Most of my blogs involving Roger Federer have, of late, related to his losses in Major tournaments. This one does as well, but is more of a salute to the excellence he displayed, albeit in a losing cause, then the fact of his loss. In the recent past, he has wound up on the short end of finals against his two greatest active rivals for the "GOAT" title ("greatest of all time), Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.
It has long seemed to me that this great Swiss champion has reached a point where he can no longer win a "Grand Slam" tournament. After all, this almost 35-year old tennis genius, has to endure the challenges of a best-of-five set format, which challenges many a younger body. And yet, here was Nadal (who virtually "owns" Federer by a 2-1 margin) out of the tournament with a strained wrist and current nemesis Novak Djokovic upset by journeyman American Sam Querry in the third round. (Apart from the big-serving Querry playing the match of his life, Djokovic may well have suffered from the kind of combat fatigue that felled Serena Williams while en route to last year's "calendar slam." At some point, even our tennis gods show us that they're all too human.)
Djokovic was coming off of his first French Open victory, netting him the "career Grand Slam" (a feat achieved by only eight men in history) and his fourth consecutive major (a feat eluding both Federer and Nadal, and achieved by only two others--Don Budge and Rod Laver--who did it twice). As the clear front-runner in this year's Wimbledon (and winner of the coveted All-England cup in 2014, and '15), no one expected Djokovic to be out of the running, let alone so early. While his loss was characterized by not being on centre court--the only court with a roof--his match with Querry took two days and four rain delays to complete. In fairness, this was an equal challenge (but not an equal slight) to Querry, who also had to keep restarting his engine as the pressure mounted. Although Djokovic's lackluster second set loss at 6-1 remains a mystery, there is no question that Querry deserved the victory and went on to win the round of sixteen as well. So hats off to the man they call "Yosemite Sam," the most successful American man at the tournament.
Enter Federer (master of the SABR, or "sneak attack by Roger"), quickly but quietly working his way through a relatively easy draw. Now no longer facing the prospects of meeting Djokovic in the semis, he--and many others--suddenly saw the possibilities looming large. And yet, one by one, the others fell by the wayside, Kyrgios, Tsonga, Gasquet, Isner, Nishikuri, Goffin and Theim. Save one--the number two seed and perennial also-ran to Djokovic, Scotsman Andy Murray. Murray, long the best number four player in tennis history has had, to date, a dismal record in Grand Slam finals. You would too, considering the other three are among the greatest men to have ever played professional tennis.
So, we had suddenly arrived at the Quarterfinals, and there was Federer, still in the mix. It looked, however, as if he had met met his match in Marin Cilic, a six-foot six power server with some of the heaviest groundstrokes in the game. Although having but one Major to his credit (the U.S. Open in 2014), Cilic showed he was more than just a big server when he played Federer in the quarters. Cilic won the first two sets, one in a tie-breaker in which he jumped off to a 5-1 lead. TV loves to flash on-line surveys throughout the matches, showing what percentage of people think is going to happen in a match. At two sets down, few of the "voters" thought that Fed stood a chance. And, yet, Federer came back, slowly but surely. I, who had doubted his endurance, saw the reason why this man has won more Major titles than anyone in history. He has an ability to play at a high level more than almost anyone the game has produced. Apart from the fact that his one-handed backhand cannot handle the high-kicking serves and groundstrokes (e.g. Nadal) as well as those "newcomers" with their two-handed backhands, Federer is without a weakness. He has a great serve (not as powerful as some, but equally effective), a great forehand, a great net-game, and one of the classiest one-handed backhands in tennis (although landsman Wawrinka and Frenchman Gasquet clearly give him a run for his money in that department). Add to the mix that intangible ability to know how to hit the right shot at the right time. Forget that it had been four years since his last victory at a Major. He remains one of the greatest grass-court players in the game today--even at almost 35. Next thing we knew, Roger won the final three sets, and was into the semi-finals, the oldest male to reach the semis at Wimbledon since the ageless Ken Rosewall. (Jimmy Connors did it while turning 39 at the U.S. Open, in his improbable run in 1991, only to be crushed by Jim Courier in straight sets. I had great seats for that semi-final, but it was as they say, "all over but the shouting." Needless to say, there was little to shout about. This, however, was different. Federer was continuing to show that he belonged to be just where he was. The hugely talented Canadian, Milos Raonic, had all the shots, but had yet to prove his mettle on the big stage of a grand-slam semi, let alone on the storied centre court at Wimbledon.
Raonic had recently added John McEnroe to his team, as a special grass-court advisor. Mac, to be sure, knew a thing or two about pressure matches at Wimbledon, having finally dethroned the great Swede, Bjorn Borg, who had previously won Wimbledon an unbelievable five times. Mac's advice was simple: "leave everything you've got out on the court." Raonic is known for his emotionless play, stolid, workmanlike and powerful. His weaknesses seemed to be in winning the big points. In addition to this, a big serve has to occasionally be followed to net, something Raonic was yet to do effectively. On this occasion, however, the big Canadian (6'5") used his power serve, crushing ground-strokes, and newly-found savvy at the net, to win the first set. (Why did I suspect that, too, had been whispered in his ear by McEnroe? Come to net, big guy!) It seemed to me that Federer's marvelous string of Wimbledon wins was drawing to its end. But, before I knew it, Fed had handily won the second set in a tie-breaker, and, after a single break of Raonic's serve, cruised through the third to take a quick 2-1 lead. Suddenly, whatever doubts I had about Federer's ability to still play the big matches at Wimbledon were forever erased. With all due respect to Marin Cilic, his ground game is nowhere near that of Raonic, especially when you factor in the marvelous touch (and stretch) Raonic has developed at net. That said, the pressure on Raonic was palpable. Twice (at 2-2 and, more critically, 4-4), Raonic saved break points that would have given Federer the momentum, edge, and--of course--incentive to serve out the set. But Raonic held serve both times, and the ball was on Federer's racquet to force a fourth set tie-breaker and possible trip to the finals for the man the announcers were already lauding for his Houdini-like escapes from elimination. It was now 5-6, and Federer quickly won the first three points to go up 40-love. After losing a well-played first point, Federer served two consecutive double-faults. While I have seen Federer "choke" (especially with Djokovic on the other side of the net), I'd never seen him double-fault twice in a row, let alone at such a critical juncture in a match. All of a sudden it was deuce. While Federer was able to hold off two more break points, Raonic won on the third, and the match was squared at two-sets all.
The 5th set, which started off nip and tuck, effectively climaxed in the fourth game. In a point calling for the kind of split-second adjustments that Federer is famous for, he got quickly pulled to his right while in close to the net and successfully hit a ball behind him, only to immediately pivot and run cross court to reach an expected Raonic return. Suddenly, Federer fell and sent his racquet careening about ten feet across the court. It looked as if his knee had simply given way, but he may have simply tripped. I thought the torque involved in retrieving the shot behind him on the Ad side of the court and pivoting to move counter-clockwise and then spring across the court, may have put too much strain on his surgically repaired knee. In any event, after treatment, he was able to stave off a break-point (and played a pretty terrific balance of the game following the fall), Raonic won it in what (for them) was a long rally, to go up a break he never gave back.
The title of this blog was "The Straw that broke the Camel's Back," taken from the old Aesop's fable about the ultimately overloaded camel. Seeing Federer, racquetless, stretched out across the court in symbolic abject submission, I knew he had reached his limit. He continued to play some beautiful points, but one break was all the unforgiving Raonic needed. The final game Raonic served was so overpowering, there was nothing Federer could do other than await the inevitable.
Of course, Raonic still has a steep hill to climb, and faces the heavily favored Andy Murray in the final. But he, Raonic, has proved he can play with the big boys, even if in doing so, had to beat one of the game's most beloved champions. But that, of course, is what winning is all about. Somebody always has to lose. I listened on the radio as a kid when the great (but over-the hill) Joe Louis was beaten by the equally great (but up and coming) Rocky Marciano. Athletes (like the rest of us lesser mortals) reach a point of no return. I had thought Federer had already reached that point a few years ago, but his run at this year's Wimbledon, like Connors's in '91, have proven me wrong. It's nice to know the old guys have one more run in them. What made this one especially poignant, is how close he came to winning.
In his post-match press conference, Federer was gracious to Raonic, but tough on himself. He said he was both angry and sad at what had happened. It's always tough to see one slip away, especially with victory (seemingly) within your grasp. As mentioned above, I hadn't thought he could do it it, and was so close to being proven wrong that I believe the great Federer achieved more in defeat than most players do in victory. Rock on!
It has long seemed to me that this great Swiss champion has reached a point where he can no longer win a "Grand Slam" tournament. After all, this almost 35-year old tennis genius, has to endure the challenges of a best-of-five set format, which challenges many a younger body. And yet, here was Nadal (who virtually "owns" Federer by a 2-1 margin) out of the tournament with a strained wrist and current nemesis Novak Djokovic upset by journeyman American Sam Querry in the third round. (Apart from the big-serving Querry playing the match of his life, Djokovic may well have suffered from the kind of combat fatigue that felled Serena Williams while en route to last year's "calendar slam." At some point, even our tennis gods show us that they're all too human.)
Djokovic was coming off of his first French Open victory, netting him the "career Grand Slam" (a feat achieved by only eight men in history) and his fourth consecutive major (a feat eluding both Federer and Nadal, and achieved by only two others--Don Budge and Rod Laver--who did it twice). As the clear front-runner in this year's Wimbledon (and winner of the coveted All-England cup in 2014, and '15), no one expected Djokovic to be out of the running, let alone so early. While his loss was characterized by not being on centre court--the only court with a roof--his match with Querry took two days and four rain delays to complete. In fairness, this was an equal challenge (but not an equal slight) to Querry, who also had to keep restarting his engine as the pressure mounted. Although Djokovic's lackluster second set loss at 6-1 remains a mystery, there is no question that Querry deserved the victory and went on to win the round of sixteen as well. So hats off to the man they call "Yosemite Sam," the most successful American man at the tournament.
Enter Federer (master of the SABR, or "sneak attack by Roger"), quickly but quietly working his way through a relatively easy draw. Now no longer facing the prospects of meeting Djokovic in the semis, he--and many others--suddenly saw the possibilities looming large. And yet, one by one, the others fell by the wayside, Kyrgios, Tsonga, Gasquet, Isner, Nishikuri, Goffin and Theim. Save one--the number two seed and perennial also-ran to Djokovic, Scotsman Andy Murray. Murray, long the best number four player in tennis history has had, to date, a dismal record in Grand Slam finals. You would too, considering the other three are among the greatest men to have ever played professional tennis.
So, we had suddenly arrived at the Quarterfinals, and there was Federer, still in the mix. It looked, however, as if he had met met his match in Marin Cilic, a six-foot six power server with some of the heaviest groundstrokes in the game. Although having but one Major to his credit (the U.S. Open in 2014), Cilic showed he was more than just a big server when he played Federer in the quarters. Cilic won the first two sets, one in a tie-breaker in which he jumped off to a 5-1 lead. TV loves to flash on-line surveys throughout the matches, showing what percentage of people think is going to happen in a match. At two sets down, few of the "voters" thought that Fed stood a chance. And, yet, Federer came back, slowly but surely. I, who had doubted his endurance, saw the reason why this man has won more Major titles than anyone in history. He has an ability to play at a high level more than almost anyone the game has produced. Apart from the fact that his one-handed backhand cannot handle the high-kicking serves and groundstrokes (e.g. Nadal) as well as those "newcomers" with their two-handed backhands, Federer is without a weakness. He has a great serve (not as powerful as some, but equally effective), a great forehand, a great net-game, and one of the classiest one-handed backhands in tennis (although landsman Wawrinka and Frenchman Gasquet clearly give him a run for his money in that department). Add to the mix that intangible ability to know how to hit the right shot at the right time. Forget that it had been four years since his last victory at a Major. He remains one of the greatest grass-court players in the game today--even at almost 35. Next thing we knew, Roger won the final three sets, and was into the semi-finals, the oldest male to reach the semis at Wimbledon since the ageless Ken Rosewall. (Jimmy Connors did it while turning 39 at the U.S. Open, in his improbable run in 1991, only to be crushed by Jim Courier in straight sets. I had great seats for that semi-final, but it was as they say, "all over but the shouting." Needless to say, there was little to shout about. This, however, was different. Federer was continuing to show that he belonged to be just where he was. The hugely talented Canadian, Milos Raonic, had all the shots, but had yet to prove his mettle on the big stage of a grand-slam semi, let alone on the storied centre court at Wimbledon.
Raonic had recently added John McEnroe to his team, as a special grass-court advisor. Mac, to be sure, knew a thing or two about pressure matches at Wimbledon, having finally dethroned the great Swede, Bjorn Borg, who had previously won Wimbledon an unbelievable five times. Mac's advice was simple: "leave everything you've got out on the court." Raonic is known for his emotionless play, stolid, workmanlike and powerful. His weaknesses seemed to be in winning the big points. In addition to this, a big serve has to occasionally be followed to net, something Raonic was yet to do effectively. On this occasion, however, the big Canadian (6'5") used his power serve, crushing ground-strokes, and newly-found savvy at the net, to win the first set. (Why did I suspect that, too, had been whispered in his ear by McEnroe? Come to net, big guy!) It seemed to me that Federer's marvelous string of Wimbledon wins was drawing to its end. But, before I knew it, Fed had handily won the second set in a tie-breaker, and, after a single break of Raonic's serve, cruised through the third to take a quick 2-1 lead. Suddenly, whatever doubts I had about Federer's ability to still play the big matches at Wimbledon were forever erased. With all due respect to Marin Cilic, his ground game is nowhere near that of Raonic, especially when you factor in the marvelous touch (and stretch) Raonic has developed at net. That said, the pressure on Raonic was palpable. Twice (at 2-2 and, more critically, 4-4), Raonic saved break points that would have given Federer the momentum, edge, and--of course--incentive to serve out the set. But Raonic held serve both times, and the ball was on Federer's racquet to force a fourth set tie-breaker and possible trip to the finals for the man the announcers were already lauding for his Houdini-like escapes from elimination. It was now 5-6, and Federer quickly won the first three points to go up 40-love. After losing a well-played first point, Federer served two consecutive double-faults. While I have seen Federer "choke" (especially with Djokovic on the other side of the net), I'd never seen him double-fault twice in a row, let alone at such a critical juncture in a match. All of a sudden it was deuce. While Federer was able to hold off two more break points, Raonic won on the third, and the match was squared at two-sets all.
The 5th set, which started off nip and tuck, effectively climaxed in the fourth game. In a point calling for the kind of split-second adjustments that Federer is famous for, he got quickly pulled to his right while in close to the net and successfully hit a ball behind him, only to immediately pivot and run cross court to reach an expected Raonic return. Suddenly, Federer fell and sent his racquet careening about ten feet across the court. It looked as if his knee had simply given way, but he may have simply tripped. I thought the torque involved in retrieving the shot behind him on the Ad side of the court and pivoting to move counter-clockwise and then spring across the court, may have put too much strain on his surgically repaired knee. In any event, after treatment, he was able to stave off a break-point (and played a pretty terrific balance of the game following the fall), Raonic won it in what (for them) was a long rally, to go up a break he never gave back.
The title of this blog was "The Straw that broke the Camel's Back," taken from the old Aesop's fable about the ultimately overloaded camel. Seeing Federer, racquetless, stretched out across the court in symbolic abject submission, I knew he had reached his limit. He continued to play some beautiful points, but one break was all the unforgiving Raonic needed. The final game Raonic served was so overpowering, there was nothing Federer could do other than await the inevitable.
Of course, Raonic still has a steep hill to climb, and faces the heavily favored Andy Murray in the final. But he, Raonic, has proved he can play with the big boys, even if in doing so, had to beat one of the game's most beloved champions. But that, of course, is what winning is all about. Somebody always has to lose. I listened on the radio as a kid when the great (but over-the hill) Joe Louis was beaten by the equally great (but up and coming) Rocky Marciano. Athletes (like the rest of us lesser mortals) reach a point of no return. I had thought Federer had already reached that point a few years ago, but his run at this year's Wimbledon, like Connors's in '91, have proven me wrong. It's nice to know the old guys have one more run in them. What made this one especially poignant, is how close he came to winning.
In his post-match press conference, Federer was gracious to Raonic, but tough on himself. He said he was both angry and sad at what had happened. It's always tough to see one slip away, especially with victory (seemingly) within your grasp. As mentioned above, I hadn't thought he could do it it, and was so close to being proven wrong that I believe the great Federer achieved more in defeat than most players do in victory. Rock on!
No comments:
Post a Comment