I’ve always been a bit skeptical of putting tennis in the Olympic Games. My reasons mainly pivot on a bias toward maintaining (or should I say returning to) the traditionally amateur nature of Olympic competition, which sadly has given way to professionals like the U.S. basketball squads—the so-called “Dream” and “Redeem” teams.
But something happened this year to give me pause. Spain’s Rafael Nadal, the impending world #1, and world #3 Novak Djokovic of Serbia met in the semifinals.
Djokovic took the year’s first Grand Slam title in January at the Australian Open in Melbourne, where he beat then-world #1 Roger Federer in the semifinals. That win added to previous hard-court wins at Key Biscayne and Montreal, and final showings at Indian Wells and the 2007 U.S. Open, where he lost to Federer. These results, and his successive conquests of then-world #3 Andy Roddick, then-#2 Nadal, and then-#1 Federer in the 2007 Rogers Cup Masters Series event in Montreal, have made Djokovic the new hard-court favorite.
Nadal, who has always struggled more on the hard courts, lost in the year’s first Grand Slam to the fiery Frenchman, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, in the semifinals. Since then, of course, Nadal has had a career year, winning eight titles already, including the French Open, his fourth straight, and Wimbledon. Both wins came at the expense of Federer, Roland Garros in convincing fashion and Wimbledon in what may be considered the greatest Slam final in history. Nadal’s win in this year’s Rogers Cup Masters Series event in Toronto began to dispel the doubts about his ability to win on hard courts.
As if to make it clear he has earned bragging rights, Nadal defeated Djokovic in three tough sets in Beijing to move on to play Fernando Gonzalez for the gold medal. Nadal won the final in convincing fashion—as he is prone to do with so much at stake—to add Olympic gold to his Roland Garros and Wimbledon crowns.
The day after, August 18, will be remembered as the day the new world order was ushered in. It’s been a long time coming, and finally arrived two full weeks after Rafael Nadal had earned enough tournament points to overtake Roger Federer for the number one spot in the computer rankings.
But the computer isn’t finished, the shuffling of the deck not yet complete. With Djokovic the most likely candidate to give Nadal a run for his money on the sports grandest stages, we may very well see Roger Federer, who held the top rank for 237 consecutive weeks, slip to the third-place spot before next year’s Wimbledon. What’s more, if Federer were to fail in his defense of his U.S. Open title or the Masters Cup Year-End Championships, and Djokovic were to win the U.S. Open, the Masters Cup or the 2009 Australian Open in January, Federer could fall to world #3 by February.
What I especially like about Djokovic is his ability to first withstand the barrage of viciously heavy topspin forehands from Nadal to the backhand. With his uncluttered, technically sound two-handed stroke, Djokovic not only absorbs those blows from Nadal, he can turn them on their head. He does this by taking the ball early, on the rise, and powering through the hitting zone to drive the ball either with precision up the line or cross court flat and deep to Nadal’s forehand corner, where Nadal has shown some vulnerability. This vulnerability, which has been exploited expertly by players such as countryman Juan Carlos Ferrero and Andy Murray of Great Britain, is due mainly to his preference for open-stance forehands and his inability to generate as much pace or rotation when he is forced to hit his forehand from behind the baseline on the dead run with a cross-over step and the ball moving quickly away from him.
And by using his two-handed backhand instead of stepping around that wing to crack an inside-out forehand, Djokovic does not leave open to attack his forehand court. He takes away what would be a vulnerability created by a one-handed player making a risky move.
Federer’s struggles against Nadal boil down to his inability to construct a solid answer to Nadal’s cross-court forehands and wide-slicing serves into the advantage service box, both of which reveal the one chink in Federer’s armor—a one-handed backhand that can be exploited through powerful, high-bouncing balls and serves stretching him wide and opening the court.
Andy Murray can challenge both Nadal and Djokovic when healthy and running on a full tank. Others who will soon be in the mix are Juan Del Potro, recent winner of four straight tour events, and Ernests Gulbis, Gilles Simon and Marin Cilic. Of course, I’d love to see a healthy Tsonga trading shots with the top dogs every week, but his body seems as frail as it is impressive.
Any way you look at it, the game is evolving as the players with big wingspans and two-handed weapons are making the court wider and longer and the service boxes narrower. In the new world order, only the supremely fast and fit can survive.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Showing posts with label The Greats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Greats. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
Fading Light
As Rafael Nadal readied to serve to Roger Federer for the 2008 Wimbledon title at 8-7 in the fifth set, the light finally faded to the point of no return. Nadal would serve into the void. Roger Federer would stab at a barely visible blur. This is what it came to: the greatest men’s Grand Slam final match since the 1980 Borg v. McEnroe classic, decided on account of darkness.
The man who had been swathed in the warm light of fan and peer adulation for going on five years was no longer stage-center. His rival for the past three years emerged from behind the curtain and was suddenly bathed in the bright white light of flashbulbs bursting like celebratory fireworks. A new world champion had taken his place at center stage.
The fade and flash of light was a fitting portent to this marked milestone in the careers of two of the greatest players ever to step onto the grass at Centre Court—symbolic of each man’s evolution. Exiting the stage was Federer, five-time Wimbledon champion and owner of 12 Grand Slam titles—the undisputed world #1 for more than four consecutive years. In his place a proud new champion who had stood in the wings for three years, biding his time and biting the neck of every trophy he collected in a gesture that underscored his insatiable hunger.
Federer’s rise is an example of organic evolution. A world champion in the juniors, as a young pro he displayed virtuoso talent as well as a diva-like quality, which showed in his frustration over his own less-than-perfect performances. Once he learned to quell the perfectionist within, his talent allowed him to blossom into a rare star—colorful yet traditional, shy yet confident, powerful yet controlled, graceful yet wildly ambitious. Seventeen Grand Slam starts after turning pro, he finally “emerged” one month shy of 22 with his first Wimbledon crown, a rather long draught for such a promising player.
Another 17 Slams later, Federer had amassed 12 titles—three times winning three Slams in one calendar year—a dominance not seen among the men in the Open era, and not seen at all since Steffi Graf won eight of nine Slam titles between the 1988 and 1990 Australian Opens and 10 of 11 Slams between the 1993 French Open and 1996 U.S. Open.
Federer’s descent from the pinnacle of greatness has been like that of a falling star, which catches our gaze and keeps us transfixed. It arguably began with his back-to-back losses in 2007 to Argentine Guillermo Canas, who had just returned to the tour from a two-year doping suspension. Those two losses exposed Federer’s Achilles heel. His next notable loss would come in the semifinal of the 2008 Australian Open to Novak Djokovic, the Serbian player who often comes across as too full of himself. There’s never been any love lost between these two, and that loss took its toll.
Andy Roddick was next up to bat, and he defeated Federer at the Miami masters event in the quarterfinals, Federer’s first meaningful loss to Roddick in 12 matches. The way Federer lost was so uncharacteristic that it made one wonder whether he had lost something else beside his invincibility, his magic. With a chance to hold at 3-4 in the third set, Federer hit four first serves in play and shanked or buried four straight groundstrokes to hand the balls over to Andy to serve it out, which he gladly obliged.
It was discovered that Federer may have been suffering from mononucleosis in Melbourne. He took on Jose Higueras, who coached Jim Courier to two French Open titles, to help him gear-up for a run at Roland Garros, and he spent a good part of the spring season battling the lingering effects of the mono to build his strength for that run—a strategy many questioned.
Nadal’s ascendancy, and despite the computer rankings still showing Federer hanging on at the top he has clearly ascended, has been a long time coming also, but with three straight years as the world #2 it is more of a breakout than a coming out. Just the way in which he has assumed the mantel is impressive.
After defending his titles in Barcelona and Hamburg in the European clay-court run-up to Roland Garros, Nadal put the hammer down on the competition in Paris, not dropping a set on his way to the highly anticipated final against Federer. From the first game with Federer serving, Nadal got his rival in a vise and never let up, beating him for the third straight year, this time convincingly. It was the second most lopsided score in a Slam final in the Open era—6-1, 6-3, 6-0.
That drubbing of the world #1 was the match that propelled Nadal to the top of the tour, in the eyes of his peers and those in the know, if not by the logic of the ATP computer. He went into the Wimbledon tune-ups brimming with confidence, and took the title at Queen’s Club in three tiebreak sets, despite being aced 35 times by big-serving Croatian, Ivo Karlovic.
By mid-June, the storyline heard most was that Federer would prevail on what had virtually become his “home court” for a sixth straight crown, surpassing Bjorn Borg’s record. The story heard almost as often was that Nadal would seize this one from his friend and rival, also putting him in legion with Borg, who is the last man to win the French and Wimbledon back to back. Borg himself was one of those who picked Nadal to win. There couldn’t have been a more highly anticipated event in tennis, if not in all of sport.
So there they were, with the light fading fast, two warriors battling it out for ultimate bragging rights, for the record books, and for personal pride. The match should have been called due to darkness. But there’s no chance it would have been, not with a full house and millions of viewers tuning in late in the evening on the final Sunday to see the best in men’s tennis duel in the dying sun. To suspend play would have been the worst way to end the day and the championships. There would be no escape hatch, no exit.
And at that pivotal juncture in the match, serving at 7-7 after having rebounded from two-sets down by winning the next two sets in tiebreaks, Federer faltered. Perhaps he had a moment of doubt, or as we like to say, the yips. But he lost his nerve and his serve, and Nadal would serve for the match in the dark. Facing a nearly insurmountable task, and knowing that the referee and tournament director were not inclined to suspend play, Federer seemed to merely fade away, as an actor on a stage might back away from the dimming spotlight, ghostlike. His joie de vivre had finally left him, there on the court that had brought him his glory and fulfilled his potential as the most gifted tennis player the sport has seen. It was a sad moment.
So, perhaps it is fitting that on the last day of July in the sweltering heat of Cincinnati, home of the Bengals and Reds, the champion of cool and control went down in defeat to a player he’d never lost to before, the big man who brings the heat on serve after serve, 6’10” Karlovic—the same man whose 35 aces could not pierce the armor of Nadal just a month earlier on grass. Federer’s loss to Karlovic symbolically ushers in the august of this champion’s Hall of Fame career.
A champion’s time is limited in sport, and in tennis that window is becoming increasingly narrow. It is no longer a given, as it was just a few short months ago, that Federer will surpass Pete Sampras’s Grand Slam title count. Federer won his first Slam title just shy of 22; and at 27 he may have won his last.
It is the natural order of things: the guiding light from a star fades as the searing heat of the sun ascends to take its place. Nadal’s sun has risen. The question is: how long will it burn?
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
The man who had been swathed in the warm light of fan and peer adulation for going on five years was no longer stage-center. His rival for the past three years emerged from behind the curtain and was suddenly bathed in the bright white light of flashbulbs bursting like celebratory fireworks. A new world champion had taken his place at center stage.
The fade and flash of light was a fitting portent to this marked milestone in the careers of two of the greatest players ever to step onto the grass at Centre Court—symbolic of each man’s evolution. Exiting the stage was Federer, five-time Wimbledon champion and owner of 12 Grand Slam titles—the undisputed world #1 for more than four consecutive years. In his place a proud new champion who had stood in the wings for three years, biding his time and biting the neck of every trophy he collected in a gesture that underscored his insatiable hunger.
Federer’s rise is an example of organic evolution. A world champion in the juniors, as a young pro he displayed virtuoso talent as well as a diva-like quality, which showed in his frustration over his own less-than-perfect performances. Once he learned to quell the perfectionist within, his talent allowed him to blossom into a rare star—colorful yet traditional, shy yet confident, powerful yet controlled, graceful yet wildly ambitious. Seventeen Grand Slam starts after turning pro, he finally “emerged” one month shy of 22 with his first Wimbledon crown, a rather long draught for such a promising player.
Another 17 Slams later, Federer had amassed 12 titles—three times winning three Slams in one calendar year—a dominance not seen among the men in the Open era, and not seen at all since Steffi Graf won eight of nine Slam titles between the 1988 and 1990 Australian Opens and 10 of 11 Slams between the 1993 French Open and 1996 U.S. Open.
Federer’s descent from the pinnacle of greatness has been like that of a falling star, which catches our gaze and keeps us transfixed. It arguably began with his back-to-back losses in 2007 to Argentine Guillermo Canas, who had just returned to the tour from a two-year doping suspension. Those two losses exposed Federer’s Achilles heel. His next notable loss would come in the semifinal of the 2008 Australian Open to Novak Djokovic, the Serbian player who often comes across as too full of himself. There’s never been any love lost between these two, and that loss took its toll.
Andy Roddick was next up to bat, and he defeated Federer at the Miami masters event in the quarterfinals, Federer’s first meaningful loss to Roddick in 12 matches. The way Federer lost was so uncharacteristic that it made one wonder whether he had lost something else beside his invincibility, his magic. With a chance to hold at 3-4 in the third set, Federer hit four first serves in play and shanked or buried four straight groundstrokes to hand the balls over to Andy to serve it out, which he gladly obliged.
It was discovered that Federer may have been suffering from mononucleosis in Melbourne. He took on Jose Higueras, who coached Jim Courier to two French Open titles, to help him gear-up for a run at Roland Garros, and he spent a good part of the spring season battling the lingering effects of the mono to build his strength for that run—a strategy many questioned.
Nadal’s ascendancy, and despite the computer rankings still showing Federer hanging on at the top he has clearly ascended, has been a long time coming also, but with three straight years as the world #2 it is more of a breakout than a coming out. Just the way in which he has assumed the mantel is impressive.
After defending his titles in Barcelona and Hamburg in the European clay-court run-up to Roland Garros, Nadal put the hammer down on the competition in Paris, not dropping a set on his way to the highly anticipated final against Federer. From the first game with Federer serving, Nadal got his rival in a vise and never let up, beating him for the third straight year, this time convincingly. It was the second most lopsided score in a Slam final in the Open era—6-1, 6-3, 6-0.
That drubbing of the world #1 was the match that propelled Nadal to the top of the tour, in the eyes of his peers and those in the know, if not by the logic of the ATP computer. He went into the Wimbledon tune-ups brimming with confidence, and took the title at Queen’s Club in three tiebreak sets, despite being aced 35 times by big-serving Croatian, Ivo Karlovic.
By mid-June, the storyline heard most was that Federer would prevail on what had virtually become his “home court” for a sixth straight crown, surpassing Bjorn Borg’s record. The story heard almost as often was that Nadal would seize this one from his friend and rival, also putting him in legion with Borg, who is the last man to win the French and Wimbledon back to back. Borg himself was one of those who picked Nadal to win. There couldn’t have been a more highly anticipated event in tennis, if not in all of sport.
So there they were, with the light fading fast, two warriors battling it out for ultimate bragging rights, for the record books, and for personal pride. The match should have been called due to darkness. But there’s no chance it would have been, not with a full house and millions of viewers tuning in late in the evening on the final Sunday to see the best in men’s tennis duel in the dying sun. To suspend play would have been the worst way to end the day and the championships. There would be no escape hatch, no exit.
And at that pivotal juncture in the match, serving at 7-7 after having rebounded from two-sets down by winning the next two sets in tiebreaks, Federer faltered. Perhaps he had a moment of doubt, or as we like to say, the yips. But he lost his nerve and his serve, and Nadal would serve for the match in the dark. Facing a nearly insurmountable task, and knowing that the referee and tournament director were not inclined to suspend play, Federer seemed to merely fade away, as an actor on a stage might back away from the dimming spotlight, ghostlike. His joie de vivre had finally left him, there on the court that had brought him his glory and fulfilled his potential as the most gifted tennis player the sport has seen. It was a sad moment.
So, perhaps it is fitting that on the last day of July in the sweltering heat of Cincinnati, home of the Bengals and Reds, the champion of cool and control went down in defeat to a player he’d never lost to before, the big man who brings the heat on serve after serve, 6’10” Karlovic—the same man whose 35 aces could not pierce the armor of Nadal just a month earlier on grass. Federer’s loss to Karlovic symbolically ushers in the august of this champion’s Hall of Fame career.
A champion’s time is limited in sport, and in tennis that window is becoming increasingly narrow. It is no longer a given, as it was just a few short months ago, that Federer will surpass Pete Sampras’s Grand Slam title count. Federer won his first Slam title just shy of 22; and at 27 he may have won his last.
It is the natural order of things: the guiding light from a star fades as the searing heat of the sun ascends to take its place. Nadal’s sun has risen. The question is: how long will it burn?
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
By the Content of Their Characters
The 2008 Wimbledon men’s final, pitting the world’s top two players in a 4-hour, 48-minute rain-delayed marathon that was completed under the threat of darkness, had all the elements of an instant classic—a pageantry of athleticism on a field of grass colored by incredible shotmaking and momentum swings from two rivals who have played more Grand Slam finals (6) than any of the other notable rivalries in the Open era.
Like the great rivalries of the past 40 years, the Federer-Nadal match-up was as much a demonstration of contrasting personalities as it was a display of opposing playing styles. Looking back at the epic Open-era match-ups, the differences in their styles of play were equaled or surpassed by the contrasts in their character. And these contrasts in character are what make great drama—elevating an athletic contest to the level of operatic theatre, complete with villains and heroes, inborn character flaws and personal redemption.
In Laver v. Rosewall, we had the self-assured risk-taker against the even-keeled rock of patience and precision. In that historic 1975 Wimbledon final between the veteran Arthur Ashe and Jimmy Connors, who was at the height of his powers, we witnessed intelligence and wisdom facing off against youthful overconfidence. In Connors v. Borg the swaggering street fighter went toe-to-toe with the steely Swede of unbending will and unerring defense. Borg and McEnroe opened a lens into the breaking of that will under the constant pressure of the quick-thrusting touches of the temperamental red-head with the acid tongue. McEnroe and Lendl was nitroglycerin meeting oxygen; the off-court animosity between them as great as the on-court pyrotechnics. Sampras v. Agassi demonstrated how power can be blunted but never fully denied when the will exists to overcome those insuppressible moments of self-doubt.
In Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, we have two of the most distinctive personalities ever to play the game.
Federer is metro-man, the worldly Swiss who is fluent in three or four languages and who cuts as dashing a figure in his cardigan or gold-embroidered jacket as in an Armani suit. But behind that polished, poised exterior is a man driven by passion and ambition. He is Clark Kent, the mild-mannered reporter for The Daily Planet who swiftly transforms into a superhero by donning his tennis sneakers.
Nadal is less refined, a simple man from a small island village in Spain, an earthly savage with a halting gait who speaks, when he is prodded, in clipped sentences. His is the more imposing physique, with thick thighs and bursting biceps. He is the beast that lies beneath the surface of this modern-day Bruce Banner, waiting to be unleashed at the slightest provocation—like a raging Hulk. Yet his outward appearance belies an innate intelligence and a gentle wit.
Propelling these two warriors is the unspoken truth of Nadal’s ambition to unseat Federer, which is matched only by Federer’s desire to remain there. So it was that this year’s Wimbledon final would answer the question of who reigns supreme as the world’s best player. Nevermind the points race; with his fourth straight French Open trophy already perched on a shelf in his Mallorcan villa, Nadal has momentarily wrested the title of World #1 from the five-time and defending Wimbledon champion.
We watch their Grand Slam rivalry to learn what each man is made of, what is at the core of their characters.
This much we know: Nadal has shown repeatedly that he is incapable of losing. Like Borg before him, he can come from behind to snatch victory out of the hands of a stunned opponent or break his foe’s will in the early going, rendering the outcome a foregone conclusion. Yes, he can be beaten, he can be bested. But he has yet to succumb to the yips, to shrink out of fear or self-doubt. He seems hard-wired for the psychologically charged one-on-one battle, as if the only thought to enter his head is to fight and to keep fighting until the last ball has been struck. This is a most rare and special gift among tennis players.
Federer’s gift is found in his unique skills—his talents. He has grace and speed, agility and balance, out-of-sight hand-eye coordination and other-worldly racquet skills. He can win against nearly all odds. He is rarely if ever beaten. But he can lose. He occasionally gets the yips, and sometimes appears to unravel at the seams.
Despite Nadal’s winning the French Open and Wimbledon back to back, there are questions that remain unanswered.
Are there built-in character flaws that will keep Nadal from seizing hold of this opportunity to finish the year as the number one player in the world? Or will his Wimbledon win boost his confidence and propel him to new heights? What about Federer? Can he rebound from two huge defeats at the hands of the same man—the first a complete and utter knockout and the latter an epic battle of wills, of character, that may or may not have revealed a chink in his armor?
Did the mononucleosis that hampered Federer through the first few months of the year have an affect on his will to compete? Or did he overcome it in time to get his game in tune for the hard court season? Will he bounce back from his Wimbledon loss to take the U.S. Open and put to rest any doubts about who is still the best player on all surfaces, day in and day out? Will Nadal’s knees be able to withstand the hard court grind? And if so, would winning a shootout with his rival in the U.S. Open final settle things for once and for all, or would it merely enhance the already legendary status of this rivalry?
Whatever the outcome of the hard court season, we an be sure of one thing: it will test these men’s characters. Two men now carry targets on their backs, and each will be faced with unprecedented pressures, from themselves, their opposition and the media. We will learn what makes each man tick, and what chinks their characters may contain.
So, we’ll watch wide-eyed as the weeks unfold and the tension builds, in hopes of learning which man can summon the inner beast or superhero when all the chips are on the table and the last hand is dealt. It’s a rivalry for the history books, yet like those others before it is compelling because of the personalities and the characters of the two men entwined.
Characters welcome.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Like the great rivalries of the past 40 years, the Federer-Nadal match-up was as much a demonstration of contrasting personalities as it was a display of opposing playing styles. Looking back at the epic Open-era match-ups, the differences in their styles of play were equaled or surpassed by the contrasts in their character. And these contrasts in character are what make great drama—elevating an athletic contest to the level of operatic theatre, complete with villains and heroes, inborn character flaws and personal redemption.
In Laver v. Rosewall, we had the self-assured risk-taker against the even-keeled rock of patience and precision. In that historic 1975 Wimbledon final between the veteran Arthur Ashe and Jimmy Connors, who was at the height of his powers, we witnessed intelligence and wisdom facing off against youthful overconfidence. In Connors v. Borg the swaggering street fighter went toe-to-toe with the steely Swede of unbending will and unerring defense. Borg and McEnroe opened a lens into the breaking of that will under the constant pressure of the quick-thrusting touches of the temperamental red-head with the acid tongue. McEnroe and Lendl was nitroglycerin meeting oxygen; the off-court animosity between them as great as the on-court pyrotechnics. Sampras v. Agassi demonstrated how power can be blunted but never fully denied when the will exists to overcome those insuppressible moments of self-doubt.
In Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, we have two of the most distinctive personalities ever to play the game.
Federer is metro-man, the worldly Swiss who is fluent in three or four languages and who cuts as dashing a figure in his cardigan or gold-embroidered jacket as in an Armani suit. But behind that polished, poised exterior is a man driven by passion and ambition. He is Clark Kent, the mild-mannered reporter for The Daily Planet who swiftly transforms into a superhero by donning his tennis sneakers.
Nadal is less refined, a simple man from a small island village in Spain, an earthly savage with a halting gait who speaks, when he is prodded, in clipped sentences. His is the more imposing physique, with thick thighs and bursting biceps. He is the beast that lies beneath the surface of this modern-day Bruce Banner, waiting to be unleashed at the slightest provocation—like a raging Hulk. Yet his outward appearance belies an innate intelligence and a gentle wit.
Propelling these two warriors is the unspoken truth of Nadal’s ambition to unseat Federer, which is matched only by Federer’s desire to remain there. So it was that this year’s Wimbledon final would answer the question of who reigns supreme as the world’s best player. Nevermind the points race; with his fourth straight French Open trophy already perched on a shelf in his Mallorcan villa, Nadal has momentarily wrested the title of World #1 from the five-time and defending Wimbledon champion.
We watch their Grand Slam rivalry to learn what each man is made of, what is at the core of their characters.
This much we know: Nadal has shown repeatedly that he is incapable of losing. Like Borg before him, he can come from behind to snatch victory out of the hands of a stunned opponent or break his foe’s will in the early going, rendering the outcome a foregone conclusion. Yes, he can be beaten, he can be bested. But he has yet to succumb to the yips, to shrink out of fear or self-doubt. He seems hard-wired for the psychologically charged one-on-one battle, as if the only thought to enter his head is to fight and to keep fighting until the last ball has been struck. This is a most rare and special gift among tennis players.
Federer’s gift is found in his unique skills—his talents. He has grace and speed, agility and balance, out-of-sight hand-eye coordination and other-worldly racquet skills. He can win against nearly all odds. He is rarely if ever beaten. But he can lose. He occasionally gets the yips, and sometimes appears to unravel at the seams.
Despite Nadal’s winning the French Open and Wimbledon back to back, there are questions that remain unanswered.
Are there built-in character flaws that will keep Nadal from seizing hold of this opportunity to finish the year as the number one player in the world? Or will his Wimbledon win boost his confidence and propel him to new heights? What about Federer? Can he rebound from two huge defeats at the hands of the same man—the first a complete and utter knockout and the latter an epic battle of wills, of character, that may or may not have revealed a chink in his armor?
Did the mononucleosis that hampered Federer through the first few months of the year have an affect on his will to compete? Or did he overcome it in time to get his game in tune for the hard court season? Will he bounce back from his Wimbledon loss to take the U.S. Open and put to rest any doubts about who is still the best player on all surfaces, day in and day out? Will Nadal’s knees be able to withstand the hard court grind? And if so, would winning a shootout with his rival in the U.S. Open final settle things for once and for all, or would it merely enhance the already legendary status of this rivalry?
Whatever the outcome of the hard court season, we an be sure of one thing: it will test these men’s characters. Two men now carry targets on their backs, and each will be faced with unprecedented pressures, from themselves, their opposition and the media. We will learn what makes each man tick, and what chinks their characters may contain.
So, we’ll watch wide-eyed as the weeks unfold and the tension builds, in hopes of learning which man can summon the inner beast or superhero when all the chips are on the table and the last hand is dealt. It’s a rivalry for the history books, yet like those others before it is compelling because of the personalities and the characters of the two men entwined.
Characters welcome.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Aussie Open 2007: Federer will raise the bar again
In just over 30 minutes, Roger Federer will attempt to defend his Australian Open title against one of the most enigmatic players in the men's game today — Fernando Gonzalez. Along with Serena Williams' long-awaited return to tennis and her masterful title match against top-ranked Maria Sharapova, Gonzalez has been the story at this year's championships in Melbourne.
He has cruised through his half of the draw in blazing style, beating in succession James Blake, Rafael Nadal, and Tomy Haas, all in straight sets. His winners-to-unforced errors differential is over +190, more than 100 points better than Federer's, and in his semifinal match against Haas he made only three unforced errors in the entire three-set match, none at all in sets one and three. To say Gonzalez is on fire would be a huge understatement. And yet, it is Roger Federer he will be facing across the net this morning, a fact which changes the entire equation.
Ordinarily not one to predict outcomes, I've got a sneaking suspicion that Federer will show the world just how much wider the gap is between himself and the rest of the men's field. Because Gonzalez is playing so brilliantly, serving smartly and using the entire court and varying the spins, depth and pace of his groundstrokes to make opportunities to end points with one swing of his racquet, Federer will need to employ a different strategy to keep Gonzalez from gaining confidence as the match wears on. I believe that Federer will take a page from the Sampras playbook, and take away Gonzalez's time by approaching the net earlier and much more frequently than he has thus far in his career.
The wise strategy for Federer is to keep Gonzalez on his heels, searching for a quick answer to Federer's strong forays to net, and to do so early and often so as to put maximum pressure on Gonzalez's groundstrokes. By coming to the net early and often, Federer can prohibit Gonzalez from finding his form on his groundstrokes and dictating the pace and tempo of the match. And if Gonzalez cannot find the spot with his passing shots and lobs early on, he will be forced to play a much more aggressive strategy, perhaps even choosing to try to beat Federer to the net to stem the bleeding.
We may very well witness, in this 2007 Australian Open men's final, the raising of the bar by the world's best player. And he'll do it, not so much because he'll need to do so to win, but because it will bring him victory much sooner than if he were to stay on the baseline and trade strokes with his opponent. And if he can successfully demonstrate his prowess as a serving-and-volleying, net-aproaching pre-emptive striker, he'll have sent another strong message to those trying to "close the gap" between them. And that message is that Roger Federer has no intention of resting on his laurels; he plans to continue improving and adding to his arsenal of weapons, strategies and tactics.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
He has cruised through his half of the draw in blazing style, beating in succession James Blake, Rafael Nadal, and Tomy Haas, all in straight sets. His winners-to-unforced errors differential is over +190, more than 100 points better than Federer's, and in his semifinal match against Haas he made only three unforced errors in the entire three-set match, none at all in sets one and three. To say Gonzalez is on fire would be a huge understatement. And yet, it is Roger Federer he will be facing across the net this morning, a fact which changes the entire equation.
Ordinarily not one to predict outcomes, I've got a sneaking suspicion that Federer will show the world just how much wider the gap is between himself and the rest of the men's field. Because Gonzalez is playing so brilliantly, serving smartly and using the entire court and varying the spins, depth and pace of his groundstrokes to make opportunities to end points with one swing of his racquet, Federer will need to employ a different strategy to keep Gonzalez from gaining confidence as the match wears on. I believe that Federer will take a page from the Sampras playbook, and take away Gonzalez's time by approaching the net earlier and much more frequently than he has thus far in his career.
The wise strategy for Federer is to keep Gonzalez on his heels, searching for a quick answer to Federer's strong forays to net, and to do so early and often so as to put maximum pressure on Gonzalez's groundstrokes. By coming to the net early and often, Federer can prohibit Gonzalez from finding his form on his groundstrokes and dictating the pace and tempo of the match. And if Gonzalez cannot find the spot with his passing shots and lobs early on, he will be forced to play a much more aggressive strategy, perhaps even choosing to try to beat Federer to the net to stem the bleeding.
We may very well witness, in this 2007 Australian Open men's final, the raising of the bar by the world's best player. And he'll do it, not so much because he'll need to do so to win, but because it will bring him victory much sooner than if he were to stay on the baseline and trade strokes with his opponent. And if he can successfully demonstrate his prowess as a serving-and-volleying, net-aproaching pre-emptive striker, he'll have sent another strong message to those trying to "close the gap" between them. And that message is that Roger Federer has no intention of resting on his laurels; he plans to continue improving and adding to his arsenal of weapons, strategies and tactics.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Aussie Open 2007: The lioness roars back!
It wasn't a particularly good match. It had few decent exchanges, and zero suspense. Calling it "one-sided" would be like saying the lion had a bit of an advantage over the young zebra colt. But as Grand Slam finals go, this one stood out for its ferociousness, for the efficiency of the kill.
No, it wasn't a competitive match, but every so often a player of Serena Williams' caliber steps onto one of the grandest stages in the game and delivers. And how did she deliver! Knock-out blow after knock-out blow to a stunned and helpless Maria Sharapova, the same Maria who came into the Australian Open championships as the world's second-ranked player and who will leave Melbourne ranked number one.
Serena Williams came into the Slam of Asia-Pacific ranked number 81 in the world and out of shape with too little match play under her belt. But the seven-time Grand Slam titleist would not be denied. After surviving near-tournament-ending challenges from Nadia Petrova and Shahar Peer, as well as the power and fearlessness of the young 17-year-old, Nicole Vaidisova, Serena roared back onto tennis' center stage. There was one moment in her victory over Peer when Serena, after having won a tough and important point, let out a throaty, full-toothed yell. In the slo-mo replay, she resembled more closely a panther announcing a fresh kill than a pretty, young woman from LA.
Throughout her final under the closed roof of Rod Laver Arena, Serena showed her opponent and the world the hungry heart of a lioness. And what a way to win. She made nearly three times as many winners as unforced errors, and beat Sharapova again and again with just a single stroke, leaving the usually fierce Sharapova flat-footed and demoralized. Finally serving for the match right at the hour mark, Serena hit back-to-back aces to earn a championship point at 6-1, 5-2 (40-love). She missed her first serve, a flat blast, wide of the ad court sideline, and at that point I had a notion that she might try to go for a second service ace up the middle. Sure enough, she went for the ace up the T, but had to settle for a weak return and easy winner to seal the victory.
This wasn't a match to be remembered for its swings in momentum, its pressure-filled break points denied, or its long, suspenseful exchanges from doubles alley to doubles alley. This was a match that will be remembered as the return of the game's most ferociuos competitor. We can only hope that her hunger is great enough to keep her in the game for a few more years. Tennis has its lion in Roger Federer. It needs its lioness, too.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
No, it wasn't a competitive match, but every so often a player of Serena Williams' caliber steps onto one of the grandest stages in the game and delivers. And how did she deliver! Knock-out blow after knock-out blow to a stunned and helpless Maria Sharapova, the same Maria who came into the Australian Open championships as the world's second-ranked player and who will leave Melbourne ranked number one.
Serena Williams came into the Slam of Asia-Pacific ranked number 81 in the world and out of shape with too little match play under her belt. But the seven-time Grand Slam titleist would not be denied. After surviving near-tournament-ending challenges from Nadia Petrova and Shahar Peer, as well as the power and fearlessness of the young 17-year-old, Nicole Vaidisova, Serena roared back onto tennis' center stage. There was one moment in her victory over Peer when Serena, after having won a tough and important point, let out a throaty, full-toothed yell. In the slo-mo replay, she resembled more closely a panther announcing a fresh kill than a pretty, young woman from LA.
Throughout her final under the closed roof of Rod Laver Arena, Serena showed her opponent and the world the hungry heart of a lioness. And what a way to win. She made nearly three times as many winners as unforced errors, and beat Sharapova again and again with just a single stroke, leaving the usually fierce Sharapova flat-footed and demoralized. Finally serving for the match right at the hour mark, Serena hit back-to-back aces to earn a championship point at 6-1, 5-2 (40-love). She missed her first serve, a flat blast, wide of the ad court sideline, and at that point I had a notion that she might try to go for a second service ace up the middle. Sure enough, she went for the ace up the T, but had to settle for a weak return and easy winner to seal the victory.
This wasn't a match to be remembered for its swings in momentum, its pressure-filled break points denied, or its long, suspenseful exchanges from doubles alley to doubles alley. This was a match that will be remembered as the return of the game's most ferociuos competitor. We can only hope that her hunger is great enough to keep her in the game for a few more years. Tennis has its lion in Roger Federer. It needs its lioness, too.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Who's the greatest of all time? Wrong question!
On the eve of the Australian Open, the first leg of tennis' holy grail, the Grand Slam, it's difficult not to contemplate the possibility and importance of a 10th Grand Slam singles title for world no. 1, Roger Federer. One can already hear the sports writers clicking out their pronouncements of "greatest of all time." The GOAT list, seemingly the most treasured commodity among sports writers today, would suddenly show a shift in the hierarchy, or at the very least the insertion of an asterisk next to Pete Sampras' name: "*Most Grand Slam singles titles, for the moment."
Yes, a 10th Grand Slam title would bring Federer another step closer to surpassing Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam victories and — it will be written as surely as the sun will rise another day — will set Federer apart from the rest by leaps and bounds. He's already amassed the single best three-year run in modern ("Open") tennis history, having lost merely 15 matches to date in that span and having amassed nine Grand Slam titles along the way. In three short years! No doubt, most now say, he's well within reach of Sampras' record, and a 10th Grand Slam title in Melbourne would simply close the book on that debate.
All this may be true, although I'm one to remain uncommitted until it happens, because all players are one torn ACL, one broken foot or fractured wrist, or one hip replacement away from leaving their careers too soon and too young. Remember Magnus Norman and Gustavo Kuerten. So I'll reserve final judgment on whether Federer is the greatest of all time. I will, however, say that in my estimation, he is one of the most well-rounded players, with as diverse and deadly an arsenal of offensive weapons and as solid a defensive game as anyone I've seen play the game. Furthermore, his transition game is right up there with the best, and his movement is second to none, though he is not the fastest player even of his own generation. What is certain, is that he has dominated his contemporaries as soundly and as surely as Sampras, Borg, Lendl and others had dominated theirs. But as for predicting the outcome of head-to-head battles, while it's an interesting exercise in what-if's and why-for's, I'm not certain it really amounts to much.
The question that I think really is worth asking, is "Which players have had the greatest impact on the game?" And here, I think, one might try to rank them and to present reasons for one's choices. I've given this question some serious thought, and I'd like to pose it to you. So, I won't give you my list (let's call it the GIOG list) quite yet, although I can tell you that the great Roger Federer is not at the top of this heap.
I'll post my list by the end of next week.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Yes, a 10th Grand Slam title would bring Federer another step closer to surpassing Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam victories and — it will be written as surely as the sun will rise another day — will set Federer apart from the rest by leaps and bounds. He's already amassed the single best three-year run in modern ("Open") tennis history, having lost merely 15 matches to date in that span and having amassed nine Grand Slam titles along the way. In three short years! No doubt, most now say, he's well within reach of Sampras' record, and a 10th Grand Slam title in Melbourne would simply close the book on that debate.
All this may be true, although I'm one to remain uncommitted until it happens, because all players are one torn ACL, one broken foot or fractured wrist, or one hip replacement away from leaving their careers too soon and too young. Remember Magnus Norman and Gustavo Kuerten. So I'll reserve final judgment on whether Federer is the greatest of all time. I will, however, say that in my estimation, he is one of the most well-rounded players, with as diverse and deadly an arsenal of offensive weapons and as solid a defensive game as anyone I've seen play the game. Furthermore, his transition game is right up there with the best, and his movement is second to none, though he is not the fastest player even of his own generation. What is certain, is that he has dominated his contemporaries as soundly and as surely as Sampras, Borg, Lendl and others had dominated theirs. But as for predicting the outcome of head-to-head battles, while it's an interesting exercise in what-if's and why-for's, I'm not certain it really amounts to much.
The question that I think really is worth asking, is "Which players have had the greatest impact on the game?" And here, I think, one might try to rank them and to present reasons for one's choices. I've given this question some serious thought, and I'd like to pose it to you. So, I won't give you my list (let's call it the GIOG list) quite yet, although I can tell you that the great Roger Federer is not at the top of this heap.
I'll post my list by the end of next week.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
TENNIS WEEK magazine's all-time picks
As promised, here are the results of TENNIS WEEK magazine's "A Tourney for All Time" fantasy men's tennis tournament. In brackets are my picks, round by round. (Note: Names only appear in the brackets if I picked a different winner, loser, or both.)
TW's Seeded Players:
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Bill Tilden
6. Don Budge
7. Jack Kramer
8. John McEnroe
First Round (32 players)
1. Federer d. Newcombe 7-6, 7-5, 6-3 (4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
2. Rosewall d. Nastase 4-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-2 (7-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4)
3. Emerson d. Sedgman 7-6, 5-7, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. Becker d. Budge 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4)
5. Borg d. Trabert 6-7, 6-4, 6-3, 7-6 (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Vilas d. Borotra 3-6, 6-2, 7-6, 2-6, 7-5 (4-6, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
7. Gonzalez d. Courier 7-6, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 7-5, 3-6, 7-5)
8. McEnroe d. Hoad 6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 4-6, 6-2 (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3)
9. Kramer d. Ashe 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (Ashe 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4)
10. Lacoste d. Cochet 6-4, 2-6, 7-5, 1-6, 6-4 (Cochet 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
11. Connors d. Vines 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-3 (5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
12. Sampras d. Edberg 7-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-3 (7-5, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)
13. Tilden d. Riggs 4-6, 6-1, 6-3, 2-6, 7-5 (6-4, 6-4, 6-3)
14. Santana d. Wilander 5-7, 6-3, 7-6, 6-4 (Wilander 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
15. Agassi d. Lendl 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3(sic) , 9-7 (5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3)
16. Laver d. Perry 2-6, 6-2, 7-5, 4-6, 8-6 (7-5, 7-5, 6-4)
Second Round (16 players)
1. Federer d. Rosewall 7-5, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 (5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4)
2. Becker d. Emerson 3-6, 7-5, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 8-6)
3. Borg d. Vilas 6-3, 6-4, 6-3 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. McEnroe d. Gonzalez 6-7, 7-5, 4-6, 7-6, 9-7 (Gonzalez 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 7-5, 8-6)
5. Kramer d. Lacoste 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 6-2 (Ashe d. Cochet 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Sampras d. Connors 7-5, 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (7-5, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3)
7. Tilden d. Santana 3-6, 6-3, 7-6, 2-6, 6-4 (Tilden d. Wilander 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)
8. Laver d. Agassi 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (5-7, 6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4)
Third Round (8 players)
1. Federer d. Becker 7-6, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4 (4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
2. McEnroe d. Borg 7-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-7, 6-4 (Gonzalez d. Borg 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4)
3. Sampras d. Kramer 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4 (Sampras d. Ashe 6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-3)
4. Laver d. Tilden 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4)
Semi-Finals
1. Federer d. McEnroe 6-4, 6-7, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Gonzalez 5-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
2. Laver d. Sampras (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (Sampras d. Laver 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)
Final
Federer d. Laver 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Sampras 6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)
As you can see, the TENNIS WEEK panel picked #8 seed McEnroe to upset #4 seed Borg in the 3rd round (quarterfinals), whereas I had Gonzalez knocking out McEnroe in the 2nd round (round of 16). Also, I picked #3 seed Sampras to beat #2 seed Laver in the semifinals, whereas TW picked Laver to prevail. In most other respects, we saw things very similarly. I'm not sure what the TW panel intended the score between Agassi and Lendl to be, for it appeared in print as 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3, 9-7. One must assume that either the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th set score was to have been reversed, going to Lendl. We both saw that as a 5-set thriller.
In closing, I believe much of the tennis community has severely underestimated the abilities and combativeness of Pancho Gonzalez. I would argue that at his best he should easily be in the top 8, and with the right draw, perhaps the top 4. In the scenario above, I would have him taking down two of the best ever, McEnroe and Borg, in succession! Call me crazy, but that's the way I see it.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
TW's Seeded Players:
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Bill Tilden
6. Don Budge
7. Jack Kramer
8. John McEnroe
First Round (32 players)
1. Federer d. Newcombe 7-6, 7-5, 6-3 (4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
2. Rosewall d. Nastase 4-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-2 (7-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4)
3. Emerson d. Sedgman 7-6, 5-7, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. Becker d. Budge 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4)
5. Borg d. Trabert 6-7, 6-4, 6-3, 7-6 (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Vilas d. Borotra 3-6, 6-2, 7-6, 2-6, 7-5 (4-6, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
7. Gonzalez d. Courier 7-6, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 7-5, 3-6, 7-5)
8. McEnroe d. Hoad 6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 4-6, 6-2 (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3)
9. Kramer d. Ashe 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (Ashe 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4)
10. Lacoste d. Cochet 6-4, 2-6, 7-5, 1-6, 6-4 (Cochet 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
11. Connors d. Vines 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-3 (5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
12. Sampras d. Edberg 7-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-3 (7-5, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)
13. Tilden d. Riggs 4-6, 6-1, 6-3, 2-6, 7-5 (6-4, 6-4, 6-3)
14. Santana d. Wilander 5-7, 6-3, 7-6, 6-4 (Wilander 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
15. Agassi d. Lendl 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3(sic) , 9-7 (5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3)
16. Laver d. Perry 2-6, 6-2, 7-5, 4-6, 8-6 (7-5, 7-5, 6-4)
Second Round (16 players)
1. Federer d. Rosewall 7-5, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 (5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4)
2. Becker d. Emerson 3-6, 7-5, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 8-6)
3. Borg d. Vilas 6-3, 6-4, 6-3 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. McEnroe d. Gonzalez 6-7, 7-5, 4-6, 7-6, 9-7 (Gonzalez 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 7-5, 8-6)
5. Kramer d. Lacoste 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 6-2 (Ashe d. Cochet 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Sampras d. Connors 7-5, 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (7-5, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3)
7. Tilden d. Santana 3-6, 6-3, 7-6, 2-6, 6-4 (Tilden d. Wilander 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)
8. Laver d. Agassi 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (5-7, 6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4)
Third Round (8 players)
1. Federer d. Becker 7-6, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4 (4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
2. McEnroe d. Borg 7-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-7, 6-4 (Gonzalez d. Borg 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4)
3. Sampras d. Kramer 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4 (Sampras d. Ashe 6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-3)
4. Laver d. Tilden 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4)
Semi-Finals
1. Federer d. McEnroe 6-4, 6-7, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Gonzalez 5-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
2. Laver d. Sampras (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (Sampras d. Laver 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)
Final
Federer d. Laver 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Sampras 6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)
As you can see, the TENNIS WEEK panel picked #8 seed McEnroe to upset #4 seed Borg in the 3rd round (quarterfinals), whereas I had Gonzalez knocking out McEnroe in the 2nd round (round of 16). Also, I picked #3 seed Sampras to beat #2 seed Laver in the semifinals, whereas TW picked Laver to prevail. In most other respects, we saw things very similarly. I'm not sure what the TW panel intended the score between Agassi and Lendl to be, for it appeared in print as 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3, 9-7. One must assume that either the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th set score was to have been reversed, going to Lendl. We both saw that as a 5-set thriller.
In closing, I believe much of the tennis community has severely underestimated the abilities and combativeness of Pancho Gonzalez. I would argue that at his best he should easily be in the top 8, and with the right draw, perhaps the top 4. In the scenario above, I would have him taking down two of the best ever, McEnroe and Borg, in succession! Call me crazy, but that's the way I see it.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Monday, November 20, 2006
My picks for All-Time Greats tennis championships
In response to a challenge put out by the staff at TENNIS WEEK magazine to select the winners in a hypothetical "All-Time Greatest Players" men's tennis tournament — using a list of the players selected by the writers of TENNIS WEEK and the first-round match-ups produced by draw of the hat at TENNIS WEEK — I am using this entry to reveal to you my picks, which were submitted to TENNIS WEEK last month.
Today TENNIS WEEK announced a winner of the fantasy challenge on their website, and will print the entire drawsheet results in the December issue, currently at the presses. I will reprint them here for your edification when the issue arrives in my mailbox. Visit TENNIS WEEK online to read what the winner of the fantasy challenge has to say and to learn who the seven-member panel of former greats and current TENNIS WEEK writers picked to take it all. In the meantime, enjoy my picks and let me know what you think!
First Round (32 players)
1. Roger Federer d. John Newcombe 4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4
2. Ken Rosewall d. Ilie Nastase 7-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4
3. Roy Emerson d. Frank Sedgman 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
4. Boris Becker d. Don Budge 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4
5. Bjorn Borg d. Tony Trabert 6-4, 6-4, 6-4
6. Guillermo Vilas d. Jean Borotra 4-6, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3
7. Pancho Gonzalez d. Jim Courier 6-4, 7-5, 3-6, 7-5
8. John McEnroe d. Lew Hoad 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3
9. Arthur Ashe d. Jack Kramer 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4
10. Henri Cochet d. Rene Lacoste 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3
11. Jimmy Connors d. Ellsworth Vines 5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4
12. Pete Sampras d. Stefan Edberg 7-5, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4
13. Bill Tilden d. Bobby Riggs 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
14. Mats Vilander d. Manolo Santana 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3
15. Andre Agassi d. Ivan Lendl 5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3
16. Rod Laver d. Fred Perry 7-5, 7-5, 6-4
Second Round (16 players)
1. Federer d. Rosewall 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4
2. Becker d. Emerson 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 8-6
3. Borg d. Vilas 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
4. Gonzalez d. McEnroe 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 7-5, 8-6
5. Ashe d. Cochet 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4
6. Sampras d. Connors 7-5, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3
7. Tilden d. Wilander 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
8. Laver d. Agassi 5-7, 6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4
Third Round (8 players)
1. Federer d. Becker 4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2
2. Gonzalez d. Borg 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4
3. Sampras d. Ashe 6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-3
4. Laver d. Tilden 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4
Semi-Finals
1. Federer d. Gonzalez 5-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3
2. Sampras d. Laver 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4
Final
Federer d. Sampras 6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
The world watches, mesmerized, as Federer wins the championship in five unbelievable sets over an exhausted Pete Sampras, who remains slumped in his chair for a full five minutes before being helped to the podium to accept his trophy.
Note that the hat drawing produced a few amazing pairings, which caused me to eliminate some very special players earlier than I'd have liked to. For example, Lew Hoad falling in the first round to John McEnroe is a tough pill to swallow, yet I cannot imagine how Hoad would be able to break down McEnroe's serve, especially being a righty facing that wide-swinging lefty hook in the ad court. And in my opinion, Hoad's inability to break serve when it counts gives the edge to McEnroe. Justice is served in the very next round as McEnroe faces one tough competitor in Pancho Gonzalez, who was at least as big a bad boy as McEnroe and who I believe would prevail in five very tough sets. Of course, that is an incredibly difficult draw for McEnroe, whom I would otherwise have picked to reach the quarterfinals, if not the semifinals.
But if McEnroe's draw was difficult, Gonzalez's was simply treacherous. First he had to face Jim Courier, who for all intents and purposes can be credited for perfecting the inside-out forehand rip. And that would pose problems for anyone, but especially for a player who had not faced such an awesome weapon off the ground before. Still, I think Gonzalez's versatility, athleticism, monster serve and touch would win out against Courier. Next up, though, is McEnroe with his lethal lefty hook serve and the most effective net game the sport has seen. I picked Gonzalez on the basis of his grittiness and unbreakable will. After sneaking by McEnroe in five, Gonzalez has to face Borg, who will pass him like he's not even there. In a battle of two of the most willful players of all time, I again pick Gonzalez, but here on the basis of his versatility. That and the fact that I think if anyone could rattle Borg, it would be Pancho. And finally, Gonzalez goes up against Federer, who I think just has too much game for him. Still, it takes Federer a while to adjust to all the stuff Gonzalez throws at him, and he prevails in four tough and highly entertaining sets, with shotmaking like the world has never seen before.
Also notice that Ivan Lendl and Andre Agassi face off in the first round. That is very unfortunate for Lendl, as he doesn't have the foot speed to handle Agassi's angled assaults. Lendl's power game presents some problems for Andre in the early going, but once he gets dialed in, he wears Lendl down physically. And that despite the fact that Lendl was a pioneer in bringing new levels of fitness, conditioning and nutrition to the pro game. He just simply had rarely run that far for that long, excepting his occasional matchups with fellow countryman, Miroslav Mecir. But when Agassi and Laver battle it out, we see how foot speed and a lefty hook can really take its toll on a righty with a two-handed backhanded, even one as good as Agassi.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Today TENNIS WEEK announced a winner of the fantasy challenge on their website, and will print the entire drawsheet results in the December issue, currently at the presses. I will reprint them here for your edification when the issue arrives in my mailbox. Visit TENNIS WEEK online to read what the winner of the fantasy challenge has to say and to learn who the seven-member panel of former greats and current TENNIS WEEK writers picked to take it all. In the meantime, enjoy my picks and let me know what you think!
First Round (32 players)
1. Roger Federer d. John Newcombe 4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4
2. Ken Rosewall d. Ilie Nastase 7-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4
3. Roy Emerson d. Frank Sedgman 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
4. Boris Becker d. Don Budge 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4
5. Bjorn Borg d. Tony Trabert 6-4, 6-4, 6-4
6. Guillermo Vilas d. Jean Borotra 4-6, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3
7. Pancho Gonzalez d. Jim Courier 6-4, 7-5, 3-6, 7-5
8. John McEnroe d. Lew Hoad 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3
9. Arthur Ashe d. Jack Kramer 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4
10. Henri Cochet d. Rene Lacoste 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3
11. Jimmy Connors d. Ellsworth Vines 5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4
12. Pete Sampras d. Stefan Edberg 7-5, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4
13. Bill Tilden d. Bobby Riggs 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
14. Mats Vilander d. Manolo Santana 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3
15. Andre Agassi d. Ivan Lendl 5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3
16. Rod Laver d. Fred Perry 7-5, 7-5, 6-4
Second Round (16 players)
1. Federer d. Rosewall 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4
2. Becker d. Emerson 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 8-6
3. Borg d. Vilas 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
4. Gonzalez d. McEnroe 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 7-5, 8-6
5. Ashe d. Cochet 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4
6. Sampras d. Connors 7-5, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3
7. Tilden d. Wilander 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
8. Laver d. Agassi 5-7, 6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4
Third Round (8 players)
1. Federer d. Becker 4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2
2. Gonzalez d. Borg 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4
3. Sampras d. Ashe 6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-3
4. Laver d. Tilden 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4
Semi-Finals
1. Federer d. Gonzalez 5-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3
2. Sampras d. Laver 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4
Final
Federer d. Sampras 6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
The world watches, mesmerized, as Federer wins the championship in five unbelievable sets over an exhausted Pete Sampras, who remains slumped in his chair for a full five minutes before being helped to the podium to accept his trophy.
Note that the hat drawing produced a few amazing pairings, which caused me to eliminate some very special players earlier than I'd have liked to. For example, Lew Hoad falling in the first round to John McEnroe is a tough pill to swallow, yet I cannot imagine how Hoad would be able to break down McEnroe's serve, especially being a righty facing that wide-swinging lefty hook in the ad court. And in my opinion, Hoad's inability to break serve when it counts gives the edge to McEnroe. Justice is served in the very next round as McEnroe faces one tough competitor in Pancho Gonzalez, who was at least as big a bad boy as McEnroe and who I believe would prevail in five very tough sets. Of course, that is an incredibly difficult draw for McEnroe, whom I would otherwise have picked to reach the quarterfinals, if not the semifinals.
But if McEnroe's draw was difficult, Gonzalez's was simply treacherous. First he had to face Jim Courier, who for all intents and purposes can be credited for perfecting the inside-out forehand rip. And that would pose problems for anyone, but especially for a player who had not faced such an awesome weapon off the ground before. Still, I think Gonzalez's versatility, athleticism, monster serve and touch would win out against Courier. Next up, though, is McEnroe with his lethal lefty hook serve and the most effective net game the sport has seen. I picked Gonzalez on the basis of his grittiness and unbreakable will. After sneaking by McEnroe in five, Gonzalez has to face Borg, who will pass him like he's not even there. In a battle of two of the most willful players of all time, I again pick Gonzalez, but here on the basis of his versatility. That and the fact that I think if anyone could rattle Borg, it would be Pancho. And finally, Gonzalez goes up against Federer, who I think just has too much game for him. Still, it takes Federer a while to adjust to all the stuff Gonzalez throws at him, and he prevails in four tough and highly entertaining sets, with shotmaking like the world has never seen before.
Also notice that Ivan Lendl and Andre Agassi face off in the first round. That is very unfortunate for Lendl, as he doesn't have the foot speed to handle Agassi's angled assaults. Lendl's power game presents some problems for Andre in the early going, but once he gets dialed in, he wears Lendl down physically. And that despite the fact that Lendl was a pioneer in bringing new levels of fitness, conditioning and nutrition to the pro game. He just simply had rarely run that far for that long, excepting his occasional matchups with fellow countryman, Miroslav Mecir. But when Agassi and Laver battle it out, we see how foot speed and a lefty hook can really take its toll on a righty with a two-handed backhanded, even one as good as Agassi.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Federer at his most masterful in Shanghai
With decisive straight-set victories over world #2 Rafael Nadal in the semifinal and the turbo-charged James Blake in the final at the Masters Cup year-end championships in Shanghai, China, Roger Federer erased any lingering doubts about his complete mastery of the game and the rest of the field.
After winning his group's round robin with three victories to no losses, Federer's decisive, though not easy, defeat of Nadal was as symbolic as it was real. With that win, Federer established that he would be able to take real satisfaction from his phenomenal year — which included retaining the number 1 ranking by a few thousand ATP points, 11 titles, three out of four slams, and more than $7 million in prize earnings — by finally exacting revenge on the man who had practically owned him everywhere but on the lawns of Wimbledon.
And so, going into the final against Blake, who had also knocked out Nadal in round-robin play and streaked past a dazed and confused David Nalbandian, last year's Master Cup titlist, Federer was brimming with confidence and personal pride. And boy did it show in his match with Blake, a dangerous competitor and shotmaker with some of the tour's best wheels to boot. Not content to let Blake dictate play with his huge, slashing forehand and hammer serve, Federer took it to his man with pre-emptive strikes and some awesome displays of athleticism. What worked for Blake against Nadal and Nalbandian, both of whom seek to find some rhythm in constructing points before delivering the juice, was completely nullified by Federer, who refused to let Blake take charge.
And if there were ever any doubts about Federer's backhand efficacy, which in this observer's mind has always been one of the game's most beautiful and lethal shots, he eradicated those doubts in the 15 minutes it took him to secure the first set from Blake at love. For someone who delights in the sheer aesthetic of tennis, I was most impressed by the long, fluid strokes and effortless movement Federer displayed, particularly on the backhand side, which conventional wisdom has said is his weaker side. Well, you can erase that thought now. Federer showed the world why so many of his opponents come away shaking their heads in wonderment, mumbling about his lack of weaknesses. He really has none, and in this match against Blake, he demonstrated why his backhand rates as one of the all-time greatest shots in the history of tennis.
Federer doesn't merely hit backhand winners, he carves out spaces in the air and on the court with them. On several occasions in his match with Blake, Federer was forced to take a backhand directly off the baseline on the half-volley, something we've seen Agassi often do on the forehand side, but which few tennis players can do with any consistency on the backhand wing. In true Federer style, he hit pure winners with two out of three of those half-volley backhands, impossibly flicking them down the line off of Blake's huge inside-out forehands, and taking a full topspin cut at another baseline-hugger to keep Blake from going on the offensive. With 17 backhand winners, more than off his forehand wing, Federer dispelled any notions that his backhand is vulnerable to attack, at least on any surface but crushed red brick.
A Federer backhand is a thing of beauty and variety. And when he cocks back his wrist and flings it across his body, it can prove quite nasty, too. He's as adept at slicing the ball as he is at driving it with topspin or flattening it out on his approach shots. Federer moves to the ball so quickly and in such perfect balance — hence the appearance of effortlessness; he sets up so early with a complete shoulder turn and full step across his body and toward his target, that it must seem to his opponent that any shot is likely to come from Federer's racquet at any given moment. This explains the deer-frozen-in-the-headlights look on Blake's face throughout the match, I suppose.
When historians look back one day at the career of Roger Federer, I suspect there will be those who focus on his shotmaking abilities, while others recall his graceful movement and tactical genius. I hope that some will recogninze, as I do, the artfulness and efficacy of his one-handed backhand, perhaps the greatest living example of the lethality and variability possible from one of the last of a dying breed of one-handers.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
After winning his group's round robin with three victories to no losses, Federer's decisive, though not easy, defeat of Nadal was as symbolic as it was real. With that win, Federer established that he would be able to take real satisfaction from his phenomenal year — which included retaining the number 1 ranking by a few thousand ATP points, 11 titles, three out of four slams, and more than $7 million in prize earnings — by finally exacting revenge on the man who had practically owned him everywhere but on the lawns of Wimbledon.
And so, going into the final against Blake, who had also knocked out Nadal in round-robin play and streaked past a dazed and confused David Nalbandian, last year's Master Cup titlist, Federer was brimming with confidence and personal pride. And boy did it show in his match with Blake, a dangerous competitor and shotmaker with some of the tour's best wheels to boot. Not content to let Blake dictate play with his huge, slashing forehand and hammer serve, Federer took it to his man with pre-emptive strikes and some awesome displays of athleticism. What worked for Blake against Nadal and Nalbandian, both of whom seek to find some rhythm in constructing points before delivering the juice, was completely nullified by Federer, who refused to let Blake take charge.
And if there were ever any doubts about Federer's backhand efficacy, which in this observer's mind has always been one of the game's most beautiful and lethal shots, he eradicated those doubts in the 15 minutes it took him to secure the first set from Blake at love. For someone who delights in the sheer aesthetic of tennis, I was most impressed by the long, fluid strokes and effortless movement Federer displayed, particularly on the backhand side, which conventional wisdom has said is his weaker side. Well, you can erase that thought now. Federer showed the world why so many of his opponents come away shaking their heads in wonderment, mumbling about his lack of weaknesses. He really has none, and in this match against Blake, he demonstrated why his backhand rates as one of the all-time greatest shots in the history of tennis.
Federer doesn't merely hit backhand winners, he carves out spaces in the air and on the court with them. On several occasions in his match with Blake, Federer was forced to take a backhand directly off the baseline on the half-volley, something we've seen Agassi often do on the forehand side, but which few tennis players can do with any consistency on the backhand wing. In true Federer style, he hit pure winners with two out of three of those half-volley backhands, impossibly flicking them down the line off of Blake's huge inside-out forehands, and taking a full topspin cut at another baseline-hugger to keep Blake from going on the offensive. With 17 backhand winners, more than off his forehand wing, Federer dispelled any notions that his backhand is vulnerable to attack, at least on any surface but crushed red brick.
A Federer backhand is a thing of beauty and variety. And when he cocks back his wrist and flings it across his body, it can prove quite nasty, too. He's as adept at slicing the ball as he is at driving it with topspin or flattening it out on his approach shots. Federer moves to the ball so quickly and in such perfect balance — hence the appearance of effortlessness; he sets up so early with a complete shoulder turn and full step across his body and toward his target, that it must seem to his opponent that any shot is likely to come from Federer's racquet at any given moment. This explains the deer-frozen-in-the-headlights look on Blake's face throughout the match, I suppose.
When historians look back one day at the career of Roger Federer, I suspect there will be those who focus on his shotmaking abilities, while others recall his graceful movement and tactical genius. I hope that some will recogninze, as I do, the artfulness and efficacy of his one-handed backhand, perhaps the greatest living example of the lethality and variability possible from one of the last of a dying breed of one-handers.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Man on a mission: Andre Agassi took it all in and gave it back in spades
I confess I was late in joining the Andre Agassi fan club. When he was a brash young gun with a mane and a forehand fresh out of Nick Bollietieri’s tennis academy in Bradenton, Florida, I was a staunch Stefan Edberg supporter, entranced by the graceful Swede’s effortless glide to the net and stinging first volleys. As Andre came into his own, shocking the tennis world in ascending the Wimbledon throne, I was hooked by the power, precision and efficiency of Pete Sampras’s dominating game. It took me a decade and a dozen fortnights to fully appreciate Agassi’s genius as a strategist and tactician. But what finally, ultimately, endeared Andre to me was something far greater than his skill with a racquet.
Tennis’s renaissance man redefined himself at every stage of the journey that was his professional tennis career, and each incarnation produced a more complete player and human being. One of the most-photographed athletes of our time, he made the journey from boy-wonder to man-on-a-mission with the whole world looking on. And like other trailblazers before him, along that journey he changed how the game is played and inspired a generation of young players to conceive and play the game in a revolutionary new way. Waning were the days of the serve and volley; the new game demanded speed and power, and the stamina to outlast and out-blast your opponent.
A master of the tactical game
The tennis court with Agassi on it seemed to take on greater dimensions. He created angles that hadn’t previously existed, and forced opponents into long-running rallies that inevitably, invariably, ended badly for them. If tennis can be likened to chess, or boxing, or both, then Agassi perfected the art. In tennis, as in chess, the player who can dominate the center commands the court. From that strong position, he can find ever-wider angles or quickly move in for the kill. A wide-slicing serve allowed Andre to dictate play from the first ball, as it sent his opponents out of bounds and opened the court for his lethal two-fisted backhand or penetrating forehand.
Rarely caught backpedaling, Agassi stalked his opponent like a prizefighter who stakes the center of the ring and refuses to let his prey out of arm’s reach. With a combination of shots to the corners, followed by an unearthly angle and back again to the same spot, he didn’t dazzle his opponent so much as pound him into submission. Like a boxer delivering a series of body blows that weaken his opponent’s defenses and ability to counterpunch, Andre took the wind out of his opponent with a flurry of shots from side to side before delivering the knockout.
It was this strategy of commanding the center of the court and making his opponent do all the work that led an exhausted Edberg to declare that competing against Agassi was harder on the legs than anything he’d ever experienced on a tennis court. And so it was fitting that the only man who could beat Andre at his best was Sampras, the one player whose shot-making ability allowed him to end a point with one powerful swing of his racquet.
Holding his own (and then some) against the greatest
It was Sampras who brought out the best tennis in Agassi, as he was forced to counterpunch, invent and improvise — things he hadn’t had to do often. Against Sampras, we learned to see Andre as a work in progress, a prodigy who had still to reach his full potential. It was his rivalry with Sampras that nearly defined his career as second fiddle, and it was the passion and intensity of that rivalry that propelled Agassi to his greatest heights as a performer. Andre developed his signature departing bow and kiss during the Sampras years, and this, too, would be another way in which he would leave his mark on the sport. Today’s players pay tribute to Andre each time they take the court after victory to salute the crowd in their trademark way.
How untimely that after Sampras retired, leaving Andre as the sole heir to the throne, along came two of the most dominant players the game has ever witnessed. Andy Roddick, with his 140-plus mph serve, could quickly erase any thoughts of breaking serve. And Roger Federer, undeniably the most versatile and talented player anyone has seen in the Open era, simply had too much game for the aging Agassi. Still, Andre competed brilliantly and often stole the show if not the match.
Agassi’s professional career spanned two full decades, years in which the world saw more than a dozen current and future Hall of Fame players take center stage — from McEnroe, Lendl, Becker and Wilander to Edberg, Courier, Chang and Sampras to Muster, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic and Rafter to Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal and Federer. And there was Andre, standing shoulder to shoulder with them all, often besting them at their peak.
Much is made of the fact, and rightly so, that Agassi is one of only five men in the history of the game to have won all four Grand Slam titles. Along with Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson and Rod Laver, Andre has held aloft the championship trophies at Wimbledon, Roland Garros, the US Open and the Australian. Yet Andre is the only man to have accomplished the feat on three different surfaces — the grassy turf, the brick-red clay and the painted asphalt.
A focus on fitness
It is practically legendary how Agassi prepared his body for the physical abuse that 10 months and 18 to 24 tournaments a year doles out. When he came out of Bollietieri’s, he had speed and endurance, but it took years of work and a special relationship with a renowned trainer to cut the figure that would enable Andre to compete at or near the top of the sport well into his 30s. In Gil Reyes, perhaps best known for whipping Jerry Tarkanian’s UNLV basketball team into NCAA-championship shape, Andre found the man who would take his fitness to a whole new level.
Fitter and stronger than ever under Reyes’ guidance, Las Vegas’s brightest star still needed to reign in his thoroughbred-like talent, which could at times run away with him. In Brad Gilbert, he found a coach who could teach him the discipline not to gamble too soon but instead to use his superior fitness to wear down opponents and soften them for the kill. Under Gilbert, Agassi began to punish opponents like never before, working them over until they had nothing left to attack him with.
The combination of Reyes’ and Gilbert’s tutelage helped Agassi mold himself into the kind of player most feared on a tennis court — fit, fast, strong and relentless. He had developed into a player whose intellect ruled his instinct, knowing how to play the percentages and when to go for broke. Most likely this transformation was the key to Andre’s four Grand Slam titles after the age of 30.
From Zen master to master of his own destiny
Anyone who spends as much time in the public eye as Agassi cannot help but run afoul of the yellow journalists, and Andre spent his share of time in the pulp magazines. When it became known that Barbra Streisand and Andre had developed a cross-generational friendship, the press had a field day. Streisand’s effusive admiration for the young tennis star created quite a buzz, but failed to deter Andre one bit, as he seemed to grasp that the real motivation behind it all was to sell rag.
The irony in it was that the pop diva may have been right when, referring to Andre’s emotional maturity and self-awareness, Streisand had said he played like a “Zen master.” Anyone witnessing his matches in his final years on the tour would be hard-pressed not to come to a similar conclusion. One could actually see in Andre’s eyes whether he was in the zone — one with the ball and channeling his energies — or whether he would struggle to get in the moment.
When Agassi decided finally to hang up his sticks after nearly twenty years in the top echelon of the game, equaled in modern times only by Jimmy Connors and Ken Rosewall, one could not help but feel that he had given his all and would have no regrets. He seemed to have reached a place of peace that only a person possessing the intellect, the compassion and the self-awareness to be cognizant of his time and his place can achieve.
Giving back
In the later years of his career, one would be hard-pressed to find a more eloquent spokesman for his sport. He was the ultimate sportsman, always speaking highly of his opponent, in both victory and defeat, and reaching into his heart to find the words that would reflect the gravity or levity of the moment.
Well-spoken and reflective — an unusual trait among athletes, but even more impressive given that he had foregone formal schooling after eighth grade to pursue tennis full time — interviews with Andre Agassi never failed to reveal something profound about the man and the state of the game. He was gracious in defeat, and he was the first to tell the world about the gifts the young Roger Federer brought to the game. And, in an interview with Larry King after his exit from the 2006 U.S. Open, Andre extended the ultimate praise for his fellow patriot, James Blake, when he said of him, “[James is] somebody you want your son to grow up to be.” (Read a transcript of the Andre Agassi interview on CNN's Larry King Live.)
In the dog-eat-dog world of professional tennis, there were few players as fair-minded as Agassi. Oftentimes Andre would overrule the linesperson in favor of his opponent, signaling with a nod of his head and a brisk walk to the other receiver’s box that the serve had clipped the line. He wanted to win, but he insisted on winning on his own terms.
Never one to talk at length about his charitable giving, there are few in the sporting world who have given back to their community as Andre has. With his Andre Agassi Charitable Foundation, he has committed his considerable resources and talent to providing educational and recreational opportunities to at-risk children of southern Nevada. He established a prep school in the heart of Las Vegas’ most at-risk neighborhood, and each year his Foundation receives several millions in donations from his fundraising efforts.
Andre Agassi has gone the distance and left it all out on the court; taken it all in and given it all back, in spades. And somehow, one senses that he’s just getting started on his life’s true mission.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Tennis’s renaissance man redefined himself at every stage of the journey that was his professional tennis career, and each incarnation produced a more complete player and human being. One of the most-photographed athletes of our time, he made the journey from boy-wonder to man-on-a-mission with the whole world looking on. And like other trailblazers before him, along that journey he changed how the game is played and inspired a generation of young players to conceive and play the game in a revolutionary new way. Waning were the days of the serve and volley; the new game demanded speed and power, and the stamina to outlast and out-blast your opponent.
A master of the tactical game
The tennis court with Agassi on it seemed to take on greater dimensions. He created angles that hadn’t previously existed, and forced opponents into long-running rallies that inevitably, invariably, ended badly for them. If tennis can be likened to chess, or boxing, or both, then Agassi perfected the art. In tennis, as in chess, the player who can dominate the center commands the court. From that strong position, he can find ever-wider angles or quickly move in for the kill. A wide-slicing serve allowed Andre to dictate play from the first ball, as it sent his opponents out of bounds and opened the court for his lethal two-fisted backhand or penetrating forehand.
Rarely caught backpedaling, Agassi stalked his opponent like a prizefighter who stakes the center of the ring and refuses to let his prey out of arm’s reach. With a combination of shots to the corners, followed by an unearthly angle and back again to the same spot, he didn’t dazzle his opponent so much as pound him into submission. Like a boxer delivering a series of body blows that weaken his opponent’s defenses and ability to counterpunch, Andre took the wind out of his opponent with a flurry of shots from side to side before delivering the knockout.
It was this strategy of commanding the center of the court and making his opponent do all the work that led an exhausted Edberg to declare that competing against Agassi was harder on the legs than anything he’d ever experienced on a tennis court. And so it was fitting that the only man who could beat Andre at his best was Sampras, the one player whose shot-making ability allowed him to end a point with one powerful swing of his racquet.
Holding his own (and then some) against the greatest
It was Sampras who brought out the best tennis in Agassi, as he was forced to counterpunch, invent and improvise — things he hadn’t had to do often. Against Sampras, we learned to see Andre as a work in progress, a prodigy who had still to reach his full potential. It was his rivalry with Sampras that nearly defined his career as second fiddle, and it was the passion and intensity of that rivalry that propelled Agassi to his greatest heights as a performer. Andre developed his signature departing bow and kiss during the Sampras years, and this, too, would be another way in which he would leave his mark on the sport. Today’s players pay tribute to Andre each time they take the court after victory to salute the crowd in their trademark way.
How untimely that after Sampras retired, leaving Andre as the sole heir to the throne, along came two of the most dominant players the game has ever witnessed. Andy Roddick, with his 140-plus mph serve, could quickly erase any thoughts of breaking serve. And Roger Federer, undeniably the most versatile and talented player anyone has seen in the Open era, simply had too much game for the aging Agassi. Still, Andre competed brilliantly and often stole the show if not the match.
Agassi’s professional career spanned two full decades, years in which the world saw more than a dozen current and future Hall of Fame players take center stage — from McEnroe, Lendl, Becker and Wilander to Edberg, Courier, Chang and Sampras to Muster, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic and Rafter to Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal and Federer. And there was Andre, standing shoulder to shoulder with them all, often besting them at their peak.
Much is made of the fact, and rightly so, that Agassi is one of only five men in the history of the game to have won all four Grand Slam titles. Along with Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson and Rod Laver, Andre has held aloft the championship trophies at Wimbledon, Roland Garros, the US Open and the Australian. Yet Andre is the only man to have accomplished the feat on three different surfaces — the grassy turf, the brick-red clay and the painted asphalt.
A focus on fitness
It is practically legendary how Agassi prepared his body for the physical abuse that 10 months and 18 to 24 tournaments a year doles out. When he came out of Bollietieri’s, he had speed and endurance, but it took years of work and a special relationship with a renowned trainer to cut the figure that would enable Andre to compete at or near the top of the sport well into his 30s. In Gil Reyes, perhaps best known for whipping Jerry Tarkanian’s UNLV basketball team into NCAA-championship shape, Andre found the man who would take his fitness to a whole new level.
Fitter and stronger than ever under Reyes’ guidance, Las Vegas’s brightest star still needed to reign in his thoroughbred-like talent, which could at times run away with him. In Brad Gilbert, he found a coach who could teach him the discipline not to gamble too soon but instead to use his superior fitness to wear down opponents and soften them for the kill. Under Gilbert, Agassi began to punish opponents like never before, working them over until they had nothing left to attack him with.
The combination of Reyes’ and Gilbert’s tutelage helped Agassi mold himself into the kind of player most feared on a tennis court — fit, fast, strong and relentless. He had developed into a player whose intellect ruled his instinct, knowing how to play the percentages and when to go for broke. Most likely this transformation was the key to Andre’s four Grand Slam titles after the age of 30.
From Zen master to master of his own destiny
Anyone who spends as much time in the public eye as Agassi cannot help but run afoul of the yellow journalists, and Andre spent his share of time in the pulp magazines. When it became known that Barbra Streisand and Andre had developed a cross-generational friendship, the press had a field day. Streisand’s effusive admiration for the young tennis star created quite a buzz, but failed to deter Andre one bit, as he seemed to grasp that the real motivation behind it all was to sell rag.
The irony in it was that the pop diva may have been right when, referring to Andre’s emotional maturity and self-awareness, Streisand had said he played like a “Zen master.” Anyone witnessing his matches in his final years on the tour would be hard-pressed not to come to a similar conclusion. One could actually see in Andre’s eyes whether he was in the zone — one with the ball and channeling his energies — or whether he would struggle to get in the moment.
When Agassi decided finally to hang up his sticks after nearly twenty years in the top echelon of the game, equaled in modern times only by Jimmy Connors and Ken Rosewall, one could not help but feel that he had given his all and would have no regrets. He seemed to have reached a place of peace that only a person possessing the intellect, the compassion and the self-awareness to be cognizant of his time and his place can achieve.
Giving back
In the later years of his career, one would be hard-pressed to find a more eloquent spokesman for his sport. He was the ultimate sportsman, always speaking highly of his opponent, in both victory and defeat, and reaching into his heart to find the words that would reflect the gravity or levity of the moment.
Well-spoken and reflective — an unusual trait among athletes, but even more impressive given that he had foregone formal schooling after eighth grade to pursue tennis full time — interviews with Andre Agassi never failed to reveal something profound about the man and the state of the game. He was gracious in defeat, and he was the first to tell the world about the gifts the young Roger Federer brought to the game. And, in an interview with Larry King after his exit from the 2006 U.S. Open, Andre extended the ultimate praise for his fellow patriot, James Blake, when he said of him, “[James is] somebody you want your son to grow up to be.” (Read a transcript of the Andre Agassi interview on CNN's Larry King Live.)
In the dog-eat-dog world of professional tennis, there were few players as fair-minded as Agassi. Oftentimes Andre would overrule the linesperson in favor of his opponent, signaling with a nod of his head and a brisk walk to the other receiver’s box that the serve had clipped the line. He wanted to win, but he insisted on winning on his own terms.
Never one to talk at length about his charitable giving, there are few in the sporting world who have given back to their community as Andre has. With his Andre Agassi Charitable Foundation, he has committed his considerable resources and talent to providing educational and recreational opportunities to at-risk children of southern Nevada. He established a prep school in the heart of Las Vegas’ most at-risk neighborhood, and each year his Foundation receives several millions in donations from his fundraising efforts.
Andre Agassi has gone the distance and left it all out on the court; taken it all in and given it all back, in spades. And somehow, one senses that he’s just getting started on his life’s true mission.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
