The Indian Wells-Miami section of the tour is a great stretch for tennis fans. Most of the top players on the ATP and WTA play both events and great matches abound. It also leads to talk of a “Fifth Major” status for one or the other event. This talk is not limited to these two locales. Many people claim the Italian Open or Masters Roma is the fifth major. During Olympic years, the winner of the gold medal is often discussed as having won the fifth most important event of the year. What about the World Tour Finals/Masters Cup/ATP World Championships/Masters held at the end of each season? Is it the fifth most important tournament? Doesn’t BNP Paribas, who now sponsors Indian Wells, also sponsor and have longer ties with the Bercy in the fall? Is it then the fifth major?
Does Monte Carlo get Consideration or is it a Masters Emeritus?
Hypothetical Rules for a Permanent 5th Major Designation
The World Tour Finals Despite Offering the Most Computer Points Outside of the Slams is a Different Animal so the WTF is not a Major
During Olympic Years – The Gold Medalist Holds the 5th Major
During Non-Olympic Years the Tournament with the Best Draw, Best Amenities and Highest Prize Money is the 5th Major
Ignore the Defunct Volvo International and WCT Finals in Dallas Having Once Been Prestigious
Ignore the Growth of Tennis in Asia Despite China having 5th Major Potential
More Trouble than it is Worth
I’d rather listen to “A Fifth of Beethoven” than figure out what is the 5th most important tournament. The Grand Slams have some normative status. If a player, like the young Agassi, skipped Wimbledon for several years, it would still be Wimbledon. Carlos Moya won the Masters Roma title in 2004 and won Masters Cincinnati in 2002. Moya likely places his Rome title just below his 1998 Roland Garros title and Spain’s 2004 Davis Cup win. Andy Roddick would likely value his Masters Miami, Canada and Cincinnati titles more than any clay court title outside of the French Open. Views on the most important titles shift a great deal depending upon a player’s surface preference.
For better or worse, all four Grand Slams have importance that is a given at least since Pete Sampras made breaking Roy Emmerson’s record a public goal. It is great that Indian Wells is voted as a player favorite venue right now, but that does not confer upon it an added quality to my mind. It is a great tournament and should just work at staying that way. Indianapolis was praised in John Feinstein’s book Hard Courts that chronicled the tour in 1990.* Indianapolis was sponsored by RCA at that time, and players loved the event due to having access to virtual reality and other audio visual prototypes that RCA was developing. Less than 25 years later, the Indianapolis Tennis Center is now gone, as in plowed under, and a basketball arena sits in its place. So long as Indian Wells and Key Biscayne/Miami keep holding great tennis events and don’t get plowed under, I will be happy.
Better Days for Tennis in Indianapolis
* – Feinstein referred to Key Biscayne/Miami as the 5th major in 1990. Therefore if Indian Wells is now the 5th major, it stands to reason that this title is a short term distinction at best.
The recent controversy about Caroline Wozniacki’s impersonation of Serena Williams got me thinking about the history of impersonating a player’s ticks or idiosyncrasies. My mind initially thought that Jonas Bjorkman was the progenitor of this fad. His rain delay US Open fodder of lighthearted imitations did indeed pave the way to Djokovic’s 2007 US Open impersonation tour. However, a more contentious and longer history came into my mind the more I thought about the topic. It is doubtful that Rod Laver ever impersonated John Newcombe, but since the late 1980′s impersonations have popped up and generally engendered bad feelings.
1988 – Boris Becker Imitates and Gets Imitated by Pat Cash
Boris Becker won Wimbledon in 1985 and 1986. Pat Cash was the defending champion having claimed the title in 1987. Their 1988 quarterfinal round battle lived up to the hype, but not because of the tennis. Becker won the match routinely 6-4, 6-3, 6-4. Here is how Mitch Album described the memorable events on June 30, 1988:
Well. Let us take you to the second set Wednesday: Becker was leading, 4-1, and Cash came charging, hit a volley winner — and fell over the net.
Fell over the net? Yes. And Becker got so excited, he somersaulted over the net as well. Wheee. Are we having fun, or what? Now we had two guys on the wrong side. Becker was kidding. He offered his hand. Cash was serious. He offered his thoughts.
“What did he say?” someone asked Becker.
“I don’t think I should repeat it,” Becker said. “He taught me some new words in English.”
And the girls screamed. Cash wigs out after losing
But wait. Before you castigate Cash for being a poor sport, let us take you now to the post-game press conference — after Becker had humbled Cash in two hours and 17 minutes. Everyone figured the moody, broody Australian wouldn’t show, right? He had just lost his title.
But here he came, wearing a red punk-rock wig, all spikes and points. The kind that makes you look like Son of Porcupine.
1988 – Agassi Ticks off Connors and McEnroe Simultaneously
Andre Agassi’s first US Open tilt with Jimmy Connors was seen as a passing of the torch as Agassi would assume the mantle as the top US born player. John McEnroe was watching as well. At some point during the match, Agassi imitated McEnroe’s serving motion, an act that infuriated Johnny Mac. Agassi’s post-match comments angered Connors into making a biting paternity joke. Agassi did win the match 6-2, 7-6, 6-1.
1989 – Boris Becker gets Imitated by McEnroe
Boris Becker defeated John McEnroe in an epic Davis Cup encounter in Hartford, Connecticut in 1987 4-6, 15-13, 8-10, 6-2, 6-2. Even before that match, McEnroe and Becker had exchanged tense words and stares dating back to their first match. McEnroe’s autobiography You Cannot Be Serious describes their relationship as generally being that of friendly rivals. At times, tensions did boil over. McEnroe saw fit to challenge perceived gamesmanship on Becker’s part during their semifinal encounter at the 1989 Paris Indoor. McEnroe loudly coughed in response to Boris Becker’s characteristic cough. At a changeover, Becker asked for compassion, and McEnroe retorted that Becker had been sick since 1985. McEnroe calling Becker out for gamesmanship in this manner did not endear him to the crowd and helped inspire Becker to a 7-6, 3-6, 6-3 victory. McEnroe even recounted that this event led to a post-match argument with his first wife.
1998 – Andre Agassi Mocks Karol Kucera
Karol Kucera had a great season in 1998. He reached an Australian Open semifinal and a US open quarterfinal. Along the way, Kucera dispatched of Andre Agassi in the 1998 US Open round of 16 6-3, 6-3, 6-7, 1-6, 6-3. Kucera’s return of serve and ability to change the pace and direction of the ball during a rally mystified Agassi. Head games were the only thing that made this match close. Agassi, irritated by either the scoreline or Kucera’s frequently errant service toss, began to imitate a Kucera. Agassi timidly approached the service line and mockingly attempted to toss the ball. Beyond that, Agassi hit moonballs to his upstart opponent. These tactics unnerved Kucera and helped the match extend to 5 sets. Personally, this is the lowest moment of tennis imitations that I can remember. Agassi was simply trying to throw his opponent off through mockery.
The Sampras-Agassi Hit for Haiti Debacle
The first Hit or Haiti was an unqualified success. Major world athletes threw together an enjoyable charity event without the meddling hands of sponsors and agents. It was a feel good event. When Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi were added to the mix for a sequel charity doubles match, things looked great, right? Who would not want to see all-court maestro’s Roger Federer and Pete Sampras take on two men who revolutionized backcourt tennis in Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal? It did not live up to the hype.
“That aint personal.” (?)
Sampras and Agassi already had some bad blood from Agassi’s recently published autobiography Open. Agassi did not take Sampras’ imitation well and threw out a tasteless imitation implying that Pete is cheap. Sampras went head hunting, and Agassi still pressed his claim of Sampras’ stinginess.
Lessons?
Boris Becker attempted a funny net dive when playing Pat Cash and was repaid by Cash wearing an ugly red wig?!?! John McEnroe’s impersonation of Becker helped to inspire his opponent to victory and started an argument with his then wife. Andre Agassi angered or incited John McEnroe and Karol Kucera with impersonations. Agassi responded badly to Pete Sampras impersonating him. This spiraled to a tit for tat impersonation that managed to ruin a fundraiser for a natural disaster. Caroline Wozniacki, as well as Andy Roddick and Novak Djokovic, have made questionable imitations of Serena Williams’ body-type.
My advice is that unless an impersonation serves a purpose and is obviously approved of by the player being mimicked (a la Djokovic’s take on Guga) to not do imitations. My main reason for saying this is not that charitable events or marriages might be threatened. My advice for not doing imitations stems from the fact that impersonations have been done to death and are not terribly comical (Gustavo Djokovic aside). If comedy is not funny, what is it?
The Exception that Proves the Rule? (No Impersonations Unless They are This Funny?)
The 1988 Olympic Games brought tennis back as a medal sport. Steffi Graf completed a “Golden Slam” in 1988, and the overall success of the tennis events brought about a great deal of excitement for the 1992 games. These games were held in Barcelona, Spain so Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario looked to be a major factor. The 1992 Olympics were held between Wimbledon and the US Open so players were looking at transitioning from clay to grass to clay to hard courts from June – early September. Surface speeds were not as uniform then as they are today so this was not n easy proposition.
The Women’s Event: Great Results
Steffi Graf had been runner-up at the 1992 French Open and had won the 1992 Wimbledon championships in a decisive fashion over Monica Seles. Graf was an Olympic veteran who won gold in singles and bronze in doubles in 1988 and who won the singles demonstration event at the 1984 games. Seles could not play due to citizenship issues. Sanchez-Vicario won the French Open in 1989 upsetting Graf in the final. She also beat Graf in the 1991 French Open semifinal round and lost a tight 3 set affair at the 1992 French Open to Graf. On clay and in Arantxa’s backyard, it looked to be an event with two clear favorites.
The tournament did not work out quite as planned, but there was drama to end the event. Jennifer Capriati beat Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 6-3, 3-6, 6-1 in the semifinal round to set up a gold medal match with Steffi Graf. Capriati pulled yet another upset with a 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 win over Graf who would add a silver to the gold and bronze medals she won in 1988. Mary Joe Fernandez and Sanchez-Vicario each received bronze medals. The Spanish fans had to be happy that Arantxa won a second medal in doubles by claiming silver with Conchita Martinez while Mary Joe Fernandez and Gigi Fernandez claimed the gold medal in doubles.
The Men’s Event: Marc Rosset? Jordi Arrese?
Jim Courier won the 1991 and 1992 French Open and looked forward to the 1992 Olympic games being played on clay. Courier and Pete Sampras won the Italian Open as a doubles tandem early in their careers and the US fielded a team of the #1 and #3 singles players in the world for the doubles event. Jim Courier bragged that he would stay in the Olympic Village. The US men’s team that boasted Courier, Sampras and 1989 French Open champion Michael Chang was even compared to the 1992 USA Basketball Dream Team(!). World #2 Stefan Edberg was in the singles and doubles events as well. Germany fielded Boris Becker and Michael Stich for singles and doubles. This was billed by many as the tennis event of the year. Someone needed to clue the top seeds in to this idea.
Boris Becker, who expressed similar sentiments to those of Jim Courier prior to the 1988 games, ominously said in 1992 something along the lines that he was just looking forward to getting coffee with non-tennis athletes. Courier decided he did not like the Olympic dorms after all (see below for more). Stich complained that the courts were rigged to favor Spanish players. Courier was beaten by Marc Rosset in the round of 16. Edberg, Sampras, Stich, Chang and Becker all also lost prior to the medal rounds. Goran Ivanisevic did win bronze medals in singles and doubles with Goran Prpic. Boris Becker took a short enough coffee break to win the gold in doubles with Michael Stich. Still, Marc Rosset vs. Jordi Arrese for the gold medal did not exactly project that the best of the best was standing on the medal stand to end the event.
Final Verdict – Men’s Olympic Tennis Took a Step Back
The 1992 games having all matches be 3 out of 5 set affairs on slow clay coming on the heels of Wimbledon and interfering with preparation for the US Open set up an incredibly weak men’s field for the 1996 games. Jim Courier mentioned that he was fatigued following his four set 1992 US Open quarterfinal victory over Andre Agassi. He explained that the fatigue was a result of not properly being prepared for the US Open because of the Olympic games. Women’s tennis continued to place elite players on the medal stands, but by 1996 the prevailing belief on the ATP tour was that the Olympic games hindered Grand Slam prospects.
Post Script – Pete Sampras Remembers the 1992 Olympics
What are your own Olympic memories from the Barcelona Games in 1992? “My memory of 1992, I walked into the Olympic village, I had a cot, and it was 95 degrees. I saw Jim Courier, who was literally two feet away from me in another cot and I said, ‘You know, I might go to the hotel’. So that started off things. It is obviously a very big event, a lot of people, I enjoyed my time there. I didn’t have a chance to see any other events. I lost in one of the early rounds in a tough match. It was a good experience. Tennis, to me, in the Olympics, in my time growing up, it was an exhibition
While I do not feel as rare as the East African Bongo (pictured above), I was watching some top junior players in my region hitting. They all hit with extreme grips, generated a lot of topspin and hit two-handed backhands that were slightly different from the form I observed as a kid (I have hit a one-handed backhand for all but two weeks of my tennis life). It was great to see young players who love tennis hitting the ball as hard as they were.
It was also a bit jarring. Certainly in the 1990s, a lot of players had patterned their games after Andre Agassi, Jim Courier or Michael Chang. Still, Pete Sampras, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Patrick Rafter, Michael Stich and others gave templates for one-handed players who built their game around their serves. I fell into this category. My first year of regularly playing matches with neighborhood friends was an exercise on how to lose. However, once I learned to serve with some acumen in the seventh grade, I routinely beat my friends, did well in leagues and began to play tournaments. I hit big serves, moved forward, volleyed well and generally played a clean style of tennis. As I moved into high school and larger pools of opponents, I did not always meet with success, but my game was fairly straight forward. Win or lose, I was going to serve pretty big and get to the net during my matches.
My one-handed backhand at that age was a liability because I could really only slice the ball unless an ideal situation arose for driving though the ball. By the time I was in college, I was strong enough to have really good versatility on my backhand wing. In the early part of the 2000′s I was living in a remote location, but a man from Spain lived near me and we played tennis four or five days per week for a solid year (even in very cold weather). His topspin based game helped me round out my game and become a more all court player. Still, I generally beat him. I did so because I was willing to serve and volley and willing to chip and charge. He said as much when I eventually moved ending our one year run of singles competition. He told me he had to learn to come forward as well.
Edberg vs. Muster 1994
I love this clip because it captures two very different approaches for constructing and winning points.
Where You Are the Endangered Species
That was the tagline for the very mediocre film adaptation of the novel Congo. Watching these juniors, I thought my grips, my court positioning, my backhand and my general approach to tennis is anathema to how they play. I do not begrudge the pros for turning away from more net centric styles of tennis. The percentages just are not there. However, I am not convinced that the average junior player or club player has the hand eye coordination or racquet head speed to really push an opponent off of the net. Regardless of the racquets and strings available to an average player, he or she is average just like me.
That makes me think forward moving styles of tennis are still quite viable. I have had a chance to hit for a few minutes here and there with junior players this year. The one shot that they struggle with the most is my one-handed slice backhand. I hit the shot reasonably well, but it is also a shot they never see. Therefore, the advantage of unorthodoxy or the element of surprise alone should keep players like me who honed their games in the 1990s or prior happy to maintain our style of play. Throw in that an attacking player knows what to expect from almost every younger player and that younger players are not used to hitting passing shots or lobs, and the future just gets brighter for a style that is seemingly obsolete. I just got my preferred racquets restrung, and I was cracking serves like it was 1993. I simply say that if tennis that focuses on getting to the net is a dinosaur, it is the job of practitioners of attacking tennis to be Jurassic Park.
Rafael Nadal won nearly everything of importance from the onset of the clay court season of 2010 through the conclusion of the US Open 2010. Nadal’s 2011 did not feature the same level of success. The same could be said for Nadal’s 2008 French Open, Wimbledon, and Olympic Gold trifecta was followed by an Australian Open title in 2009 and not much else from Nadal. Jim Courier first launched himself into the top tier of tennis by winning both Indian Wells and Miami in 1991. After winning the 1992 Australian Open, Courier claimed the number one ranking right as he had many points to defend. Courier stumbled at both hard court events and lost the number one ranking. Courier of course rebounded winning two indoor events in a now defunct Asian indoor swing that followed Miami, winning the Italian Open and winning the French Open to reclaim the number one ranking. Still, Courier admitted that the computer had impacted his play in Miami and California. For the remainder of 1992 and 1993, Courier would simply say a player cannot beat the computer and therefore should simply ignore it.
Different Approaches
John Feinstein’s 1991 book Hard Courts explored how at that time U.S. born players such as Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe viewed the number one ranking as something to claim and defend. He noted that European players such as Boris Becker and Mats Wilander looked at the number one ranking like an honor to attain, but did not view it as something akin to a boxing heavy weight title that requires defense. Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg were already exceptions to Feinstein’s observation. The presence of these exceptions throws some doubt onto the notion in the first place. Undoubtedly, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic all take pride in holding the number one ranking as well.
Still, if one considers that Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg had pretty similar levels of success with the lone exception of their time at number one. Becker never finished a single season ranked number one and held the ranking for a total of twelve weeks. Edberg finished 1990 and 1991 ranked number one and spent seventy-two total weeks atop of the rankings. A sixty week difference implies to me that Becker did not care a great deal about holding the number one ranking. This counter-intuitive approach would save a player from any stresses associated with fears of losing the top spot. If a player does not care where he is ranked, he may be free to play better tennis in any given situation.
The approach of holding the number one ranking and defending it resonates more with my gut than the idea of keeping the ranking at arms length. Jimmy Connors held the number one ranking for many weeks when most tennis pundits considered Bjorn Borg to be the top player in the world. John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl locked horns over the number one ranking and a changing of the guard occurred in 1985 from which McEnroe never really recovered.
Today’s players seem to be somewhere in-between Feinstein’s two approaches to the number one ranking. Roger Federer clearly wanted to hold the top spot in 2008, but when he lost the number one ranking it did not stop him from winning the 2008 US Open or having a successful 2009. Rafael Nadal philosophically says that he seeks to be the best he can be and if that is behind someone else being number two is not bad. He however says he will always seek to improve making a return to number one plausible. Even Pete Sampras gracefully gave up defending number one in 1999 only to win Wimbledon in 1999 and 2000 while also winning the US Open in 2002.
Hunter versus Hunted
To get to my point, I think Novak Djokovic will need to come to some sort of solution that works for him. From January 2011 through September 2011, Djokovic won nearly every big tournament. He piled up enough computer points that the need to defend points from March through June 2012 should be minimal. To paraphrase a comment on this week’s power rankings, Novak does not need to win everything in 2012, but he does need to win more than anyone else does. His Australian Open title is a great start to carving out a 2012 that will keep him atop of the rankings. Djokovic is a smart guy and seems to be taking all of this in stride.
Roger Federer, despite being thirty and having finished each season starting in 2001 among the top eight players in the world, seems to be relishing a chance to build his rankings up toward a tangible goal rather than defending territory earned in the previous seasons. To this point, Federer’s three consecutive titles place him in a clear second slot for 2012. At both Indian Wells and Dubai, Federer has gained on Djokovic relative to last year’s results. 2012 is shaping up to be a season in which the old man may get one last run at the top while Novak methodically puts together a year that leaves him number one when the season finishes. Given the wrinkles added by the Olympic games, some positive signs in Andy Murray’s game, and Rafa’s iron will, 2012 may be a most interesting year in terms of tennis psychology.
In part 1, I asserted that the GOAT question is hard to answer, but that two separate but related questions contribute to the process of naming a GOAT. Who played tennis at the highest level and who accomplished the most in his or her career are rarely the same thing. No one would doubt that Mats Wilander’s 1988 was a better year than any single calendar year posted by Andre Agassi or even Pete Sampras. However, across their career accomplishments Wilander had a respectable career, but not one that rivals Agassi or Sampras’ in total. Novak Djokovic is still a moving target but as of now the same could be said for Nole’s 2011 and overall body of work.
Beyond the two questions listed in part 1, there are difficulties in comparing accomplishments. Is Roscoe Tanner’s 1977 Australian Open title worth as much as Rafael Nadal’s 2009 Australian Open title? Tanner won the Australian Open in a year that the event was held twice (!?!) (Vitas Gerulaitas winning the other 1977 title Down Under). I also hate to keep bringing up Johan Kriek, but his two Australian Open titles don’t seem to be as prestigious as Boris Becker, Pete Sampras, Ivan Lendl, or Jim Courier’s two titles down under. The Australian Open took on added importance when it moved to a hard court to start the tennis season in 1988. Also consider:
Super 9/Masters Series/Masters 1000 events have morphed from events that generally required three out of five set finals and six matches in one week to events where top seeds receive byes and the championship match is only two out of three sets.
Super 9 Events only Emerged in 1990 whereas key events such as the WCT Finals in Dallas have faded away.
The Year End Championship shifted the championship match from a three out of five set format to a two out of three sets format.
The US and Australian Opens have both changed surfaces since the Open Era began whereas the French Open and Wimbledon have substantially modified the speed of their surfaces. (i.e. The French Open used to use pressure free tennis balls that were quite heavy and used to water the courts between sets)
Tennis Became a Medal Sport at the 1988 Olympics
Two Grand Slam events now have the potential for matches to be played indoors
Racquet, string, and shoe technology is always shifting
Sports medicine has rendered formerly career threatening injuries less daunting
Travel has become both easier and harder as private jets may offset some wear and tear, but the tour has become far more global since 1988
Slower courts have made it harder for young players to simply ride a hot streak to a major title due to increased physical demands
Having said all of that four candidates for the GOAT in a post-Rod Laver world emerge without too much quibbling. I will look at each in chronological order
Why Bjorn Borg might be the GOAT – Bjorn Borg accumulated six French Open titles while also winning five consecutive Wimbledon titles. At this time, Wimbledon and the French Open played quite differently so his three “channel doubles” are more impressive in my mind than Nadal’s two or Federer’s one. Borg had a mystique. He innovated the sport by using a great deal of topspin to control his error total while also being freakishly fit and quick. Borg retired at the age of 26 when he probably had another two French Open titles left in him. Despite retiring early, Borg tallied eleven major titles in an era when the Australian Open was not really a major. Borg had a heavy top spin forehand, a strong serve for his time and a two handed backhand. Borg was the first top player to completely ignore doubles. He was a trend setter and negotiated the transition from slow clay to fast grass better than anyone in history.
Why Bjorn Borg is not the GOAT – Total majors aside, had Bjorn Borg won the US Open his GOAT candidacy would be much stronger. Bjorn Borg was a four time US Open runner-up. His best chances at victory came in 1976 and 1980. Borg lost to Jimmy Connors in four sets in the 1976 US Open final. This match was held on green clay and could have been a signature win for Borg. Instead, Connors bounced back from an injury influenced Wimbledon defeat at the hands of Borg. Borg lost to Connors in straight sets in 1978 on the inaugural hard court final of the US Open. Borg lost to John McEnroe in the 1980 US Open final. Borg lost in five sets after beating McEnroe in an epic five set Wimbledon final. In 1981, Borg lost to McEnroe in the US Open final again, but this time it was a four set loss. Skipping the Australian Open does not impact my view of Borg’s success. Borg winning the 1974 French Open when then runaway world number one Jimmy Connors was barred from the tournament does not impact Borg’s success either. However, not winning the US Open does hurt Borg. He, like Lendl at Wimbledon, deserves credit for coming close in an environment that never quite suited his personality. Still, a win over McEnroe or Connors in the U.S. would have been a career capping achievement.
You Decide – Winning five straight Wimbledon titles and six French Open titles places Borg above just about everyone. Borg initiated a great number of changes in the sport that are still in full effect today. Still, the US Open stands out as a missing piece. Bjorn Borg is in the top pantheon of tennis players, but did he do enough to be the top player?
The Remaining Usual Suspects Will Be Examined Tomorrow
Tomorrow – Part 3 – Pete Sampras
Future Men Who Stare at Tennis Goats entries - TheTop 25 Players of the Open Era, Who Would You Bet Your Retirement On?, and What to do about Rod Laver?
Tennis has produced a lot of two time Australian Open champions. All of the solo winners plus Andre Agassi (4), Roger Federer (4) and Mats Wilander (3) are not eligible, but who was the best player to win the crown twice?
The Huslter chronicles a pool player named “Fast” Eddie Felson who seeks to play pool at a level never before reached, but whose personal failings and poor judgment in terms of associations contributed to his banishment from the game he plays like no one ever has. This scene and abbreviated quote below demonstrate Fast Eddie’s passion for achieving excellence in his craft.
Just hadda show those creeps and those punks what the game is like when it’s great, when it’s REALLY great. You know, like anything can be great, anything can be great. I don’t care, BRICKLAYING can be great, if a guy knows. If he knows what he’s doing and why and if he can make it come off. …. It’s a great feeling, boy, it’s a real great feeling when you’re right and you KNOW you’re right. It’s like all of a sudden I got oil in my arm. The pool cue’s part of me. You know, it’s uh – pool cue, it’s got nerves in it. It’s a piece of wood, it’s got nerves in it. Feel the roll of those balls, you don’t have to look, you just KNOW. You make shots that nobody’s ever made before. I can play that game the way… NOBODY’S ever played it before.
Roger Federer has hit plenty of shots no one has ever seen before and it would not be untrue to say that his racquet seems to have nerves in it from time to time. David Foster Wallace offered the theory that time might actually be slower for Federer than other people and this contributes to his preternatural shot-making skills. However, tennis history is littered with talented shot-makers who either never won big or who never consistently performed well despite the occasional paradigm shifting victory.
Destined to Disappoint?
I don’t want to take The Hustler analogy too far as I cannot fathom a situation in which Federer’s thumbs would be broken or he would be black listed from playing tennis.* Still, Federer’s victory over Pete Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 was not followed by the immediate consistent success many expected. Andre Agassi mugged him at the 2001 US Open (2004 and 2005 went Federer’s way in New York). Federer threw in two first round losses at the French Open and one Wimbledon first round loss prior to his initial Grand Slam triumph.
Even after the 2003 Wimbledon title, Federer lost to David Nalbandian at the 2003 US Open and appeared to be one of the top players on tour rather than a guy who would leave Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, and Juan Carlos Ferrero so far behind that they can’t now really be viewed as peers of Federer even if they are his contemporaries. Since 2008 Federer has won as many slams as Roddick, Hewitt and Ferrero won in their careers combined. However, in the period between Wimbledon 2001 and Wimbledon 2003 Federer looked like a player who would forever frustrate tennis fans.
Federer: Imaginative Workman?
How did Roger avoid becoming a right-handed Henri Leconte who could hit great shots and beat great players if the stars lined up, but who would never be close to dominating the tour? My short answer is that Federer found consistency. I am not sure how he accomplished this, as Federer is not a grinder at heart. However, Federer somehow wed talent akin to John McEnroe or Ilie Nadstase with professionalism and practice habits similar to those of Ivan Lendl or Jim Courier.
I do not say this as a knock against the artists on tour. To some extent, I think if Boris Becker or Marat Safin tried to be regimented and consistent that they would somehow have lost their ability to overwhelm opponents by drawing on inspiration in big situations. Federer’s combination of imagination and routine seems almost toxic to the idea of inspiration, and yet he has managed to combine great work habits with a desire to hit shots and play “that game the way… NOBODY’S ever played it before.” Fast Eddie could not sustain his brilliance, but Federer did and has. Stranger than fiction.
