*!98091650
*
by Pete Bodo
Well, the spring hard-court swing in the U.S. is over, and if you're curious about my takeaways from it, check next door at ESPN where I should have a post up by early afternoon. One of the issues I left alone there is the state of Roger Federer's game. Greg Garber took a poke at that issue in this piece when Federer lost in Miami, and while I think he caught and froze the moment in time, even he hedged his bet by recalling where we were vis-a-vis Mr. Federer a year ago at this time.
For my part, I'm just not that comfortable getting negative about the game of the all-time Grand Slam singles champion, even if he himself is - not when he's won three of the last four Grand Slam's he's entered, and may have failed to take the fourth for the same reason that a guy who just finished a spectacular five-course dinner might choose to pass on the chocolate-covered macadamia nut Grand Marnier brownie flambe.
I'll begin to speculate on the state of Federer's game the minute he loses before the final at a major, but of course I reserve the right to change my mind should certain developments - Rafa v. Roger in Madrid, por ejemplo? - prove just too tantalizing. That Roger Federer had match points at Indian Wells and Miami only to lose both matches also raises an issue that has serious navel-gazing overtones - I mean, when both players have had match point, the only reason one wins is because the game is designed to produce a winner at all cost. Kind of like the way a roulette wheel is designed to come up with a specific number every time.
It's not that I take too lightly the ability to step up and actually win (or dispel) a match point, just that all the heavy lifting is done in the getting there. Sure, some players choke with the match on their rackets, or the other guy really steps up and shows himself just that much more deserving of the win. Or he comes up with a smidgen better luck. There's another name for matches in which both guys have match point, and it's "draw." But the scoring system in tennis forbids that, ergo you get a winner. The bitterness felt by the player who lost a match after holding match point is a painfully cruel substitute for what he's earned a right to feel, but you know what they say - thems the breaks.
This view reinforces the idea that Federer, consciously or not, showed up at Indian Wells and Miami mainly because he's a nice guy who accepts his obligations as a pro, and did the best he could with the matches he was presented there. I'm sure he would have been just as happy to win them, but you start winning match after match and you start to look like a guy who deeply needs the wins, who deeply wants the wins. It's hard for me to envision Federer as that man. Andy Roddick? Yup. Ivan Ljubicic? Yup. Rafael Nadal at this curious juncture? We can only hope so, because we need him around and in fighting trim. But Roger Federer? He needs another sub-major like I need another aggressive comment poster.
I'll give Federer this: he sure came up with a novel way to lose without losing, and a perverse part of me suspects that he didn't really feel up to getting all wrapped up in this drive to excel, to prove what no longer needs proving: that he's the man. Old habits die hard, though.
Losing to Baghdatis and Berdych after having match point sure is different from being taken down by David Ferrer, 7-5, 4-6, 6-3, and Janko Tipsarevic, 6-4, 7-6. When has the term "bad loss" ever signified less, for a man to whom every loss can be cast as such? I can't imagine that Federer is particularly shaken up by those losses; he doesn't have that Chicken Little gene.
I sense something else looming behind those odd results, a fact-of-life that Federer surely has come to understand by now. He needs to pace himself. That's not entirely a conscious thing, either, although it makes writing about his situation a highly speculative art. Maybe some of you share my feeling that our conscious minds are not always fully in control of our actions, that at times some deeper drives and recognitions powerful enough to undermine our stubborn desire to keep doing the same old, same old rebel and take control, thereby sending us the message, Actually, you don't know what's best for you. . I do! So smack that backhand wide and get the hail out of Dodge.
Yes, sir!
But it was nice of Federer to resist mucking around in these murky psychic areas following his losses. He wisely took the low road. Like a good soldier, he bemoaned his losses and issued a humble version of the the standard MacArthuresque vow: I shall return. He said that those unexpected losses would motivate him to put in quality time on the practice court. I couldn't help but wonder, hearing those words, "But. . . didn't you just do that, and get paid for it to boot?
Practice matches often are designed to end in a draw, or are played in a way that ensures that neither player reads too much into his accomplishment of the day. That's why so many guys play tiebreakers, or some other drill-type game, instead of sets in practice. As a competitor, Federer has met and surpassed the highest of standards, failing just often enough to demonstrate his mortality. The last match he lost that can be said to have had a big impact on his reputation was the Wimbledon final of 2008 (to Nadal). But it's not like playing in The Greatest Match Ever tarnished his reputation. That match elevated the stock of Nadal - thus making Federer's Grand Slam triumphs over his rival, as well as the many titles in places where Nadal failed to show up for their final-round appointment, look that much better.
One thing we need to keep in mind when it comes to Federer: he's in uncharted territory, success and motivation-wise. No man has gone where he is today, already the all-time Grand Slam champion yet still in the prime of his career and showing surprisingly little wear on his treads despite the mileage on his odometer. It's anybody's guess what comes next, and if it's any consolation I can't imagine that he knows, either.
PS - Talk about anything you want on this thread, but give those who want to comment on this subject a little time to air their opinions.