Champion's Fatigue

In my most recent ESPN post, I looked at the bi-coastal mini-slam and the year so far and came to the conclusion that this year is shaping up a bit differently from the past two because of what I called "champion's fatigue." This was my way of making the point that Federer, and to a lesser degree, Nadal, seem a little tired of the endless grind to win every tournament they enter, and to keep accumulating those precious rankings points as if they were prudent citizens trying to build up those frequent flyer miles that will lessen the cost of the next vacation.

Before you read on, note that this does not mean that either man will be a lesser contender at the Grand Slams or at any other event of critical importance. I just sense that while Indian Wells and Miami are two of just a handful of sub-Slams, they aren't of overwhelming concern to the co-number ones. *

Co-number ones? What??????*

Yes, that's right. Forget about the way Novak Djokovic has closed on Nadal and Federer. The psychic reality is that in the past few years, Nadal has been an utterly dominant No. 1 on clay, and Federer has been an utterly dominant No. 1 on everything else. Federer is the official No. 1 "only" because there are more events played on surfaces other than clay. This way of looking at things may get the shorts of Federer fans in a bunch, and nobody is going to confuse it with the inarguable, actual rankings. But seeing it through that lens helps explain the events of the past two weeks.

The mini-slam was harder on Federer than Nadal, but it also offered Federer fewer incentives. With so many hard court and indoor events on the calendar, Federer may not feel as hard-pressed to feast on points this early in the year at this stage in his career. The resume building stage of his career is over. As for Nadal, he is defending so many points on the upcoming clay circuit that losing significant ground during the BCMS segment would put him under that much more pressure - and remember, he's not just trying to catch Federer, he's got Djokovic breathing down his neck.

This helps explain how the two men fared this past month, but I want to be clear that I'm not accusing either of them of giving less than full effort, or cavalierly mailing in their results during the segment. No champion worth the name would consciously play Masters-level events in the  shadow of such calculations. As well, great players know full well that it's suicidal to take anything for granted - especially future performance  based on past results.

Put more simply, no player is good enough (or arrogant enough) to willfully under-perform at events like these, least of all a combatant like Federer or Nadal. But, if you'll indulge me, what struck me is that there's a larger psychic reality at play here, albeit it's a hard one to pin down with certitude or back up with hard facts.

The BCMS segment was psychologically tougher on Nadal simply because he walks away from it with everything but the prize (at his level, the crystal pistachio nut-shell holder awarded the runner-up just doesn't make it). That's hard for a champ to take; unlike Federer, he also expended a terrific amount of energy without substantially enhancing his resume, and Nadal has spent most of the past two years trying mightily (and with great if not ultimate success) to add titles under the Hard Courts heading.

A semi and a final in back-to-back surfaces on a continent not your own is a fine achievement - but less so if you're Nadal. And remember that one loss was to an emerging rival, and the other to a clear underdog. The greatest solace for Nadal is that he didn't lose ground, rankings-wise, but I keep coming back to that energy-invested theme, especially in light of the points Nadal must defend in the coming weeks. This certainly is a concern for Nadal himself, as per some comments he made in a presser when he was asked if he felt comfortable playing this long, tough stretch of tennis in the U.S.:

I'm very comfortable in United States, but not for this (long)  time.  It's not fair have one month, two tournaments, and after go back to Europe and we have to play three Masters Series on clay. We only have three Masters Series on clay during all the season, and we have three Masters Series in four weeks.  So for us it's terrible, that. And three Masters Series in the middle of the biggest tournament on clay in the world:  Barcelona (????).  So if you see the calendar, that is unbelievable."

That sounds to me like the analysis of a fatigued champion, rebelling against his sport's quotidian demand to do it, and do it all over again next week, next month, next year. And it's downright un-Nadal-like in tone and spirit.

Federer is a different case. He's been No. 1 for a long stretch and he's on the verge of joining Pete Sampras as a Grand Slam title baggers par excellence. If Nadal is feeling fatigue and pressure, Federer is more likely in the throes of ennui and loss of motivation. The one outstanding thing about Federer's most recent performances, to me, has been a visible inwardness - it's the kind of resigned stoicism you see in the faces and behaviors of someone who has lost his or her gusto for his job.

Federer is carrying out his duties and meeting the demands of his office. He is, after all, a responsible, consumate, professional. But he's no longer in a hurry to get to the desk early, or to be the last one to leave. Against Fish in Indian Wells he allowed Mardy's tide to sweep him away. It was as if he looked at the spreadsheets, heard the arguments, and saw the direction the company was taking but, despite disagreeing volubly, he doodled on his legal pad, too disinterested to object and buck the tide.

In Miami, when he had Andy Roddick down 0-30 in a critical game, TMF shrank away rather than rising to the challenge. Following both losses, he was dispassionate and philosophical. Of course, that's the Mighty Fed's way, but at what point does Don't worry, everything's just fine! cross the line between justified confidence and long-view thinking and  become - denial?  If it's justified confidence (my theory), he's also saying that his sub-standard performance in a Masters Series event is no big deal. And about that he is right.

It's funny, but in editing the manuscript for Pete Sampras's autobiography, A Champion's Mind (it will be available from Crown publishers in mid-June) I recently came across a passage that seems apt to summarize here.

In  1998,  Pete had an "easy" draw at the Australian Open. He didn't lose a set until the quarters, then was taken out by Karol Kucera.  A few weeks later, he got all of six games off Andre Agassi at San Jose. At Indian Wells and Miami he lost to Tomas Muster and Wayne Ferreria, respectively (both in early rounds). Going to Europe the only tournament win Sampras had was at his old stand-by, Philadelphia. In Monte Carlo, he was picked apart by Fabrice Santoro, and although he won a small clay event in Atlanta, he lost in the second round of the French Open to one of the guys he beat in Atlanta, Ramon Delgado.

Do you think the What's Wrong With Federer? chorus is loud now? You should have heard it then, applied to Sampras. The reality is that men who have won as often and as big as Sampras and Federer are bound to experience motivational difficulties on a year-round tour. The question isn't "if" but "when", and the looming background becomes, how they adjust to that new mental climate?

Sampras adjusted well - he went on to take four more majors (to equal and surpass Roy Emerson's record). Bjorn Borg, in a similar motivational bind after the emergence of John McEnroe as a great rival, less so. He never won another major.

Who do you think Federer is more like, Sampras or Borg?