Roger Federer, Again

[The again is because I wrote a previous piece on Roger on September 27, 2008. Perhaps, the greatest article ever written on a tennis celebrity–maybe even on tennis itself–was "Roger Federer As Religious Experience," written in 2006, and which can be easily found by Googling the title. It was written by the distinguished novelist and writer, David Foster Wallace (known especially for his novel, "Infinite Jest"), who committed suicide on September 12, 2008 at the age of 46.]

Federer won the French Open about a month ago, after Nadal, the defending champion and king of clay, was eliminated in an earlier round by Robin Soderling. Federer thus became the only active player to have won all four of the Grand Slams, the last being Andre Agassi. Then, with Nadal, unable to defend his title at Wimbledon, because of a knee problem, Federer won back his title, which he had held for five straight years, until his defeat by Nadal a year ago, and in so doing restored his number one ranking. In winning Wimbledon, he now has won the most Grand Slams ever, topping Pete Sampras by one, 15 to 14.

Question 1: Is Roger Federer the greatest player in tennis history? I think that Rod Laver, who might also have a claim, has it right–he was at Wimbledon watching the final, along with Sampras and Borg. You simply can’t look at tennis this way. The rackets are completely different. The competition is much greater now than then, in terms of the numbers of fit athletes who take up the sport–partly or mostly because the financial payoff is greater. And of course, in Laver’s day, you could not play in the Slams after you turned professional. He won all four in the same year, when he was an amateur, and then did it again, after the Open Era began (open to all, whether amateur or professional), an absolutely stunning achievement. Laver thinks you should simply judge whether a player is the best of his (or her) era. Had he been allowed to participate, he surely would have won many more slams than Roger has won so far, but I doubt he would be winning many of them now, assuming he was 25, since he is shorter, and the competition, as mentioned, is much fiercer.

Question 2: Would Nadal have beaten Federer at either the French or Wimbledon, had he not been injured? Federer beat Nadal, in straight sets, at a warm-up for the French, a clay tournament in Madrid. Was it due to Nadal’s weariness or incipient knee problems or was it due to sharper play by Federer? Of course we will never know. But after a bout with mononucleosis, followed by a back injury which hampered Roger during much of 2008 and the early months of this year, Roger seems to be playing at a higher level than he was a year ago. In the taut match with Andy Roddick–the Wimbledon final–Roger hit an amazing number of aces–50, far exceeding the number of aces hit by Roddick (27), who many think has one of, if not the best, serves in men’s tennis and surely one of the fastest. If I recall, he holds the record for the fastest serve ever made. It’s hard to think that Roger could have beaten a healthy Nadal on clay, given the beating he took last year, but he has beaten him before on clay and, with Federer, the impossible is always possible.

Comment 1. On Roger: why do I like him so? I can’t answer this. Maybe it’s the way he seems to float around the court–but I am not a fan of ballet dancing–but then again it’s delightful to watch. Maybe it’s the sensational shots he often makes, which others do as well, but not as often. It’s like watching a relatively normal looking guy–he doesn’t have Nadal’s muscles; he doesn’t have Ivo Karlovich’s height–6'10'’ or is anyway near that. He looks like a normal guy with super-abnormal talent, that gives a pleasure I can’t describe or even figure out. Moreover, he is (recently) married to his long-term girl-friend, a nice-looking woman, who is due to give birth to their child shortly, but she is not a beauty queen like Sampras’ wife or Roddick’s wife. I like this. But maybe more important, in interviews he comes over as a real person. This is not easy as tennis players are asked dumb questions. But Roger’s answers are invariably thoughtful and honest–no false modesty and of course, no braggadocio. Occasionally, I am moderately put off by what he wears, including the jacket he put on after his Wimbledon win, which had on it, the number 15 (the number of slams won, the last, minutes before–I assume he had two jackets). But part of me believes he wears what he does because he thinks it is appropriate to dress up for Wimbledon, given its traditions, and who am I to disagree?

Comment 2–on others. If Federer had to lose, there is no one I would rather he lose to than Andy Roddick, who I believe is a straight shooter, with a nice sense of humor. It is exciting that taking off about 20 pounds has made him into a better competitor and almost enabled him to win the Wimbledon final. He lost it for three reasons: (1) having won the first set, Roddick had set point on his serve in the 2nd set tie-break and Federer was able to get to a ball and hit his forehand down the line (to the ad court), not quite a lob, but a high hit. On television, it appeared that Roddick simply mishit the backhand volley, or perhaps one might refer to it as a backhand overhead, and instead of landing almost anywhere in the open (ad) court where it would have been a winner, since Federer was off the court on the deuce side, it landed about a foot or two wide. But later commentary, by Roddick himself, indicated that it was unclear whether the ball Federer hit was going wide, causing hesitation on Andy’s part, and then Roddick indicated he thought the (modest) wind was possibly bringing it in, forcing him to make a hasty, last minute decision to go for the shot. And these circumstances led him to mishit the ball. That he then lost the next point on his serve may have been psychological. Federer then won the set when he held his serve on the following point, winning 8-6.

At this point, I thought Roddick had had it. But he played a good third set and only lost it in a tie-break. He followed this up with a service break of Roger, winning, therefore, the 4th set. As we entered the fifth and final set, Federer had been unable to break Roddick’s serve and he would need to do this to win, since at Wimbledon there are no tie-breaks in the final fifth set. (2) At 8-8, Federer serving, he fell behind 15-40. Losing one of the next two points would give Roddick a golden opportunity to serve out the match. Instead, Federer served an ace and saved the game with a winning forehand volley. (3) At 14-13, Federer ahead, my spouse said she thought Roddick was weakening and was going to be broken, ending the match. He wasn’t. But at 15-14, he was. She detected either fatigue or nerves or maybe it was simply intuition.

One of the minor annoyances of TV is that Federer won when Roddick failed to hit properly a forehand. What TV showed is Roger leaping in happiness. And they showed it over and over again, as did the newspapers. What they didn’t show is what happened to Roddick’s shot. I think he hit it into the net, but I’m not sure. Nor can I remember whether it was a forced error, whatever that ultimately means, or an unforced error.

Most of my friends, with one exception, wanted Roddick to win Wimbledon and, having lost this tournament, win the US Open in September. Here is what I want: Roger should win the US Open, the end-of-the-year tournament, then win all four slams in 2010 and then I’ll hope for a Roddick victory. Incidentally, far more astounding than winning more slams than anyone else is Federer’s being in the semis or finals of consecutive slams for a record 21 times in a row, with Lendl second, with 10! And he did this while still recovering from mono, which helped cause him to lose the semi in Australia, last year. He was willing to give it a try, which Nadal obviously did not want to do, at Wimbledon, even though he was the defending champion.

Comment 3–Rafael Nadal. First, off the court, he seems like a mild-mannered young man. Actually, to me, he seems artificially over-modest. (I think the NY Times article on Nadal impressed me in one way–Uncle Tony (his coach) seems like a very decent, thoughtful man.)
On the court is something else. At first, Nadal often used to be near the net, after winning a point, either because he made a winner or his opponent missed (or he forced him to miss), and he would go into an in-your-face fist thump (or double or triple fist thump). I thought this was not only unsportsmanlike, but very alienating, especially since he was apparently told not to do this to Roger and didn’t.

Of recent, he doesn’t do this anymore or rather he does his fist-thumping from the back of the court and does it without staring at his opponent. Good–an improvement. But he glares, glowers and scowls constantly. I find it most off-putting. Contrast this with an incident Federer had with Tommy Haas, an excellent German player who was probably one point away from eliminating Federer in the French Open, but for a super backhand winner that landed an inch or two from the back and side lines, saving Roger the game. Otherwise, Haas would have served for the match.

Now, it happens that Roger was playing Haas in the semi’s at Wimbledon and the week before they had been practicing together. One assumes they are friends. After a Federer drop shot, Haas hits a drop shot back that falls about 5 feet from the net, touching the side line. But Federer is there. Haas, standing near the net, raises his racket and waves it back and forth, perhaps to better be able to hit a lob if Federer chooses to do this, but most likely to distract him. In fact, Federer should have been awarded the point by the referee, but wasn’t. Instead, he hit a cross court shot that went out by a foot. Haas’s point. Haas and Federer remain at the net and joke a bit about what happened, at least their smiles indicate this. It was 40-0, Federer serving, so now it was 40-15. Federer lost the next point, but won the next point at 40-30 to win the game.

Have I ever seen Nadal show any indication that he is other than a robot, a very good one, capable of outstanding shots, both defensively and offensively. And I’m ready to believe that if injuries don’t destroy his career, he will turn out to be one of the greatest players of this era, perhaps even surpassing Federer, though I doubt it. But all he does on the court is run, hit and glare. Every point he loses results in a glare, as though he is Mr Perfection, even glaring or glowering when there are great, winning shots by his opponents. Give me a Roddick or Blake, who when they lose a point, you see frustration or, sometimes, even admiration for the shots made by their opponents. I think Federer appears to accept that his opponents can occasionally outplay him and certainly outplay him on a given point. No glares or glowers. Maybe a better word to describe Nadal is scowl–"to contract the brows in a sullen, displeased or angry manner" or "have a gloomy or threatening look." I’d say threatening, not gloomy. Why do people like him so? No me.