The Dreaded C-C Demon

Mornin', Tribe. Hope you all had a great weekend. We're all fired up about the New York TW "social" tomorrow night; looks like a pretty strong and representative crew gathering. But let's get right to the heart of the news out of Monte Carlo, Rafael Nadal's 6-4, 6-4 win over Roger Federer. If you don't know by now, I write a blog for ESPN.com every Monday and Thursday; in today's entry,  I set forth my basic theme. Reading that post will help clarify some of the thoughts I'm going to offer here.

But first, here's an interesting, relevant email from a Balazs Felcsuti, a proud Hungarian reader who I think really nails it when it comes to what many astute readers are thinking in the wake of the latest installment of the rivalry between The Mighty Fed and Jet Boy:

Okay, that pretty lays out the disappointment that a knowledgeable TMF fan, if not an overwrought KAD, feels this morning. But my response is to ask What Would Roger Do? And the best answer to that is to point out what Roger would not do: over-react. To paraphrase the substance of my ESPN post, TMF is in a crucially delicate situation vis a vis Jet Boy. That  situation was deliciously articulated in all its contradictory but accurate glory last year at the U.S. Open by Mats Wilander (persona non grata to many Federer KADs) when he said, "It's a weird situation. Roger may be the greatest player ever, but there's one guy he can't beat in his own time."

This, to me, is the heart of the matter, and for just one towering reason: Nadal's surface of choice happens to be clay. And the main obstacle standing between Federer and his potential GOAT status is his failure thus far to win the title at Roland Garros. Can you say "delicate situation?"

It's easy to say that TMF has plenty of time to win Roland Garros. I don't believe this is true, although there's always Andre Agassi to prove me wrong. But the big difference between Federer and Agassi is that TMF is an "artistic" player, while Andre could grind with the best of them. And artistic players almost always struggle with Roland Garros (red clay in general). My argument rests on a specific prejudice: as much variety as Federer has in his game, I see him as a kindred spirit with John McEnroe and Pete Sampras, not, say, Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, or Agassi. That means he is probably susceptible to the Dreaded Clay-Court Demon.

The Dreaded C-C Demon is kind of like that nasty little wormy thing in the classic horror flick, Alien. It takes up parasitic residence in players who are gifted and bold, if not entirely suited to the clay-court game in this narrow sense: They are ill-suited to grinding out matches.

The host player doesn't even know the little bugger is there, but meanwhile it's feeding and growing like any embryo, and one day it comes bursting out of the guy's abdomen and suddenly, just like that, life blows.  McEnroe and Sampras each had his shot to win Roland Garros; each of them misfired - McEnroe in the heartbreaking epic (he was up, two sets and a break in the third, to Lendl in the 1984 final; Sampras had a great run against formidable, clay-court opponents but inexplicably ran out of steam in the semifinals in 1996 - after having twice been a Roland Garros quarterfinalist in previous years). Neither of them ever contended after that. Other players who are more rather than less Federer-esque had similar experiences: Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, and Pat Rafter.

And now for the good news. TMF seems to be aware of what he is up against in some vaguely subconscious way (that is, the best way - who needs to be thinking about this kind of crap when you're trying to win Roland Garros?). And the things he has said and done, especially after this last clash with Nadal, seem to bear that out. There are two ways to look at issues Balazs raised in his note: You can say that Federer is in denial, and still refusing to see that he needs to go out of his comfort zone (which is meeting every single opponent on his own terms) in order to beat Nadal (which really means: to win Roland Garros). Or you can say that he is denying sustenance to the Dreaded C-C Demon by refusing to panic, or otherwise acknowledge that he must make concessions to Jet Boy's prowess in order to win big on clay.

Whichever is the case, Federer's attitude helps explain why his rivalry with Nadal is in some ways an odd, flawed one. I play around with the apparent lack of intensity in the rivalry in my ESPN blog, but the bottom line is that TMF has an amazing way of neutralizing the kind of fireworks so many fans are dying to see, from rivals so tantalizingly different - in almost every respect - as these two men.  And we're not just talking about Federer's persistent refusal to get down in dirty with Nadal; Jet Boy himself is so deferential that, if you didn't know that the two men actually feel affection for each other, you would imagine them sticking to the walls to give each other wide berth as they crossed a hotel lobby from opposite directions. The bottom line from each perspective:

Nadal - Roger is too good on too many different surfaces for me, and I'm too honest to think otherwise. But I'll always be able to make my stand - and statement -on clay.

Federer - I want to win Roland Garros, not get into a turf war with Rafael. Especially not on his turf.

Nadal's job is easier, if you ignore the uncomfortable bits that take place on a tennis court. It's alway easier in tennis to be the pursuer, the spoiler, than the guy with the target on his back. By contrast, Federer's mission is simpler: just win the danged French Open and to hail with the rest of it. I feel almost duty-bound to give Federer the benefit of the doubt in the debate about Denial vs. Long Range Game Plan. He's just too great a player for me to deny him that. So my argument is that he's taking the long-view: that is, seeing a win at Roland Garros as not just a higher goal but the only goal - even if it means going 1-56 against Nadal on clay. Still, I thought the post-final presser Federer gave in Monte Carlo was very telling, and worth Fisking in light of these issues. I am adding my comments in italics in a contrasting color:

THE MODERATOR: Questions, please.

Q. What happened to your forehand today?

ROGER FEDERER: Mistakes, few too many, I guess. I'm not happy about the performance of my forehand.
Rarely it happens to me, because it's my best shot in the game. I guess it's a bit different against Rafael.You got to keep on pushing, and I just missed a few too many to go a break down in the first set.
Missed my opportunities in the breakpoints and then go breakdown in the second, so it was disappointing.

Q. Beside the forehand, what should you do to beat him on clay?

ROGER FEDERER: Not make those mistakes, you know, and use the chance when I had them early on. I was playing very easily solid and in the beginning, created myself chances. He didn't have any
breakpoints. Unfortunately it turned around with a few mistakes. But I feel this match gave me some information. I think I'm absolutely in the mix with him on clay, which is how I wanted to feel.
You know, it's always disappointing to lose, but I feel like I didn't play well and still it was close. That's a good thing.

[[Up until the middle of this answer, TMF was providing straightfoward analysis. But his comment about "information", and his assertion of confidence in his clay court game seem like shots fired across Nadal's bow. Reiterating that he didn't play well but still kept it close and turning that into a positive is another way of saying, "I think if I'm on my game I can beat this guy.]]

Q. You played 19 sets against him and you won only 5. What that means? I mean, almost one out of
three. That's big, big difference apparently. The reason, explanation is only technical or sometimes
mental? Do you get nervous when things are not going well?

ROGER FEDERER: Are you talking about clay?

[[TMF found a subtle way to neutralize the blunt if accurate question, lest anyone forget the Big Picture.]]

Q. Clay, clay.

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I don't know. You've seen his record on clay? [[Translation: Do you realize how good this guy is on clay?]]

Q. Yeah.

ROGER FEDERER: Well, he's won a few in a row. He's an excellent player, let's not forget. You're
talking like he's playing around with me. That's not the case. It came very close the last few times,
but clay is his number one surface; it's not mine, and still I come so close. It's for me a good -- still a good thing to do, you know, to play, I don't know, four finals in a row on clay now. Okay. I lost four times against Rafa. I'd rather have that than lose against four different guys. I feel like I'm in good shape for the rest of clay court season, and it's going to come down to the French Open to see who wins.

[[There's a bit of defensiveness and hurt at the beginning of Roger's reply; it's understandable. Then Federer reiterates how good Nadal is on clay and makes the counter-intuitive but familiar boast that Nadal is the only guy who's beaten him on clay. Remember, that Jimmy Connors often said that the thing that irked him the most was losing to a guy who did not go on to win the tournament. And Federer finally introduces the Roland Garros motif. In context, it comes out of the blue and sounds very much like TMF is suggesting that these prelims don't matter much: it's all about Roland Garros.]]

Q. Is this where Tony comes in handy, where you can both analyze what you think is more information and use it on this surface, which you say is obviously the one you want to improve on?

[[I'll bet dollars to donuts that the person who asked this question was a Brit, or other Anglo.]]

ROGER FEDERER: Well, yeah, it's always good when you have somebody telling you from the outside. But
I mean I also understand my game very, very well. I know what I'm going to have to work on in the
next couple of weeks, and, you know, physically I feel fine. It was absolutely no problem today.
Of course it wasn't -- a four- or five-setter would have given me more information, and also physically. It's going to be interesting this year not having played any five-setters going into the French Open, which we had last year here in the final and then also in Rome. So that's going change, but we're definitely going to talk about and see what he thinks.

[[In this reply, TMF cuts the subject (Roche) right out of the conversation by asserting how much he himself knows about the game, his own game. He introduces the theme of stamina here, implying that things could be different in Paris, as he will be going into the event without having to play any draining, five-set matches. Again, the focus is on Paris. And again, Roger brings "information" into the equation, implying that he is using these warm-up matches as elements in his preparation for the only thing that counts: Roland Garros.

This is a bold an interesting gambit, and Federer's most revealing, honest moment. TMF is suggesting that if he is not exactly sandbagging Nadal, he is undoubtedly building a game plan or strategy for his long-term goal, winning in Paris. This is also interesting in light of  certain former Swedish player's now-famous comments about TMF failing to have the Wilanders to alter his game plan and take some chances against Nadal in the 2006 final. The implication clearly is that after studying Nadal's game, Federer will do whatever it take to capitalize on the tendencies he sees - meaning, Wilander may have had a point. . . sort of.]]

Q. What I meant before is that it is not mental, because even the serve, which has nothing to do --
or not much to do with Nadal -- it is not working as it usually does. I mean, you are bad percentage
and second serve you lost a lot of points. Is it something that makes you more nervous or anxious
when have to play him or not?

[[The press pariah appears to contradict himself, prefacing his question with a disclaimer about the "mental" aspect and then diving right back into it.]]

ROGER FEDERER: Well, he's a left-handed player, so you serve differently. I mean, I don't know. Your
questions are very strange today, seriously. You have to play different against Rafa than when you
play against Ferrer or Ferrero.I play 95% against right-handed, so when I play left-handed it's obviously a bit different. For him he plays right-handed guys all the time so he doesn't need to adjust. So there he has I guess a little advantage.This is what I'm trying to do over the last few years. I play better against lefties having a left-handed coach. Hitting a lot of balls with him helps, too. So it doesn't come down to how I serve or do that, it's just about having a good day against him. I've come very close and play very well against him, but on clay you need a really good day, you know.

[[The question may have been half-arsed, but actually it isn't strange at all, and TMF is a bit defensive handling it. In this reply, Federer concedes that playing a lefthander poses problems, because if his serve is less effective against a southpaw opponent, it's presents a more formidable challenge than if the basic problem was nerves or anxiety.]]

Q. On the evidence of today and what you've seen generally this week of Rafa, do you think his game has gone on from last year, that he's better?

ROGER FEDERER: I thought he was playing identical to last year, to be honest. He's got such a solid
base, you know, in terms of how he plays because he does it all year around already. He plays the-
same way.I mean, it doesn't change for him on hard court or clay. Even on grass he plays the same way. So when he comes on clay the movement comes handy for him, too, because he's the No. 1 clay court mover to me. Obviously he's born on this surface so all of it works in his favor.Look, he dominated everybody this week. I was expecting him to maybe struggle last year, but after he played so well again I see him strong against this year.

[[This is a nice, direct reply, free of any subtext.]]

Q. Is there any new information you think you can carry forward today from what you found in the
game?

ROGER FEDERER: No. But it's good for me to play against him. He sometimes makes me improve my
backhand. I think that problem is solved for me. Today I started to miss on the forehand but, look,
again, it can happen over a few minutes that you're going to have a downfall on one of your shots.
Again, you should try to avoid it, and that's going make you practice and make you a better player. I
enjoy playing against him and I think the same for him. We can improve playing against each other. It
was only two sets, so there's not too much -- you know, it was over in a hurry, so there's not too
much we can say about it.

[[Hmmmm. . . In two previous replies, TMF cited "information", yet when he was pressed on it, he denied having any, or, presumably, needing any. There's a conflict somewhere in here between the Federer who wants to "figure out" Nadal and says as much, and the TMF who just wants to go out, hit balls, play his game, and win the match on his own terms. His suggestion that the "backhand problem"is now solved is interesting, because we all know what that means: if TMF's fate is going to be determined by his forehand, he's great shape except on the odd day. He doesn't quite connect the dots, but that may be what he was driving at when he concluded that there isn't "too much to say about it."]]

End of FastScripts

So there you have it, an interesting slice of TMF's mind. Based on this interview, my feeling is that Federer is painting himself into the Roland Garros corner - he's going to bet the house on a roll of the die. It's a risky gambit, but then his record certainly entitles him to choose that route. Federer is putting more pressure on himself, and it will be interesting to see how he responds to that. But he is also trying to suppress the Dreaded C-C Demon, because that little monsters is growing. Of that, I feel sure. TMF is a psychic struggle of crucial and excruciatingly fine dimensions: for at what point does a healthy measure of long-term confidence and conviction collapse into the rubble of rationalizations, or the ruin of denial?

However you cut it, I get the sense that this French Open will be a critical one for Federer. I think he's face two challenges: beating whatever grinder stands in his path to the finals. The other one, I think you know.