A Common Fan’s Sports Diary

This comes a little late. It’s been a week since Rafael Nadal vanquished Roger Federer on the red clay at Roland Garros. Roger had raised hopes of a gladiatorial contest after taking the second set but there was only one winner from there on. Nadal was always in control and the normally composed Federer was hopelessly error prone and crumbled under the relentless onslaught of his Spanish adversary.

The French Open remains the Gordian Knot for Federer. He has now been a runner-up twice to Nadal and their head to head record continues to blot his impressive resume. The biggest concern for his supporters would be the fact that he is back to square one as far as untying the knot is concerned.

For most part of the season though, there was hope. Federer had claimed after losing to Nadal at Monte Carlo, that even in defeat, he had gleaned valuable information about beating his nemesis. What followed in the wake of the the boast , appeared to be a watershed event in his pursuit of Nadal. Federer dumped his coach, Tony Roche, and staged a remarkable comeback win over Nadal at the Hamburg Masters. It appeared he had finally unearthed the secret of beating Rafael. The debacle at Roland Garros shattered any such notions.

So where does Roger go from here?

Does he join the list of Wimbledon greats never to have won the French? The likes of Sampras, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe and Connors. Or does he cut the knot like Alexander to cement his legacy as the greatest player of all time.

The good news is that Roger differs from all the aforementioned players in the sense that his failing at the French is not a capability issue. Those guys were never very good on clay, even though McEnroe and Edberg came within a set of the French Open title. He has been the second best player on clay the last two years; second only to the Great Rafael Nadal – a player who could potentially become the all time greatest player on clay. And as he showed at Hamburg, he has all the weapons to beat Nadal as well.

The disturbing part is that, while Nadal transforms into a fearless warrior when he faces the Swiss champion, Federer becomes a victim of his own talents. Accustomed to dismissing opponents with the minimum of fuss, he loses himself in a dogfight, almost looking disinterested when the going gets really tough. And until and unless he can learn to grit his teeth, get the adrenalin pumping and be prepared to die fighting on court, Nadal will continue to have the upper hand.

But how does Federer get there?

He needs someone who can work with the mental side of his game. Not someone to teach him about forehands and backhands, he knows all about it. He does not need a traveling psychologist or mind trainer or anything. He needs to be with a guy like Brad Gilbert or Jimmy Connors; guys who can teach him how to fight. Or even someone from outside of tennis. Say someone like Steve Waugh. It might sound preposterous but so was Alexander’s method of untying the knot. And unless he learns to fight, the smart money would be on Nadal ending Federer’s dominance on non-clay majors, rather than the other way round.

Roger Federer has been the dominant tennis player over the last 4 years. He has been near about invincible on every surface, save for the times he has played Rafael Nadal on clay. He has come tantalizingly close to remedy this blemish, and experts had predicted that 2007 could be the year when he finally made the breakthrough against Nadal – a win which would open the door to a triumph at Roland Garros, anointing Federer as probably the ‘greatest player of all time’.

Federer’s perfect start to 2007 (he comprehensively won his first 12 matches, outclassing the field at the Australian Open), had the tennis fraternity licking their chops in anticipation of the battle royale on clay. Then unexpectedly, the champion’s game went off the boil and it has been a struggle for him ever since. Federer lost twice to unheralded Argentine Guillermo Canas on hard-courts, to Nadal on clay and then on a half-clay, half grass court and last week got beaten in straight sets by Filippo Volandri. He has gone winless for 4 tournaments, his worst streak in the last 4 years. Meanwhile, Rafael Nadal has stretched his unbeaten streak on clay to 76!!!. Are we seeing a change of guard here?

There is enough historical data, which justifies the doomsday predictions for Federer. Tennis today is a ‘very young’ man’s game. Federer is already 26. John McEnroe (7 majors), Mats Wilander (7 majors) and Bjorn Borg (11 majors) won their last grand slam title before turning 25. McEnroe and Borg were strongly positioned in the ‘greatest player’ debate before their careers nose dived abruptly. Wilander dominated 1988 winning three grand slams (his competition that year included Lendl, Agassi, Becker and Edberg) and never won anything again.

Federer has always toyed with his opponents; hardly moving out of first gear and still doing enough to win most matches comfortably. Supremely confident, he is unique in not even having a full time coach. Now the cracks are showing in the cool demeanour. His sacking of part-time coach Tony Roche in the midst of his greatest slump is either the astute decision of a self-assured man or the knee-jerk reaction of a man losing his touch. You can take your pick.

The Swiss maestro stands on the brink of being the next burn out victim of Tennis. Wimbledon and the smell of grass might restore the flagging confidence. Roger Federer could repair his bruised psyche and go on to become the greatest player never to have won the French Open (provided he substantially exceeds Pete Sampras’ haul of 14 grand slam titles). Greatest Player Ever ? That my friend, will depend on whether he has the gumption to stop Rafael Nadal from winning a third consecutive French Open title.