After demolishing Rafael Nadal even worse than Jo-Willifree Tsonga demolished him, I’m going to move on to a more positive note – one in which I drool over the greatness of Roger Federer – the greatest player of all time. I remember watching Federer play at the U.S. Open back in 2001, a time I remember well because after I flew home, I realized that had I left two weeks later, I might’ve been on a plane that ended up inside the World Trade Center. It was the third round on Armstrong Court and there were only a few people scattered about watching some skinny little Swiss player with long hair and, supposedly, a bit of potential. The scouting report on him was that he had “some” talent but lacked focus and consistently got down on himself. Watching him play, I couldn’t agree more. After every miss his eyes would shoot down to the ground in disappointment. He was, quite simply, a moper. He moped around the court like a big baby. The guy had a sweet backhand but just about nothing else. After he lost, I wrote him off.
You see, there’s more to this story than what’s on the surface. Here I am, pronouncing this guy the greatest player in history, and yet seven years ago I tabbed him as a loser. What changed? Well, besides 12 Grand Slams? Federer won. That’s what changed. And I know that seems simplistic but it’s more complicated than you think. In a sport where the top 200 players all have talent, the only thing that separates them is their brain. Do they have confidence? Do they believe they can win? I remember back in the juniors when I encountered a particular bad stretch where I just wasn’t getting better. It was very frustrating. And then I played a tournament where I took out the number 1 seed in the first round. Now it was well known that he wasn’t feeling well. He was also not playing very well. But after that win, I gained so much confidence that I *believed* I could win every match. I hadn’t practiced any more that month than I had the previous month. For all intents and purposes I was the exact same player. And yet I started beating guys than just a few weeks ago I was losing to. Belief. Confidence. That’s what happened to Federer. He pulled off a few good wins and he started to believe.
Let’s say Federer had lost those “turning point” matches and continued to mope around, thinking to himself, “This always happens to me. I’m not good enough.” He may have never won a Grand Slam. I know that seems ludicrous, but there are guys out there with loads of talent who just can’t find their way to the top. It’s because they don’t believe - or never got that win. If talent were all you needed, Fernando Gonzalez would be number one right now. Wait a minute, doesn’t that go against my statement a few days earlier where I said talent trumps all? Hmm, I guess I’m retracting that. BLOG RETRACT! ---- BRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOPPPPP!!!! Talent only trumps all if you have the brain to back it up.
Now the thing I like best about Federer is that he used to be a laughingstock. He used to be that kid in group everybody made fun of. He was a technique-fiend, as mechanical as they get. Whenever he missed a shot, he’d put on a little off-Broadway play where he pretended to do the same shot over and over again, frequently five or six times. This is the tennis equivalent of finding the asthma-toting pocket-protector-displaying stuttering freshman in an empty locker room. Heck, I probably would’ve made fun of him too. Federer was a dork. He wasn’t popular. Nobody was in awe of him. He was just some nerdy kid who wanted everything to be perfect, regardless of the consequences.
Well, look who's laughing now. All those practice swings resulted in a man who, arguably, has the best form ever (on every single stroke). The funny thing is, you can still see Federer keeping his head down and repeating misses with practice strokes, just like he's always done. I used to believe that stroke technique didn’t matter. That everybody develops their own little quirks but if they had talent, they made it work. Federer proves that notion wrong. If you do stick with the “right” way, it pays off. Federer’s swings are as sweet as candy.
But is Federer really the greatest ever? Opponents will claim that he has no competition. McEnroe had Borg. Agassi had Sampras. Who does Federer have? Well, if you read my piece on Nadal, you know I won’t say him. And to a certain degree, they’re right. Federer has no real competition. BUT… I would argue that the reason he has no competition, is because he is so head and shoulders above everyone else. If Federer was anything less – if he actually had a weakness – then guys like Roddick and Nadal and Dava-Stealo would all be more competitive against him and he *would* have competition. But he’s just so mind-blowingly great that even the best of the rest pale in comparison.
Now when you start getting into the argument of how Federer would’ve done against Agassi or Sampras in their prime, that’s when the conversation gets a little sticky. It’s very difficult to compare athletes of different eras. With technology and strength seemingly on an annual upswing (take Roddick’s body versus McEnroe’s body during his playing days for example), it really is like comparing golf balls to tennis balls. Practice time alone has tripled from 20 years ago. I mean Yannick Noah used to smoke a cigarette during changeovers for God’s sake! But if you can assume that had McEnroe played in this age, he would have bulked up just like today’s players, or had Federer played back then, his practice routine would’ve been a third of what it is now, then you can start to formulate some theoretical matches between the players. However the thing that works against the “Federer has no competition” opponents, is the very argument itself.
The reason why it’s so rare to find players who are THAT much better than everyone else, is because you tend to be only as good as you need to be. If every player is an 8, well then the number 1 player in the world only needs to be a 9 to beat them. If all of the players were 5s, then you’d only need to be a six. In Federer’s instance – every player is an 8, and he has managed to become a 12. That makes me believe that if Federer had some “real” competition, he’d be even better. Federer has not reached his ceiling by any means. The scary thing is that Agassi and Sampras might not be able to challenge him at all. They might actually - gasp - make him even better. Scary, considering how amazing Federer already is.
Let’s face it though. When Sampras was serving like a madman and Agassi was pounding the ball like God, Federer would've had to play. They need to do that virtual computer matchup thing they did in Rocky Balboa to prove my case. But in the end, Federer is so technically sound, so consistent, so confident, no computer program would be able to quantify how dominant he would be. -- On a side note, I hold a very controversial view on Agassi and Federer's final match together (in the final of the U.S. Open). I believe that it being (at the time) Agassi's final match, Federer didn't want to embarrass him in front of his home country on such a big stage. I believe he gave the hobbling Agassi a set and kept it close on purpose. There were simply too many easy shots that Federer never misses. Which in my eyes makes Federer even better. He's not only awesome, he's nice. The nerdy kid from Switzerland never left him. -- If Federer is indeed the greatest player ever (and yes - on nostalgic days I do occasionally bestow this title on Agassi), he's the perfect player to hold that title. If I were forced to draw a picture that looked most like a tennis player is supposed to look, it would probably end up looking a lot like Federer.
So before everyone thinks all I do is hate on people (I really do hate Nadal though), this article should give you pause. Viva la Federer. And if you want to be involved in this conversation some day, then stop reading this blog and GO OUT AND HIT!
No comments:
Post a Comment