!90021182 Mornin.' Driving back to the farm from a town run this morning, our guest and friend, Liz - a savvy tennis fan and student of human nature whom I've known about 25 years - remarked that the best thing she'd ever heard said about Roger Federer was the quote Pete Sampras delivered right after the Wimbledon final, on international television. Pete simply said, "He's a stud."
I said something about how odd a description it was, given Federer's overall image and preoccupations; let's face it, "stud" is not the first word that comes to most people's minds when you speak Federer's name. Besides, that expression, which makes so many right-thinking people blanche (including scores of the very people who are enamored of Federer's artistic game), is pretty easily bandied about wherever you find two or more people with more than a passing interest in, or familiarity with, the joys of the testosterone-driven life. To which Liz said that was exactly why it was such a trenchant observation - because it was so counter-intuitive but accurate, yet could so easily be taken as a throwaway line, the Here's your quote and now get out of my face reaction of a balding Greek-American former Grand Slam singles title record holder.
But once again (as in the case of Rod Laver's benign, almost banal comment about the importance of Federer's simple love of just playing), the KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) rule begged to be invoked. Federer appears to be more complictated than he really is; he seems not to have the familiar and nearly stereotypical pre-requisites of a dominant, strutting champion. You want testosterone, you look to Andy Roddick; before him you could look to Sampras or the undisputed king of the flung-out chest, Jimmy Connors. Yet our eyes and the official record speaks for themselves.
Federer quietly reaffirmed his studhood again yesterday in the semifinals of the Western and Southern Financial Group Masters, with his straight set deconstruction of that uppity rival, Andy Murray. Federer never allowed Murray a sniff of deuce. Murray may not have found his best game, but so what? Finding your A game is job no. 1 whenever you step onto a court, and the quality of your opponent has an inconveniently disproportionate impact on your ability to do so.
After the match, Federer unwittingly (or not) fired a shot across the bow of all his rivals when he was asked if Murray's four-match win streak against him was a source of motivation. He said (rather icily, I imagine, or would like to): “It doesn’t matter to me, I’m past that point. People try to hype it up, but I don’t read anything into it. I know my game’s on, and when my game’s on, I know I can beat any player in the world.”
Do you think this guy is ready for the US Open? The win seemed particularly meaningful when you compare it to his rival Rafael Nadal's reaction to his desultory loss to Novak Djokovic. Nadal said he needs to be more prepared for facing the very best of players. This was a characteristically workmanlike, humble assessment - and not at all a bad way for Nadal to look at things. The trouble is, Nadal is not going to get many matches against Federer/Djokovic/Roddick/Tsonga caliber players before the Open begins. And Federer is looking at things through considerably different and perhaps more useful eyes.
Over at ESPN the other day, I questioned the relevance of the US Open Series results, and today I adjusted my thinking a little bit. The results are as relevant as the players want th - check that. . . As important as the players make them, and today I think Federer made the result relevant to the upcoming major.
Oh, and Liz wasn't done. Here's a real doozy for you: She doesn't think Roger cries because he's so sentimental, or so emotional. She believes he cries because he's so danged competitive - that is, he cries for the same reason an 6-year old does, after losing a game of ping-pong. Just because he can't stand losing, graciously as he may accept the fact.
Now there's something to think about. . .
Enjoy the final, I hope to see some of you at the US Open qualifying next week . . . And early next week, I'll be notifying those who scored a ticket to next week's by-invitation-only party for James Blake by email.
-- Pete