Will Roger Federer Bounce Back And The Myth of Age 30?

This Article was first published on 10sballs.com as : 

http://www.10sballs.com/2011/08/10/will-roger-federer-bounce-back-and-the-myth-of-age-30/

Written by: ApekshaHA on 10th August 2011

A friend of mine, who was getting married, told me an interesting fact recently:  for bachelors, marriage can be looked at in two ways: The end of journey or start of a new journey. As Federer enters the 30’s club, it’s the same case for him. For people, it might seem as an end of an era when he lost in Wimbledon Quarter Finals; but for me, it’s the start of a new journey for him. Why? Read on to know the reason:

Life is a sinusoidal curve with ups and downs, highs and lows ready to take us into new paths in life. Historically, there was a time when people thought that  Bjorn Borg would go down in the history as the greatest ever. Then Pete Sampras emerged and dominated Tennis during 1990′s. When he retired, many regarded him as the greatest. But he was surpassed by Federer in 8 years’ time. He, not only surpassed Sampras in Grand Slam titles but is also considered, by many, the one who changed the face of tennis with his charming personality. Just when Federer was thought of as invincible, Nadal came knocking on the door with a claim to the throne; and when Nadal was starting to establish his credibility on all type of courts, though too early to say, we might have another claim on the throne in future-Novak Djokovic – Who Knows?

The point here is that no one is invincible in his/her life. If there is a high in your life, you will also experience the opposite in your career. And that’s the fact of life. So the biggest question is will Federer be back in his career?

Yes. Every good player has a high and which is invariably followed by a low as he/she advances in his/her career. The difference between good and great is the ability to bounce back from this dirt. It’s not the age that matters, what matters is the person’s sheer will and determination to continue to move forward. Here are a few examples from history:

1) Rod Laver won 4 Grand Slams after the age of 30.

2) Pete Sampras (seeded 17th at that time) surprised everyone when he won his 14th Grand Slam at the age of 31.

3) Not to mention Ken Rosewall, arguably amongst the 5 greatest players of all time, won his last Grand Slam title at the age of 37 and after two years reached the Wimbledon Finals.

4) And there are so many others – Jimmy Connors who won US open at the age of 31, Andre Agassi who won Australian Open at the age of 32 etc.

If you look at the greats of the game, they had competition from the likes of John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Jim Courier etc. during their time, but they managed to overcome all the odds successfully.

The simple rationale is – If you think you can, you will.

“I’ve won so much that you feel like if you put yourself in the right position and you do all the right things you’ll definitely get a shot of winning big tournaments.”

“My planning has always been long term. I’m looking forward to how much more I can achieve from this point on.” – Federer.

Here is a champion who has won more Grand Slams than anyone in history. He still believes in himself and knows that he can go that extra mile. For some, it might be the end of his journey but as I see it, it’s the start of a new chapter in his life. A chapter that he wants to write down in the history book as a successful one.   He has broken so many records; I won’t be surprised if he goes on to achieve the milestone of winning multiple Grand Slams after the age of 30.

So many greats of the tennis world have done it before, so can Federer!

For me there is no reason at all for Federer fans to panic or think that his era is over. The champion that he is, he will be back soon!

If you have any questions- You can mail me at apekshaha@gmail.com

Follow ApekshaHA on Twitter for Latest Updates: http://twitter.com/#!/ApekshaHA
Also: Roger Cup Defeats: A boon for Federer, Nadal and Murray?

Sublime Federer, Resilient Nadal and Impressive Djokovic- Second Round Analysis.

Federer - Nadal - Djokovic- The top 3 contenders for Wimbledon 2011: Second Round Analysis.

Federer-Sublime, Nadal-Resilient, Djokovic-Impressive.That's how they were in second round matches against opponents  who were clearly bedazzled by the vintage tennis shown by these players.

All 3 had a slight hiccup during the match: Federer saved 3 break points at 5-3 before going on to win the second set 6-3; Nadal dropped a serve in the fourth game of the third set before winning it 6-4; Djokovic too was broken once and missed a chance to break in second set before winning it 6-4.

Final Results:

Roger Federer: 6-2, 6-3, 6-2.

Rafael Nadal: 6-3, 6-3, 6-4.

Novak Djokovic: 6-3, 6-4, 6-2.

 Here are some facts:

Statistics	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
First Serve point won (%)	85	78	75
Aces	11	9	7
Winners	38	38	35
Unforced Error	10	7	14
Break Point Conversion (%)	50	36	56
Average First Serve Speed	119	114	114

 If one looks at these facts, one would realize the neck to neck competition between these 3 players. Looking at their current form, it is hard to judge who will be the favorite. The race for number 1 spot has never been so tough and close:

Federer: If he wins the title: will take number 2 spot.

Nadal: If he loses the title: will be ousted from number 1 spot

Djokovic: If he reaches the final: will be new number 1.

Individual Matches and Performance Analysis:

Roger Federer:  

My Opinion: No wonder he got a standing ovation from the crowd, the slam dunk shot with which he finished the match was reminiscent of his role model and the person whose record he is trying to equal this year: Pete Sampras. The shot which was a trademark of Sampras, etched in the memory of every single tennis fan, it is fitting that it was repeated by the greatest player of all: Federer.

His opponent was able to win first point on Fed's serve after 23 points (score 6-2,2-0,40-0).To see Federer play on the grass court is a breathtaking experience. His game can be defined by: Elegance in its purest form.

He is really moving very well and seeing him play like this- no one can imagine that he is approaching 30. He is arguably the best grass player with a perfect all round game.

Weapons: Service, Volleys and Winners.

Presently, amongst all 3, he is the best volleyer of all and grass court suits his style of play the best.If he continues to play like this, he is the strongest contender to win this tournament.

Roger Federer: “I think all four guys at the top right now feel very comfortable on grass.”

Rafael Nadal:

My Opinion: In my previous post, I had written how sometimes Nadal's  tendency to downplay reality can become irritating. But this was not the case this time as one reporter out of the blue asked him whether he feels he is on a decline:

Rafael Nadal: “Me? In decline? I won Roland Garros two weeks ago, so I don’t forget that. It’s a bit fast, a bit dangerous to be saying that, eh? It’s my seventh year without being outside the top two. Is a lot of years.”

Strong statement but true. He is probably one of the greatest player in the history of tennis who has won 4 out of the past 5 grand slams (10 in all).To ask such a dumb question finally evoked true feeling out of Nadal. Well done!

He played well and the victory was quite comfortable. He has the power, the desire to make every shot count and unimaginable agility to make any player bow before him.

Weapons: Winners and his resilient attitude to make unbelievable shots again and again and to force out an error from the opponent.

The only way to defeat Nadal would be to hit out winners consistently without errors, a feat next to impossible (which only Djokovic has been able to do consistently this year)

Novak Djokovic: 

My Opinion: His impressive run continues this year. He is now 43-1 and day by day he is getting more and more confident of winning. The more you see of him, the more you start admiring him. He has become more composed and focused than ever before. His gluten free diet has certainly helped him to concentrate on his game. He has made subtle improvements -His late racquet swing is gone in his serve and forehand has become more penetrating. To think of it, you can’t find a weakness currently in his game. And with his new found inspiration and best friend in London (the squirrel), he seems to be a pretty happy confident guy.

Weapons: Serve and Ability to return.

To win from him, would require the level of play shown by Federer in French open. And to think how many have been able to show that high class of play. None except Federer. You think I am wrong: The stats prove it: 43-1 this year.

Novak Djokovic: Mentally, I do have a different approach to Wimbledon than I had years before. It's obvious because of the winning streak that I had, the confidence that is very high."

Players to watch out for: Andy Murray (My Opinion: He will cruise to semifinal but the big question is can he face Nadal and beat him?) and Juan Del Potro.

What say All?

Follow ApekshaHA on Twitter for Latest Updates: http://twitter.com/#!/ApekshaHA

(Disclaimer- These are my personal opinions and are not intended to hurt anyone's feelings. If you disagree, you are most welcome to discuss.)
Link to my previous post (Federer - Nadal - Djokovic- Variety on the Platter-Wimbledon First Round Analysis)

Federer - Nadal - Djokovic- Variety on the Platter-Wimbledon First Round Analysis.

Federer - Nadal - Djokovic- The top 3 contenders for Wimbledon 2011: Post-Match (First Round) and Comments Analysis:

 

All 3 started with a tough first set followed by some easy play in the next 2 sets. Federer won the first set in a tie breaker 7-6 (7-2), Nadal was down 4-2 in the first set and then won 6-4, Djokovic was 4-4 and then won the first set 6-4. Final Score:

Federer- 7-6,6-4,6-2.

Nadal- 6-4,6-2,6-2.

Djokovic-6-4,6-1,6-1.

They are looking better and confident than the previous year. Federer has improved his serve and is hitting some of the sweetest volleys, Nadal is playing some breathtaking tennis with unbelievable winners, and Djokovic has become the best returner of the serve outplaying Murray in this department.

But what is most interesting is to see their comments and the way they handle the pressure and chances of winning this grand slam: 

"So it feels like if things go well for me, I can go extremely far here."- Roger Federer:

 

My Opinion: He is the most honest of all the players on the circuit and he says what is true and logical. He accepts when he is not the favorite (how relieved he was during French Open 2011) and when he is under pressure .His post-match comment shows that he knows that he has a strong chance of winning  this tournament if he continues to play well. He accepted that he has an eye on equaling Pete Sampras record. And frankly speaking, who wouldn’t have their eye set on it? Listening to him is like music to the ears, calm, soft and true to heart

“Let’s not talk about what might happen in 12 days. I might be here or I might be home fishing in Majorca,”- Rafael Nadal

My Opinion: He is currently the best player in the world and I think he has known this for long time. But to me, he always seems to downplay the reality and put off the pressure from him. Be it French Open or Wimbledon here, his approach is always to put focus on others so that he can play his natural game. There is nothing wrong in this approach but as a fan I don’t feel like listening to his post-match comments because I know that he won’t be telling the reality. The reality is that he has a very strong chance to repeat his 2008 & 2010 performances (Back to back French open and Wimbledon). Fishing in Majorca? Really- Are we so dumb to believe that?

"(Nadal and Federer) deserve the roles of the favorites in this tournament. I am one of those players behind who is trying to work hard and wait for his chance."- Novak Djokovic

My Opinion: After Federer my heart goes to him as here is one player who is really becoming into a gem of tennis. His statement if analyzed deeply shows how much hard work he has put in  and this might be the chance he has been waiting for. In the past, people have not liked him for his whining and mockery of players, but he is showing signs of gradually developing into a class champion. For e.g.: The relaxed manner with which he handled his French open defeat against Federer.

"I didn't play to the level that I could but I played well. He just played better. It was unfortunate that the loss had to come at that time but that's sport. I have lost before; I know what it feels like. You just move on.”

 

This is a player who is feeling more confident day by day to oust FEDAL and take the number one spot. Listening to him, one realizes that every player is human. One doesn’t need to be Federer or Nadal, by hard work you can beat Nadal 4 times in a year and Federer 3 times. A feat one would have thought to be impossible last year (something Murray can also take inspiration from.)

All in all, the above comments reflects the attitude of 3 of the most amazing players in tennis:

Federer- Work Hard And Accept The Reality

.

Nadal- Work Hard And Downplay The Reality

Djokovic- Work Hard And Wait For A Chance To Change The Reality.

What do you think?

(Disclaimer- These are my personal opinions and are not intended to hurt anyone's feelings. If you disagree, you are most welcome to discuss.)

Follow ApekshaHA on Twitter for Latest Updates: http://twitter.com/#!/ApekshaHA

Sampras Lists Multimillion-Dollar Home

LOS ANGELES -- Tennis great Pete Sampras and his wife, actress Bridgette Wilson-Sampras, have listed their newly built compound in Lake Sherwood for $25 million.

The gated contemporary north of Los Angeles sits on 20 hilltop acres with 360-degree views, a north-south tennis court and a swimming pool. The more than 13,000-square-foot main house has a combined theater and game room. Including the 1,200-square-foot guesthouse and the 2,000-square-foot detached gym, the property has seven bedrooms and 11 1/2 bathrooms.

(...)

The couple offered no reason for selling, but Sampras does have an impressive real estate record, having sold a Beverly Hills mansion in 2008 for $23 million as well as other homes in Los Angeles' Benedict Canyon and Beverly Hills since 2003, according to Los Angeles Times reports.

Nice work if you can get it.

Walk Of Fame

Getty

World number one tennis player Swiss Roger Federer gestures as he poses behind a plate bearing his name at the Basel "Hall of Fame" during an unveiling ceremony on July 16, 2009 in Basel. Federer's Wimbledon triumph last July 6 has seen him regain the world number one spot from arch-rival Rafael Nadal. Federer won both the French Open and Wimbledon to chalk up a record 15 Grand Slam titles, one more than Pete Sampras.

The Privilege Of Pressure

by MMT

Billie Jean King once said that pressure is a privilege.

Aside from reading like a catchy psychological reversal, intended to make players embrace pressure, rather than wilt under it, there may be a whole lot more truth to this.In light of the fact that Roger Federer has, in the span of two weeks accomplished everything in 2009 that seemed so far from his grasp in 2008, the question becomes two questions: will he play the remainder of his career without pressure, and more importantly, is that necessarily a good thing?

When he won his maiden French Open, Federer was quoted as saying that he could play the remainder of his career pressure free because nobody would be able to say that he never won the French Open. I had my doubts – I thought he could play the French Open pressure free… maybe... but until he reached that magical number 15, the one that ends his obligation to anyone who was withholding his place in tennis history, I felt there would always be huge pressure on him to go 7 and 0 over a fornight just one more time. The plot thickened when his nemesis, exited stage left before the curtain raised – after all, if Darth Federer couldn’t dominate the tennis galaxy when his personal Luke Skywalker was off in the Dagova system, then when would he?

Pressure indeed.

But what happens to a great champion when the pressure is off – when the peaks have been scaled, the quiet questions answered loudly, and his face on Mt. Rush-the-net-More sculpted. On this question, history is a dark and murky water way of let downs.

When Pete Sampras won his 13th Grand Slam at Wimbledon in 2000, he appeared to collapse emotionally under the weight of expectations and the knowledge of the struggle and sacrifice his success required. For the first time that I can remember until then, Sampras cried at the victory ceremony. For a man who scarcely showed his emotions (and when he did, seemed to do so begrudgingly) it seemed the last finger in the dyke just couldn’t resist, and when it broke there was no turning back. It would be another 2 years before Sampras won his 14th – along the way he showed some flashes of his former self – that 2001 US Open quarterfinal with Andre Agassi comes to mind, only to then lose rather tamely to Lleyton Hewitt in the final. When he finally got to number 14, there had been questions for 2 years of whether he still had the game, but more tellingly, it had to be asked whether he still had the heart. He had both, apparently, because he won – so what was the difference?

That damn record, that’s what.

With his white whale slaughtered, Ahab ceased to exist as he had. Sampras made no secret of his love for the history of the game, and never shied away from number 13. Having achieved it, he seemed less than enthusiastic about the daily slog that is the ATP tour, and with a wife and baby on the way, who could blame him. But most importantly – every question had been answered, and but for one moment of defiance when the press began to target his wife with their cynicism, Sampras had little to prove, and very little pressure and his results showed it. Interestingly, 2002 was the first year that the US Open went to 32 seeds, and as a result the 17th ranked player in the world happened to be Sampras. Had seeds been capped at their traditional 16, he may have faced Hewitt in the first round, rather than Albert Portas. Maybe he would have won anyway, but it's interesting to ponder.



John McEnroe went 74-2 in 1984. He reached 3 Grand Slam finals, including his only final in Paris, obliterated Jimmy Connors at Wimbledon, and then ran through the field at the US Open. With the exception of a late-night semifinal, also against Connors, that ended Sunday morning, his path to the final was fraught with potentials for Herculean collapses. In the end, he returned promptly dispatched Ivan Lendl in the final, the only player who had beaten him that year, who himself had struggled to a 5-set win over Pat Cash on the last truly Super Saturday, and was in worse shape than McEnroe. He held the No. 1 ranking for another year until he lost the US Open final in 1985 (also to Lendl, starting a string of 3 victories in a row at Flushing) but that would be his last Grand Slam final – afterwards family put the pressure of a tennis match in its proper perspective and lo and behold, McEnroe was never the same mentally. He didn’t turn 30 until 1989, and his run in the Australian Open in 1990 made it clear that he was still capable of brilliance, but when the pressure of expectation disappeared, so too did his results.



Mats Wilander reached the No. 1 ranking in 1988 by winning 3 out of 4 slams that year – the only crown missing from his cabinet was Wimbledon – an irony probably not lost on him given that he won 2 Australian Opens on grass. But after reaching the end of the rainbow that year, with his beacon obscured by the haze of success, his accomplishments did more than dwindle – he never won another tournament, let alone a Slam, and only briefly ever moonlighted in the top 10.

There is a huge psychological component to tennis – and players talk a lot about dealing with the pressure. It’s fascinating because of all the factors involved in a tennis match, pressure is the only one that it totally intangible, and as such, only exists in the mind if the player allows it to. What’s even more fascinating is that pressure appears to be an essential element to keeping a player sufficiently sharp and motivated to succeed, and yet, it is most often cited as a reason a player fails.

In the Wimbledon final this year, it was clear that in a couple of key moments in the match Andy Roddick succumbed to the pressure – namely that backhand volley that floated wide at set point in the 2nd set tie-break. Both players would have been forgiven for feeling the pressure at the moment, and apparently Federer handled it better. It would seem to follow logically that a player playing without pressure would play more freely and presumably achieve more success.

But ask yourself this – when you’re playing tennis are you sharper and more accurate when you’re just hitting, or when you start keeping score? Sure you'll hit a couple of bombs that you wouldn't hit in a match, but you're probably just that little bit more precise when it counts - and it only counts in your head unless you're a pro, so imagine what they're feeling.

I certainly hope that Federer will prove me wrong – perhaps he will prove the anomaly that the absence of pressure makes a great champion even greater, but somehow it doesn’t seem intuitive to me. Now that he has his 15th grand slam, he will be without the privilege of pressure, but will he succeed?

It seems BJK, in this and many other ways, is onto something.



Postscript: Speaking of BJK, if you have a chance, take a look at the Tennis Channel's broadcast of the 1971 US Open semi-final between her and Chris Evert - aside from being a political pioneer, she was one hell of a tennis player.

5 Ending In 3

Reuters

This is uncharted territory for me. I have no idea how to navigate it.

You see, back in 2004, when Andy Roddick lost that heartbreaking Wimbledon final to Roger Federer, a match which defined the trajectory of their respective careers -- someday I hope to write that essay with as much objectivity as a Roddick fan can muster -- I wasn't writing a tennis blog. Yes, I was commenting all over the internet on various message boards, but people weren't coming to my "house" to read what I had to say about that match.

I wasn't going to write anything today at all. I made it clear after Roddick's victory over Andy Murray a few days ago that I took it personally. I doubt anyone who reads here regularly has to imagine what's going on with me today.

But I'm going to do the best I can and that is all I can do. Dapxin is the one to blame.

::

It was an unexpected yet familiar turn of events.

I remained glued to my couch, laptop on my lap, although I couldn't bring myself to type a single word to anyone anywhere while the action unfolded. I told my husband before the tournament began that this was Andy's year, it was in the numbers, that he was going to win this title no matter who he faced in the final, including the man that has ruined too many of my Sundays. No. I never wrote that out on the blog, because whether I can or not, I didn't want to jinx my guy. I'm superstitious that way.

So when Roddick held 6-2 in the second set tiebreak, I took deep breaths, held my husband's hand, and prayed.

Didn't turn out quite like I wanted it to.

But as Roddick said after the match, he decided to keep going and I kept on praying. I didn't quite expect what happened next. In past matches, an early Federer break in the following set would set the stage for a runaway train.

Not this time.

And so when Roddick got it to another tiebreak, my hope was restored. My prayers answered with a resounding Yes. That is, until he fell behind by a large margin. Still, he battled back and dropped another set by the closest score a set of tennis has to offer.

Hubby, who is not exactly a fan of Roddick but, to my disbelief, was more wound up than I was, decided to return to the kitchen to watch the rest of the match. That's where he watched the first set. The set Roddick won behind a single a break of serve. And sure enough, like magic, Roddick won the fourth set behind a single break of serve.

He didn't move from the kitchen for the rest of the match

Fast forward to 14-14 in the final set. If someone had told me Roddick would be at 14-14 in the final of Wimbledon against Federer without having dropped his serve, I'd have told you to get that nonsense out of my face. But there we were. I couldn't breathe. Surely serving second in the final set would take it's toll, but he'd overcome that giant barricade in the quarterfinals against Lleyton Hewitt. And who can forget him overcoming that giant barricade in the 2003 Australian Open quarterfinal against Younes El Aynaoui that MadProfessah and Matthew referred to during the match? (Yes, Matthew, I love that shot, too!)

Who would blink?

I've never seen Raja serve so many aces to stay in a match. When people diminish Andy's game for being just a serve, they seem to forget it's a shot, just like a forehand or a backhand or a volley. It remains the best shot in the game, and it served him well all fortnight.

But what failed him in the final set was his return of serve. He refused to cheat to his left in the ad court to make Federer serve up the T. Federer served exactly two first serves in the latter stages of the final set up the T in the ad court. At least that's all I remember. Mostly, he fired his flat serve out wide, no matter the score. And Roddick stood by and watched the ball go by so many times I lost count. And I was counting. I'll never watch this match again, but if I did, I probably wouldn't be surprised to see half of Federer's aces came in the ad court. Out wide. As Roddick stood by and watched the ball go by.

Larry Stefanki is clearly a good fit for Andy. But if he didn't talk to Andy about Raja's flat serve out wide on the big points....

No, I'm not blaming the coach. He's working his magic. That much is clear. Roddick participated in the longest Wimbledon final in the number of games played and certainly by the fifth set, he ought to have gotten the picture. But alas....

When Roddick got those two break points at whatever juncture he got them, Raja first served outwide in the deuce court to the forehand, got a meek reply and put away the winner. Even though Andy got his racquet on the flat serve out wide in the ad court on the next point, it was a one-hand stretch return which took awhile to come down through the shadows, but it was still so short, Raja was able to hit another winner.

Clearly, Andy had gotten over the 6-2 lead in the second set tiebreak, and so had I. Too bad John McEnroe couldn't. For my money, Andy lost the match when he failed to place either of those two returns deep enough in the court to get a neutral rally started.

That's what lawn tennis is really all about. The return of serve. The grass helps a mediocre serve like Hewitt's win lots of cheap points. But it always helps a good return push a player back and start a rally at neutral. That is why Raja has had such success on grass. Despite his career-high in aces today, his return of serve won him the match, while Andy's lost it.

That's what the entire dramatic, exquisitely played match was reduced to. The return of serve in the high-stakes final games of the fifth set.

As everyone has guessed, I'm wiped out and didn't think I'd even have it in me to write this post. Not sure when I'll write another one. But I will.

Enough has already been said about Raja's piss poor judgment after the match so I'll follow Roddick's classy example and just leave it be.

For now.

I will say, though, that Savannah has not deleted a single comment from this blog. I have. I do it rarely, but I do it when I don't like the tone, not the content, of the comment. That's my prerogative. I could turn on comment moderation and not allow any comment to go live until I read it, but that takes too much work, and I'm not interested in that kind of control. And open threads would be useless.

There is no Orwell here. Disagree without being disagreeable and without calling other posters names or characterizing their frame of mind. I'm just not interested in reading any of that on this blog, so I won't allow it to stand. Like it or lump it. I really can't bring myself to care today.

Andy played an amazing match. Of course I was proud of what I saw from him -- there was blood in the blades -- but that doesn't make me feel any better. He lost. His dream will have to wait for another time. Raja played an amazing match as well. He always does at this event. And once again, he was better between the lines than his opponent, but only slightly.

Still, it was enough to hoist his sixth Wimbledon trophy and break Pete Sampras' record. Nope, I can't stomach Raja, and after today's post-match behavior, I doubt I'll ever watch another one of his matches again. But this result is what it is. And what it is stands as a remarkable achievement in this sport I love so much.

Now if only he would... Nah. I can't wish him any harm.

::

So close. So far.

I said that this year's Wimbledon was all about the numbers three and five. And it was. Even though today's result didn't turn out quite the way I wanted. But the fifth set ended with 30 games and in numerology, 30 becomes 3.

5 sets ending in 3.

A final I may never get over and certainly never forget.

And I will continue to pray.

Roland Garros 2009 Men's Final Preview

Robin Söderling SWE (23) vs. Roger Federer SUI (2). For the fourth year in a row, Roger Federer is in the Roland Garros final, his 19th career final, matching Ivan Lendl's career record. However, for the first time, Federer will not have his arch-nemesis standing in the way of a major title in Paris. The new opponent is Robin Söderling, who executed one of the great tennis upsets of all time last Sunday when he dismissed world No. 1 Rafael Nadal (who had never lost a match at the French Open!) in four sets 6-2 6-7(2) 6-4 7-6(2).

When 4-time defending champion Nadal lost in the fourth round, most people thought that Federer became the prohibitive favorite to win the 2009 Roland Garros title. However, since then Federer needed 5 sets to get past a spirited challenge from Tommy Haas in the fourth round and another 5 sets to get past Juan Martín del Potro in the semifinals. Federer was 5-0 and had never lost a set to the Argentine kid but the del Potro who competed on Friday easily won the first set and put up stiff resistance for nearly 3 and a half hours, finally succumbing 3-6 7-6(2) 2-6 6-1 6-4. And this wasn't even the best match of the day, that honor was bestowed upon the barnburner Fernando Gonzalez and Soderling threw down.

Söderling started off very well, winning the first two sets by blasting winners and serving big and got himself to within 6 points of winning during the 3rd set. Then Gonzalez managed to hold, break and hold and suddenly Söderling went through a bad patch and found himself down 0--3 and 1-4 in the fifth and final set. Amazingly, Söderling was able to win 5 consecutive games to clinch his first ever Grand Slam final. He and Gonzo combined for a mind-boggling total of 143 winners, 75 by the eventual winner of the match.

Sunday's final will be huge for both players, but there's no question more of the pressure is on Federer. Everyone expects him to win, since he is no longer facing nadal. If Federer does win, he can silence (most of) the naysayers who would deny him title of the Greatest Of All Time by winning his 14th major title and completing his career Grand Slam. If Söderling wins, he will ensure his name will be enshrined in the history books, as one of the other men who denied (or delayed?) Federer achieving from achieving this status and who beat and replaced Nadal as the King of Clay.

Head-to-head Federer has played Söderling nine times on multiple surfaces and only ever lost one tiebreak set to him but very many of the sets have been close, showing that even before his Paris breakthrough the Swede was a dangerous opponent. The new Söderling is even more lethal, because he surely believes he is on a Mission with Destiny and he now also possesses a powerful, fit body to complement his powerful groundstrokes and nervy serving (120-plus mph second serves).

However, Federer is the most talented player of his generation and at the end of the day he should be able to use his versatility and variety to come up with a solution to win the match. It is also likely that since Söderling is playing in his first Grand Slam final, mentally he will be satisfied with the Finalist label, while Federer will settle for nothing less than his hands on the trophy at the end of the day, for the fourteenth time in a major.

Mad Professah's pick: Federer in 4 sets.

Comment Of The Week

Leslie said...

Right now, for me, Federer is one of the greats. But he's going through a rough patch right now and this will define whether people argue him as just another great or THE greatest.

He had everything. A loving, dedicated girlfriend; he would go weeks, nay, months not losing a match; he was adored the world over, unlike his predecessors; Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, all of them had their "haters".

And the media loved him. He was never the most handsome fellow, but on becoming a major winner and potential great, he cut his hair, controlled his temper, redefined his image and became - in most person's eyes - not only the perfect tennis player, but the perfect gentlemen.

He was the combination of Andre Agassi and Sampras, the success and the fan base all in one.

And now, his empire is crumbling. Do I feel sorry for him? Of course I do. I felt sorry when Jordan embarrassed himself with the Wizards, I felt sorry when Zidane made an ass of himself in the World Cup finals of all places. I feel sorry for everyone, which is tough, because someone has to lose, so obviously I feel sorry a lot.

But I feel no more sorry for Roger Federer than I do for Rafael Nadal when he lost his first Wimbledon final and I saw the tears in his eyes and the desolation in his body language.

Champions will always rise to the top. But the truest champions are capable of rising from the ashes. If Roger Federer rises again and goes on to win another 3, 4 majors, then in my mind, he's the greatest. He limps out of the sport and breaks down, then he's just another great player in the conversation.

It's up to him to prove himself.

Mon Apr 06, 02:15:00 PM

Post: Quote Of The Day II (Updated)

Comment Of The Week

Christopher Crocker said...

The nature, and irony, of an individual sport like tennis is that as you rise to the top of the game, your success breeds the players that will come to supplant you. The game changed so much from the beginning of Roger Federer's run at the top until now. This is not unique to his game, it happened before him with Pete Sampras, and before that with any other number of great players. His success brought the level of the game up, the coaches saw the way he was changing the game, and at least in a small part, trained the young players so that they could handle that type of player. The same thing will probably, and already has started to happen with Nadal. Have you seen the muscle that Andy Murray has put on over the last year? The new breed of players that will come up soon will in some part be modeled on playing, and handling a game like [Rafael] Nadal's, which was built in some part on handling Federer, which was built in some part on handling Sampras, which was built ...

This is why tennis is such a beautiful sport - visual f*cking poetry.

Sat Mar 21, 10:21:00 PM

Post: Quote For The Day

Comment Of The Week

Getty

MMT said...

There can no longer be any doubt that Nadal is better than Federer on all surfaces and all occasions. He is indisputably the best player in the world. I think he'll win the calendar year grand slam in 2009 – it's the natural progression to an impeccable arc of improvements in all facets of his game over the last 4 years. History is still being written, and it remains to be seen how the two will compare to one another when their careers are over, but it's clear that Nadal is the better player now, and objective posters can safely stop talking about his ascension in the context of Fed's "demise".

Federer dominated for so long, and everything said about him for so long was so positive, that those who’ve resented this all along will naturally revel in its unraveling. In the beginning the source was perhaps those who saw Roddick as the next great tennis champion and resented Fed’s dominance of him. Then it moved to those who resented how quickly the GOAT discussion moved from Sampras to Federer. Then as Nadal ascended, there's been a building resentment of all the attention Fed gets, ostensibly at the expense of Nadal. But an impartial observer has to admit that if you go by results, Fed earned his reputation, just as Nadal has now earned his.

Nadal's ascension to the summit, starting in 2008, has been viewed in the context of Federer's descent by the media, which I don’t think is a bias as much as a reflection of Fed’s record. Anyone who thinks the media are in the tank for Federer is blind to the obvious – his reputation was earned from results and not some collective desire for him to be anointed the greatest player of all time.

I mean, let’s consider the reverse – would it have made any sense if they simply put it down to all the caveats of his doubters? Could anyone take seriously a pundit who said, between 2005 and 2007, “Fed’s not that good – everyone’s building him up to be something he isn’t – his results have been very fortunate because the era is weak and he’s had easy draws. Really, I think Nadal is the best player in the world, and he’s just been unfortunate to have had tough draws, in tournament scheduling, and an ATP schedule skewed in favor of players who specialize on faster surfaces.”

A comment like that would be laughed out of the room. But somehow, for some of the posters here, and all over the web, this is the only kind of comment that shows you haven't been duped by the great Fed Hype Machine. It's ridiculous.

But given that Nadal has now won 3 of the last 4 slams, and he's done it on 3 different surfaces, and won MS titles and the Olympics, it's natural for the conversation to begin to take on the same leaning towards Nadal as it did towards Federer for all those years. He’s proven that he is now the better player with no caveats.

It's also fair to say that Nadal supporters, who've been waiting 4 years to have their day will continue to resent any diversion of attention away from Nadal to Federer. And Federer supporters who haven't given up hope that the good ol' days could return, resent the speed with which Nadal now has to be considered the man to beat everywhere. It's not different than with Sampras fans and Roddick fans.

Craig has revealed in the past that he doesn't particularly like Federer, and that he's a Roddick fan, so you have to keep that in mind when reading this blog. That said, I think he's done as good a job of lauding Federer as any Roddick fan could, over the last few years. He’d have to be a monk not to resist a few juicy headlines like the quote spawning this thread, or this one:

“Rafael Nadal has denied Roger Federer (and all the pundits) history. But he made a bit of his own.”

Implicit here is the idea that the pundits WANTED Fed to make his history, but isn’t it reasonable to assume they just BELIEVED he would? And even if they did WANT him to do it, does it mean that their praise of him has been biased? If anyone had won 11 out of 16 grand slams over 4 years, could a pundit who didn’t laud him for it be taken seriously?

Wouldn’t it be obvious, based on the record, that such intentional ignorance it would be evidence of bias AGAINST such a player?

Mon Feb 02, 01:45:00 PM

Post: Quote For The Day

Quote For The Day

"I think when Pete did it, I was a part of that one, too. I think when he did it in '02, everyone was saying how kind of lofty of an achievement it was. I don't know if we thought we would see it any time soon. Little did we know [Roger] was going to start it the next year and go after it.

"I mean, that's for you guys to do. It feels like two different ‑‑ it's like my childhood was Pete, and now it's kind of my grown life is Roger. It's different, because you view Pete in kind of this ‑‑ I don't know how to put it.

"I guess Roger is a contemporary of mine which didn't lessen the affect. I see Pete and Andre and I still get a little jittery. It's crazy to think it's come full circle and the magnitude of the numbers he's accomplished, it's pretty scary if you sit down and look at them and go through what it takes to accomplish that."

--Andy Roddick, on what it would mean to tennis history if Raja wins 14 Slams.

Interesting that both of those milestones will go right through him if Raja wins on Sunday. Andy couldn't win a Slam till Pete retired and then the guy who everyone likes to compare to Pete has stopped Andy from winning at least 6 Slams. Two Wimbledon finals, a US Open final, two Australian Open semifinals, a Wimbledon semifinal, and who knows how many just by virtue of Andy never really getting over the 2004 Wimbledon final. And, ironically, for many American fans and the pundits who hyped him to the hilt, Andy was supposed to be the next Pete.

Talk about being born on the wrong side of history.

Quote For The Day

“If you think about it, Rafa’s got as good a chance to win double digits as anyone. I think Roger’s going to break this record over the next couple of years. I think Rafa, he could win some more Frenchs, he could win a couple more Wimbledons. He could have 10-12 majors when he’s done, if not more.” -- Pete Sampras

Face Of The Day

(Julian Finney/Getty Images)

Pete Sampras of United States talks to the media during the BlackRock Masters Tennis at the Royal Albert Hall on December 2, 2008 in London, England.

Experience

That's what Pete Sampras believes in. (After the introductory ad.)

On Top of the World

It's official. Rafael Nadal is the best player in the world. With his 6-3, 6-2 victory over Nicolas Kiefer in the Rogers Cup final, Rafa has won his 12th ATP Masters Series shield (his fourth on hardcourts), surpassing Pete Sampras with 11 (only Andre Agassi and Roger Federer have more), won his 30th title, finishing behind only Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg for that many titles won at the ripe old age of 22, extends his winning streak to 29 matches and 5 straight titles.


He has won seven of the last eight events entered.

But what's most impressive? Five events, five titles, three different surfaces. Two clay, two grass, one hard.

In that run, he's defeated Raja and Novak Djokovic three times each.

The rankings say he could become the World No. 1 soon if he keeps winning.

The results say he's the best player in the world.



::



Out at the East West Bank Classic, Dinara Safina continued her fine form with a 6-4 6-2 victory over Italy's Flavia Pennetta.