All right, that's unlikely to happen: there's this little matter of that 17-2 head-to-head advantage Federer enjoys. But call me perverse - I'm really curious to see how this match plays out, and expect the match to be interesting in an Inside Tennis kind of way. As you know, those 19 meetings between these two men all took place on surfaces faster than clay - in some cases, much faster and as fast as they come. I'm looking forward to what Roddick is going to do now that the habitual option of attacking and overpowering Federer is taken off the table.
Call me crazy, but I think this match could be competitive and entertaining. I have various reasons for thinking that, some of them having to do with the nature and current disposition of the players, and some having to do with the nature of the clay surface on which they'll meet.
Let's start with that clay. The most overlooked characteristic of clay courts is that they provide players with more time to reach and respond to an opponent's shots. That's a welcome property for artistic players and great shotmakers, but it can also be a boon to players who are not great natural movers. The best example of the latter is Ivan Lendl, a five-time finalist and three time champ at Roland Garros. He didn't move well enough to be a major force on grass (he never won Wimbledon), but clay gave him the opportunity to use his sledgehammer groundstrokes to best effect. And he served well enough to take command of points.
In some ways, Roddick resembles Lendl more than any other player, although "Lendl without the backhand" might be more like it. Fair enough, but rermember clay is the surface where you can most effectively hide a weak backhand by overplaying to that side. Let's remember that Roddick made his breakthrough in 2001, when he won back-to-back clay-court tournaments in the U,S. (Atlanta and Houston) on clay. He had played just one major up to that point, losing in the first-round at the 2000 U.S. Open. Yet in '01, he went three rounds in Paris - a streak he hasn't duplicated since. Roddick can play on clay - no doubt about it. In fact, at times he's enjoyed playing on clay.
Last year, when he had to pull out of Roland Garros with a shoulder injury, he told me: "I was really disappointed because I was moving well on clay, mixing it up playing right shots at the right time. I was really, really looking forward to the French Open. Any other year, okay, I might have felt relieved at not going to Paris. But that's not the case this year. Before I had to stop, I won the matches I'm supposed to win, and who knows what happens when I get in against a clay-court specialist? I had good luck against Robredo just taking him out of his game a little (Roddick beat Robredo in the quarterfinals in Rome, and had to quit the semifinal due to his injury). So I was really looking forward to the French. It was disappointing to miss it."
When you consider Roddick's energy level, and the obvious joy he takes in mixing it up with his opponent, you can see why he might like clay. The surface is, literally, one in which you can get down in dirty, and nobody ever suggested that Roddick is squeamish, or afraid to get his nice tennis togs stained by clay and sweat. But his game, and to some degree his personality, made him gravitate toward the faster courts. For a few years there, I think Roddick was tunnel-visioned, and Wimbledon and the U.S. Open were perhaps too much on his mind.
Roddick was a rejuvenated player at this time last year, and if anything he's in even better shape now. Coming off his honeymoon, he's probably still on an emotional high. The one thing is for sure: Roddick won't be afraid to take the game to Federer. Roddick always plays like he's got just as much right as Federer to be on that court, and in Europe Roddick is always paying with house money.
Federer is in a very different situation. The underlying theme in his game in the past few months has been impatience. Federer used to play five and six stroke combinations and score a knockout, point after point. Lately, though, he's lacked the authority and vvisible sense of purpose, along with the sure hand required to effect that strategy.A carelessness that points to a lack of concentration has crept into his game. It's as if he's in rebellion against himself - part of him still wants to be The Mighty Fed, tennis genius; another part of him is screaming, I'm sick of this s*, get me out of here!
All in all, it's not a bad time to be playing Federer - if you're in a patient frame of mind, unwilling to spot him two points in every game because of who he is, and perhaps even eager to lose yourself in the orgy of effort required to grind out matches against top players on clay. Up to now, I think Roddick always felt obliged to attack Federer. The most representative match in that regard was their 2007 semifinal in Australia, in which Roddick won a total of six games, and only two over the course of the final two sets of that three-set blow-out.
That match was a rout because Roddick went straight at Federer, but he executed at such a sorry level that he just set up Federer for target practice. Roddick won't even be tempted to take that approach against Federer in Madrid, and that's a good thing. Roddick has a a pretty realistic view of his chances on clay:
"When I play well on clay, I can win matches. But the difference kicks in on that middle ground, where, if it's a hard court, I can slam out a match 6-4, 7-5 without playing that well. On clay,I can't do that. I'll be the first to admit that I've had some terrible matches on clay, but I'm also capable of playing well, and have beaten some good guys."
