do you say it? - not allowing me to play at 100 percent. ... It wasn't a big excuse. It was just a fact. It depends on how you portray your injury or how the match turned out to be.''

It turned out to be an upset, and that very much upset Federer, who now, removed from the immediate disappointment, could comprehend how he was judged.

"It always leaves a sour taste,'' he conceded. "I can see that especially some journalists will find something. That's the way it goes, unfortunately. But I never said anything different than Berdych beat me fair and square.''

On the contrary. What Federer said was, "When you can't play freely, that's the kind of performance you get. I definitely gave away this match."

And young Berdych definitely took it.

Federer will be 30 in August, the tipping point in age for most tennis stars. He looked brilliant against Chela, but Chela is ranked 32nd. It's the top-ranked Rafael Nadal and third-ranked Novak Djokovic whom Federer has struggled to defeat the last months.

They've won Grand Slams. After his victory in the 2010 Australian, he has not, going four straight tournaments with nothing better than a place in the semis.

Tennis is a sport of the young. Virtually every time you blink there's another 18- or 19-year-old moving on to the tour, someone whose racket and feet move the way yours used to do, whose shots are just millimeters out of your reach as not that long ago yours were out of the reach of others.

Federer is No. 2 in the rankings, and he can crush the Chelas of the world, but does it matter? When you've reached the top, won 16 Grand Slams, everything else would seem to be Podunk, even if he denies that.

"You always have to look at the season as a whole,'' was the Federer assessment. "But for me, sure, it's disappointing losing in the quarters of Slams. Sometimes you face good guys, and they play better than you, and you have to accept it.

"I always said if I would have had a few bad Grand Slams in my (resume), for the year, that would hurt more. But if I keep making quarters and semis at least, you know, I'm doing the right things and I'm still kind of close to winning. ... It's unfair to judge me only on only Grand Slams or just me only on other tournaments. You have to look at the big picture. Otherwise, why play 20 tournaments a year?''

A legitimate question. But why then does tennis put so much emphasis on the Slams? For the same reason golf puts so much emphasis on the majors, the NFL on the Super Bowl, and Major League Baseball on the World Series.

Those events identify a champion; determine who can handle the pressure and heat, who can perform on the biggest stage. There's a difference between a baseball game in March and one in October; a difference between a tennis match at Indian Wells and one at Wimbledon.

Federer knows that. He's won both places and virtually everywhere else. He's not at the end, but he's far from the starting line. Already this year he failed to reach the finals of the Australian Open.

The big picture is if Roger Federer doesn't get a one more big victory this year, a win at Wimbledon or the U.S. Open, he may never get it.