So the other day in Vegas, Andre got on a roll about Roger Federer and the quality of the competition today. He felt that the Top Three today (The Mighty Fed, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic) represent as strong and balanced a top 3 as the game had at any period in his own career. Interestingly, though, Djokovic is the one who inspired Andre to go on a little riff (he had dispensed accolades to TMF earlier). He said:
Yesterday in Melbourne, Djokovic fully lived up to those enconiums in bouncing TMF out of the Australian Open. I'm keeping my powder dry on Nole until Monday, so let's talk about Federer today. His loss Down Under exposed some truths and created some consequences that will be major themes in the weeks and months to come. So let's take a look at a few of them:
Nole has slipped into the vacuum left by Rafael Nadal's ongoing struggle to master the challenges of hard court tennis. He has become, in effect, the third force that bears on the struggle for ascendancy in the game, which is certain to pose more problems for Federer than does a simple rivalry with Nadal. Until now, Federer has had every right to feel in command during every portion of the tennis year other than the clay-court segment. That's no longer true, and it will simultaneously give TMF more to ponder, while also taking pressure off Nadal. As I wrote (or implied) yesterday, the chance that Djokovic and Nadal will lay claim to the first half of the year will make Wimbledon that much more crucial for TMF.
Federer has reached an intriguing stage in his career. He's within two Grand Slam titles of Pete Sampras's record of 14, at age 26. Sampras was 28 when he bagged major number 12, which is a noteworthy because it suggests that the chronological cushion TMF enjoys may be smaller than it appears to someone looking simply at the age at which Sampras won his last Slam (31) and project comparable longevity for TMF.
The most significant aspect of those numbers is that the last two or three Slams were the ones for which Sampras had to work hardest, and this will undoubtedly be true for TMF. The emerging or newly matured talents that Sampras had to deal with in his final years were Hewitt, Safin, and Rafter. I think Djokovic and Nadal may provide more formidable obstacles for TMF , although the lack of an obvious grass-court challenger a la Rafter will certainly help Federer's cause at Wimbledon.
The career timing of TMF was as sublime as his timing on the court. His main rival, Nadal, was not ready to challenge him consistently on any surface but clay until the 2007 Wimbledon (where Federer was already working on major No. 10), and his newest rival, Djokovic, needed two years of ripening to become the legitimate contender he is today. Federer took advantage of the chronological seam as effectively as Jim Courier did, back when Agassi and Sampras were still searching for the championship groove. This doesn't diminish TMF's accomplishments in the interim one bit, but it suggests that the seam is closed and the landscape is changing.
Sampras began to notice, right around 1999, that the game was changing, with a handful of new rivals moving in to replace the Couriers and Changs (if not Agassi). This is precisely where TMF stands today, with Djokovic and David Nalbandian playing the roles once filled for Sampras by Hewitt and Safin, while Nadal stands as Federer's personal Andre. The key question is, How will Federer react to a degree of adversity that he hasn't faced since he became the dominant player?
You don't have to embrace the "weak competition" theme (I certainly don't) to acknowledge that Federer has yet to do the heavy lifting of his career. Nobody on earth thought or expected that combative Hewitt could be made to look as harmless as TMF eventually made him appear. The fact is, Federer imposed his will and his game on his peers for an extraordinary. mesmerizing, four-year spell (remember John McEnroe, and Hewitt himself?), and it don't make no never mind how he did it. It's a matter of fact.
TMF might just skate to 15 or 18 or 22 Grand Slam titles after experiencing this Australian Open hiccup, but I doubt that he will. He left blood in the water yesterday, and by now every shark in the ATP sea has turned to investigate. So what, if anything, should Federer do?
First, he needs to activate his media jammer. The Is Federer Finished at the Top theme is going to be an endless tape loop until TMF wins his next major, which is not an "if" question but a "when" question.
Second, he needs to avoid the temptations of the Woe is Me construct, which will pull mightily to convince him that he has set his own bar impossibly high. He was dead-on when he observed, in a reference to his amazing record, that he has created a "monster." Every morning, someone needs to ask him, Have you hugged your monster today?
Third, he needs to take stock of the way he has been winning, and what adjustments must be made in order to keep him winning. Some of the more interesting comments in the post-match presser yesterday revolved around his relatively poor serving.
Federer said, "There's no doubt I've played better in my life. That's for sure, you know. I've not been really serving like the way I wanted to, you know, maybe the last few matches. But maybe served too many aces against Tipsarevic, so I didn't have any more left."
Djokovic countered: "You know, if he wasn't serving, of course he had problems, he was struggling with the serve. Why? Because I made a lot of pressure. It's not because he was struggling."
Now in all fairness, I think Djokovic's reply was less defensive than the way it reads in this context. But his point is worth noting. Serving competence is not an isolated function, despite the fact that it is the only stroke in the game which is entirely in the hands of the player hitting it. The biggest influence on serving efficiency, if you discount mechanics, is how easily an opponent is holding. When your rival is holding easily and quickly, the pressure on your own serve mounts. A big first serve is spectacular, but a great second serve is foundational.
Fourth, we saw in last year's Wimbledon final (among other matches) the degree to which Federer has become a reactive player, habitually winning by responding to his opponents' attempts to pierce his armor. Who can blame him? TMF can sit back like a pasha, dismissing all challenges to his ascendancy with a flick of the wrist here, an impatient gesture there. This mindset was manifest in one of Federer's most celebrated wins - his demolition of Andy Roddick in last year's Australian Open. But a form of it has always seemed to me the source of his weakness in his battles on clay with Nadal.
There are some guys, in some situations, who must be disarmed quickly and aggressively. Invite them to take their best shot and you're going to come to lying on your back, staring at the ceiling, with a mouthful of bloody chiclets.
Just like Nadal at Roland Garros, Djokovic on hard courts may be a player who can't be beaten with counterpunches (no matter how dazzling or spectacular they are). In Federer's defense, it's also true that for most of this tournament, Federer took his game to his various opponents with noticeable gusto, imposing his pace and tone on the proceedings.
In a valuable over-simplification, Djokovic said: "I was more patient and I didn't allow him to be aggressive and to play his style. So I was the one who was in the control of the match, so I think I deserved to win."
Fifth, it's time to re-invent the coaching issue. I think TMF should hire a coach, not because he needs to go out and do cross-court-and-down-the-line drills, or have someone wave a match-chart before his face after every win. Federer may come to need someone to tell him, Look, when you go out there, remember that you are Roger Federer and your opponent is not. . .and in a way that resonates with Federer. You know what they say about men and islands, and for all that Mirka brings to TMF's life, I find it hard to imagine that she can sit with him in the foxhole the way a coach might.
This is easier said than done, because it's going to take any coach some time to develop the kind of relationship that would give him the requisite credibility in TMF's eyes. Fixing a forehand or improving a passing shot is a role for the technician; it can be done quickly and with relative ease. But helping Federer develop the sharpest response to his biggest challenges is the job of a psychologist, although the road to credibility in that department leads through the forests of technique, strategy and scouting. Earning credibility takes some time - six months at the very least. But if Federer has a luxury, it's that he is still in that portion of his career when six months is a safe and easy investment.
The real issue on this front is that the pool of coaches who might accomplish this task is extremely small, and endowing one with sufficient authority and access might constitute a disruption to the way Roger and Mirka have set up house and shop.
It's just as easy to dismiss the significance of the Djokovic match as it is to overstate it. But one thing we know for certain is that most great players have had to suffer and bounce back from adversity (is there a better example than Agassi?), and those who have been unable to do so have faded prematurely (Is there a better example than Hewitt?).
Somehow, I don't see TMF as a fader, but I also think he needs to be pro-active, and come to grips with the reality that things from now on will be different than they were as few as six months ago and, most of all, that this is how it's always been, and how it should be in this game.