We’re back in the groove, it seems, after a few weeks of off-season, a few weeks of Slam season, and a couple weeks of let-me-find-out-what-time-zone-I’m-in-again season. To mark the occasion, I’ll get back to some topics that have bubbled below the comment line for the last couple of weeks.
*
the thing I like more in this article [about Roger Federer] is that you never wrote the words “retirement” or “finished.”—Caillean
I still don’t think the media have marked Federer down as “finished” as often as his fans seem to think we have. But it’s true, there is no reason to say “Federer” and “retirement” in the same sentence. He’s hired a new coach and keeps the future very much open as far as how long he intends to play. He doesn’t, from what I can tell, appear to have tired of any part of his job, except perhaps sitting in press conferences, and especially sitting in press conferences after defeats. After the Australian Open, he made a point of saying that he’s ready for all 15 or so tournaments he’s scheduled to play this year. I can remember thinking, after he had won his 15th major at Wimbledon 2009, that he sensed that he was subtly being put out to pasture. He made a point of saying that 15 Slams hadn’t been his goal, and that he wasn’t done trying to win them.
At the same time, from a writer’s perspective, it’s hard not to do that to the guy, in part because he has no more players to pass on that list. The ultimate has been attained. It’s as if retirement is the only milestone we have left to ask him about, even though he’s not even 30. (Oh, and that pesky weeks-at-No. 1 record, but we won't mention that.)
I look forward to the next phase of Federer’s career, his “afterlife” as I called it last year, whatever it may bring us.
*
Kasporov in chess , sobers in cricket , sugar Ray Robinson in boxing ...no such comparable talent in baseball , basketball , football or golf ...the talent is such that your peers and other greats who have played the sport are in awe. Federer is one such figure.—Robert
This is quite a list, one that I never would have put together. I’ve only heard the name Sobers; he was a cricketer? Kasparov and Federer? Sugar Ray Robinson and Federer? Those are original comparisons, anyway. My favorite athletes over the years have been McEnroe, Graf, Michael Jordan, Joe Montana, Shane Victorino, Lebron. The only two soccer players who have ever stood out to me are Michael Owen and the original Ronaldo. Federer and Nadal are both in there now.
*
I do remember reading a blog contribution from you, mr. Tignor, a couple of years ago on 'what Federer should do to beat Nadal'.—Tinh
I wasn’t saying that we can’t give Federer advice. It would be unnatural not to watch him, or anyone, lose a match and not at least think, “Why didn’t he…?” And part of the reason people like Pat Rafter give him advice in the first place is out of admiration for his talent. But what’s different with Federer is that people seem to think he should always beat everyone, if only he used the right tactics.
*
A large part of Murray's problem is himself. He's approaching this big match situation without a specific plan/focus and its causing him to fail. Under normal, relaxed situations, Murray can come up with solutions to almost any problem in his way, but by adding the pressure of winning a slam it's clear that he's not performing with much clarity.—GEM
Yes, he has played the second-tier matches very well and then gotten himself wired too tightly for the really big ones. Look at the way he played Federer in Shanghai and Toronto last year, and the way he played him in front of his home fans in London and in Melbourne. He psyched himself out in the latter matches, the same way he did in this year’s Aussie final. I still think it goes back to not having a go-to weapon, a forehnad that, if needed, he can hit mindlessly and nervelessly for winners.
*
Does Nadal not count as a "slow court era" player? His FH does count as a large weapon. But his blend of offense and defense as well as his reliance on speed and athleticism seems to mesh with the description.—chicklet
I’ve always thought of Nadal as having begun as a classic clay-courter and grown from there. It’s a paradox of clay that you need a point-ending weapon to win on it, or at least you’ve needed one for the last 20-odd years. Even at his best, Lleyton Hewitt never threatened to win the French; he didn’t have the power.
*
I truly believe that the first slam you win is the most difficult. You have so much pressure being in the top teir to win and prove yourself and I think that is what Murray has felt. BUT I also think the second is just as hard because you have this pressure to back up 1. It's almost as if you dont win another quickly your mental state is preventing you after that first year.—Sk130
Yes, becoming a certified Slam winner seems very difficult, doesn’t it? You should win one early, to get the hex off and rid yourself of the “best never” tag (the one that Murray now has). Then you should follow it up quickly, so you don’t become a guy who “never lived up to his early results,” à la Andy Roddick.
Now we’ll see what Djokovic does with this win. Will he soon become “the guy who could only win in Australia”?
*
It is true that the art of the volley has been fading away and but it is not due to the "slowness" of the game as you claim. Rather, it has to do with the sheer strength and power and speed of today’s game. Players don't come in more because they get passed more easily. Try to come in all the time against the big guns and you get passed often. It is that simple.—Abraxas
I think there’s some truth in the courts being slowed, and also in the power of the players. ATP stringer Nate Ferguson, who does the racquets for all of the top guys, dates the end of the volley to a specific match: Sampras vs. Kuerten, semifinals, ATP Masters Cup, Lisbon, 2000. He says he watched Kuerten, the pioneer of the polyester string, put his passing shots at Sampras’s feet and wondered if the volley was dead forever. He’s wasn’t all that far off.
*
"There was a Federer-esque, full-flight quality to his performance through the first five games of that set." Federer-esque??? It was Nadalesque!!! Federer just does not have the kind of game that won the slam for Djoko tonight. He played with grit and composure. He played his brains out, ala Nadal.—Tony
Next stage of the Fedal wars: Who was the champion of each Slam playing more like?
Federer! No, Nadal! You didn’t think the rivalry would die with them, did you?
*
Belgian Waffles, were you at the AO final? How often was the camera on Nobvak's entourage? Were they supposed to sit there like zoombies? I didn't see them do anything out of line.—Sidney
I like the Djokovic entourage myself. They’re much improved since 2007 or so. I think at times he has worried too much about them, or about how his opponents are reacting to them. But he gave a very heartfelt thanks to all of them at the end of the Aussie Open, the best tribute I’ve heard to a “team” yet.
*
Not quite understanding this, Steve. Rafael has won Wimbledon (2x) AO and USO. Suddenly he can only rely on clay? If his injury is serious, he can't play on clay either.—jabeau
No, I was just saying that whatever his troubles may be, they always seem to be solved when he gets back on Monte Carlo dirt. He builds from that each season. It’s like Sampras at Wimbledon each year. He’s given new life on his favorite surface.
*
Steve: Unless a player tells you outright that he's injured or calls for a MTO during the match you should assume that he's 100% fit. Murray said he wasn't injured, let's leave at that. No excuses!—wilson75
I’ll ignore your presumptuous tone (actually, I didn’t ignore it, did I?) and say that I’ll always use my eyes and ears, as well as the words of any player, in thinking about or writing about a match. I’m not saying Murray lost because he was injured, but he was at times holding the same leg that he had injured in the semis, and was slow in general. That could have been from tiredness, but I thought during the match that the quad was bothering him as well.
*
Did you see Henin's retirement letter. It was filled with spelling and gramatical errors. That was a joke. If she does not possess the skill set required to write a letter, why not have someone else write/review it—ry guy
When you misspell "grammatical," does that count as a spelling error, or a "grammatical" error? (Did I spell misspell correctly?)
*
Roddick bulked up ont he muscle and killed his groundstroke game, its pity because he used to be good enough to hang with Hewitt so he obviously would be capable of challanging now ( had he not gone the way of Courier )—petewho
Watching tapes of Roddick circa 2003-2004, you do see a different player with a different mindset and a different forehand. I thought the change came during the brief and mostly ill-fated Dean Goldfine era. Seemed that Roddick began to put more air under the ball in those days, and never stopped.
*
"As Steve said, it is all sort 'reset' time. For everyone. "
Wishful thinking. Note it down somewhere, Novak's form is not going anywhere in a hurry. ?As someone somewhere in summer time mentioned it: ominous.—noleisthebest
One question, noleisthebest, that I've been wanting to ask you. It's been bugging me for a long time. I'll only accept a one-word answer.
Who, in your opinion, is the best?
*
Steve why do you use the word 'mirage' so much? It's nice, but we get it.—someone
Mirage, eh? I had not noticed that. I've always thought I use "always" too much.
*
Thanks for reading, and commenting, and then reading again, everyone.