Due to unforseen events I was unable to witness one of the great Australian Open finals of the modern era. But upon reflection having seen many highlights, and many reports, the themes seem very similar to the Wimbledon final of 2008. Nadal and Federer have now forged a rivalry to match any in the history of tennis, yet the results are lopsided. Does this undermine claims of Federer being the best of all-time? This was a piece i wrote after the Wimbledon final last year.
I felt privileged to have witnessed such an extraordinary Wimbledon final. Rafael Nadal is such a natural foe for Roger Federer that he may indeed be haunted for a great while yet. Federer made 52 unforced errors to Nadal's 27. But unlike every other opponent Federer plays he feels inferred pressure against the Majorcan. He feels he needs to make more of the half openings and the short balls offered because Nadal retrieves more balls than anyone else, in a similar vein to the way Hewitt used to succeed against a young Swiss maestro. Except Nadal returns with interest, and the pressure to put him away grows with every fizzing forehand that climbs steeply off the baseline. Nadal is almost tennis' version of the anti-Christ. Everything about him is the complete opposite to the messiah, Roger Federer. Federer floats across the court as if he is playing on velvet. Nadal digs in, churning up the court like a plough. Federer's racquet is like a wand. He uses it elegantly to produce one remarkable shot after another. Nadal wields his like an Excalibur, biceps bulging as he strikes with power and vigour, wearing down his opponent with every blow. Even in appearance they differ. Federer dressed impeccably like a king in gold trim - he barely raises a sweat - whilst Nadal sweats profusely, his muscle shirt clings to his bronzed, built body whilst his white shoes turn grey following two weeks of digging with his feet. As it stands now Nadal has Federer's measure. As little as 12 months ago it seemed Federer was destined be crowned the greatest of all time. He needed to simply surpass Sampras' Grand-Slam tally of 14, a mere formality, and claim a French Open title, a difficult yet still feasible proposition.
Now, at 26, he may not even be crowned the best of 2008. Illness struck him down in Melbourne when a pretender to the crown, Novak Djokovic, claimed his scalp in his 16th consecutive Grand-Slam semi-final. At the 2006 and 2007 French Open’s he was plagued by missed opportunities, losing both finals in four tough sets to Nadal. In 2008 he was crushed in straight sets which led to doubts over his place in tennis history.
Federer claimed these doubts were unfounded. Given his record it is hard to argue with him. Perhaps we had been hasty. But now having relinquished his crown at Wimbledon he may well be dethroned as the world’s number one player. At 26, seemingly in his prime, if he is not number one in 2008, how can he be the greatest of all time?
It is also hard to see him reclaiming his mantle as the world’s best. An ambitious claim I know, but there are elements to Roger Federer that set him apart from those sportsmen in this generation who are creating history that may never be eclipsed. There is an ego to Roger Federer. When you compare to the likes of Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, and Michael Phelps this is not an anomaly. By all accounts Federer is a lovely man. Quiet and humble. But by ego I mean he is stubborn in his ways. He was a prodigy. A natural precocious talent so far better than his rivals that he needed only believe in his abilities to become a world beater. He did this the day he beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2002. But since then he has played the same way against every opponent. He toys with opponents from the baseline. He plays every shot with flair and class and he plays on his terms. He is concerned not about winning so much as the manner in which he wins. He needs to look effortless. His pre-match entry and garb is fit for a king. He is a fashion icon and enjoys the finer things in life.
This is far from a criticism. He is well within his rights to conduct himself in this manner. However his stubbornness is his weakness. It has cost him the chance to succeed at Roland Garros. He refuses to change his game to compete with the bullishness of Nadal. He has always been better than his opponents from the baseline. But he is not better than Nadal on clay. Federer’s refusal to shelve his single-handed backhand that concedes so many unforced errors on clay lost him two French Open finals. He is a superior serve and volleyer to Nadal but refused to mix it up on clay. He for so long competed without a coach claiming he didn’t need one. It seemed like he didn’t. Then when he employed Tony Roche to try and overcome his only hurdle to immortality, it seems he did not heed Roche’s advice.
Federer’s physique poses another question mark. Nadal has changed the boundaries. Federer was never fitter than Lleyton Hewitt but he didn’t need to be. He was just better. Now Nadal is not only as fit as Hewitt he is stronger and more powerful. He has taken the game to another level. The likes of Djokovic and Murray have focussed their attention to strength and conditioning to compete with Nadal. Federer looks like he has never seen the inside of a gym. This is undoubtedly not the case. But he has never had to. Things change.
And Federer will have to adapt to climb to the next echelon. The question will be whether his ego allows it. His friend Tiger Woods did it. At 24 he systematically reshaped the world of golf. He achieved a feat which may never be emulated again. He won four consecutive Major championships, the first two in a manner that seemed unfathomable, winning the US Open by 15 strokes and the British Open by eight.
By the middle of 2002, Woods had claimed eight major championships at the age of just 26. At the same age, his lure, Jack Nicklaus had claimed six major titles. Woods then went 24 months without winning a major. In that time he remodelled his swing and changed his physique in order avoid injury curtailing his long term quest. It seemed an unusual thing to do. Now, despite his current injury, he stands on the verge of becoming the greatest of all time. At 32 Woods has 14 majors, whilst Nicklaus at the same age had 11. But more than that he has changed his approach to the game. As a young man dominating golf he overpowered golf courses to bring fields to their knees. He had one way of playing and one way only. In 2006, in his British Open victory at Hoylake, he did not use his driver for the entire tournament. Such is Tiger’s will, it is no longer a case of playing to entertain he simply plays to win.
Likewise, Lance Armstrong went from a bullish prodigy who stubbornly won a World Championship at 21 in his own “un-coached style”, to a meticulous calculator who went to the enth degree in his preparations to beat his rivals on seven consecutive occasions to win, arguably the world’s most gruelling sporting event, the Tour de France.
Federer’s record on pure ability alone is extraordinary, but if he wishes to exorcise the demons of Roland Garros and eclipse Sampras’ mark without the same asterisk that haunts Pistol Pete, he will need to check his ego at the door and adapt to changes required to beat his anti-Christ Nadal. Otherwise rather than be known as the best ever, he will remain the best never.
No comments:
Post a Comment