by Pete Bodo
We all know that Roger Federer does not write the headlines for stories about Roger Federer. Not for the Associated Press, TENNIS.com, ESPN or anyone else. Still, it seemed entirely appropriate, in an Onion-esque or SNL "Generalissimo Franco is still dead" way, that the headline on this Ticker item on our home page read: "Federer Not Frustrated by Third Loss to Djokovic."
Great players all have a capacity for denial, and who's entitled to accuse them of lapsing into it until the day they hang up the sticks? Remember that Pete Sampras, near the end of his career, was still so convinced the he might win one more Grand Slam title that he almost leaped up from his chair during a presser to punch out a Spanish reporter for smirking as he questioned Sampras's sincerity—or was it his sanity?—for making that claim. The guy thought Sampras was in denial. He was proved wrong.
So while Federer's claim may induce an eye-roll or guffaw in some of you, bear in mind that once a cobra, always a cobra. No matter how frustra (whoops, I withdraw that word!)...difficult things get, this is a guy with 16 Grand Slam titles to his name. He plays a game that doesn't appear to put an enormous amount of stress or strain on any of his appendages (the organs, like the brain and intestines, are another matter). He hasn't even turned 30. If you don't believe he's capable of going out in a few months time and winning Wimbledon without losing a set, you need to have your head examined.
Whether Federer does something like that, at Wimbledon or elsewhere, will be determined partly by the abilities of his rivals and partly by his own degree of determination and desire (the skill, we know, is there). Federer is struggling, not just to win but to play solid, workmanlike matches—the kind that your run-of-the-mill Top 20 players produce through two or three rounds at every tournament. Here at TENNIS.com, the Mighty Fed has his own Boswell in Tom Tebbutt. After Federer's loss to Djokovic, even Tebbutt was moved to describe that third-set meltdown (that decisive stretch where Federer suddenly lost 11 points in a row, seven of them while serving) as "a total collapse."
Painful as it may be for Federer and his fans, that's exactly the kind of thing that happens to a player who's on the far side of the career hill. Most of the time, losing your grip in tennis has less to do with age or technical/strategic deficiency, at least initially, than with mental and emotional fatigue. As a dedicated professional, you hit a point when your ability to fly on automatic pilot (a talent that took years to develop and is usually a good thing) becomes a tendency to just go through the motions. You get lulled, because down deep it just doesn't feel all that important anymore. You become inattentive, even if your feet and hands are trying to do the right things. You take your eye off the ball, figuratively as well as literally. And lately, Federer has been taking his eye off the ball.
I don't expect that Federer will "recover"' from this condition. It isn't a momentary or situational shortcoming; it's something he'll have to live with for the rest of his career. He can do certain things to rekindle his inner fire, but I'm not sure he has the fierce drive to taste blood and scatter gore that enabled Jimmy Connors to make that incredible run in 1991, or that TMF has the same desire to prove the world wrong that kept Sampras plugging away until he won his final major 2002. At times, Federer seems way too philosophical, too rational and even-keeled.
Federer's chances going forward might be better if he whipped up a little controversy and interest, out of character as that may seem—if he vowed revenge, spat out a challenge, or warned Djokovic, and anyone else who might care to listen, that he's coming back and there's going to be hail to pay. I suppose there's a chance that there's a reservoir of anger and determination buidling behind the wide dam of Federer's perambulations (as he said, after losing to Djokovic for the third consecutive time, "I don't know if I'd rather lose against three multiple different guys, outside of the Top 50. I guess not. I'd rather lose against a guy that's ranked very high..."), but I doubt it. This apparent lack of rage, while admirable in most ways, may not yield much in the way of one thing Federer sorely needs, motivation.
TMF may not be motivated to bag more Masters titles, or perhaps even Grand Slam trophies. But he needs to want something if he's going to to continue to be a force. Why not a desire for Djokovic's head on a platter?
Late in their careers, many of the great champions called upon help from tennis fans to keep going. Connors and Andre Agassi were masterful at drawing on the energy of supportive crowds when their own emotional resources were waning. An outpouring of love and admiration can be a powerful thing, but will TMF be appealing enough, in a personal way, to generate that special kind of love that the crowds bestow on aging champions? Will he be humble enough to ask for it, as did the theatrical, almost to the point of groveling, Agassi?
One thing I've noticed already is that by taking the high road and acting (if acting it is) as if nothing is amiss, Federer invites dismissal. In that sense, he has much to think about as he approaches the twilight of his career with its inevitable ups and downs. He needs to understand that it isn't news in any meaningful sense when he claims not to be worried by or frustrated about losing to Djokovic (or anyone else) three consecutive times.
Well, if Federer isn't frustrated by losing to Djokovic three times, why should anyone else be?
Great a champion as he is, Federer must know that tennis fans are conditioned to move on. In almost all aspects, tennis is about what you've done today and what you'll do tomorrow. This would be a good time for Federer to start planning for those tomorrows.