MVN - Most Valuable Network

Feeding Frenzy

A few more thoughts about Federer and Nadal’s losses yesterday.

A cursory scan of tennis forums over the last couple days will turn up even more heated opinions and adamant proclamations than usual. “Ahh Fish don’t let your hopes deceive you because our ROGER is gonna show everyone who actually is the KING OF TENNIS!” is a good example, but a lot of people simply signed in to write “Roger is the best!!!” or “Rafa is the best!!!”, and leave it at that. My favorite comment though is: “I think things will turn out like they just naturally are: a Roger/Rafa final.” That one sums up the prevailing denial among tennis fans the best, because even before yesterday’s semi-finals were played, it should have been clear to everyone that that is no longer how things “naturally are”.

It’s hard for people to get used to the idea of a change at the top, especially because Federer’s reign has been so complete over the last four years. In some way, I wonder if that won’t hurt Federer as well. His “I’ve created a monster” comment after losing at the Australian to Djokovic may have been a bigger clue to his state of mind than anybody realized, because now he’s gone the first three months of the season without even making it to a single final, and his confidence has clearly taken a major hit. For all those years Sampras finished No. 1 in the world, he never even approached the week-in, week-out domination of Federer’s time at the top, which may have been a blessing in that he never forgot what it was like to lose consistently, and never became as dependent on an indestructible aura as Federer perhaps has been.

Consider that in Sampras’ prime years of 1993-1997, he averaged 13.4 losses per year, while Federer, between 2003-2007 was down at 8.2, and including the 2003 season somewhat skews the result, because Federer was not yet “Federer”. Between ‘04 and ‘07 he averaged a clean 6 losses per year, and we all know that Sampras never won three Slams in a year, while Federer has done it three times. In their respective primes, the untouchable aura that Sampras possessed at Wimbledon is roughly equivalent to the aura Federer counted on at every event he played except on clay. But now that he’s no longer winning everything, he finds himself in the position of the schoolyard bully when one victim, and then another–and then everyone else–starts to fight back. Even if he is physically superior, the shock of the altered dynamic is going to throw him for awhile (and when you’re a 26 years-old tennis player sharing the tour with a bunch of 20 and 21 year-olds, the question of physical superiority feels more like a ticking time-bomb, even without the mono thing…)

Fed’s response to all this has been characteristically sensible. In the post-match press conference following his loss to Mardy Fish yesterday, Fed seemed to be trying to sort of hypnotize the “monster” into a state of amnesia, to make everyone forget just how absolute his rule has been over the past few years, throwing out standard athlete-speak like: “All in all, I’m happy with the way the week [went] for me” and “So, semi-finals to start off with at the first Masters Series is a good thing, and I hope I can go from here and win in Miami, and on to clay.” It’s not a new strategy for him, it’s just new to hear it so often from him for the obvious reason that it’s new for him to lose so often. It’s also the only rational angle to take on the competitive reality of professional sports. The only problem is: he doesn’t appear to be buying it any more than the the fans on the forums, at least not when he’s on the court.

I won’t write off the possibility that he’s still suffering from mono to some extent. As I’ve said before, I had a pretty nasty case a few years back, and the idea of even trying to exercise or play sports in that condition seems like sheer lunacy to me. But Federer claimed to be recovered before the tournament, as well as after the loss, so if he really is at full strength, then his substandard form has to represent a crisis of confidence. The ‘lack of match play’ argument doesn’t hold much water for him, because he’s never shown the need to get a lot of matches under his belt in order to find his form. No, right now, he’s in a tail-spin, feeling vulnerable, and everyone knows it–even if, as Nina mentioned yesterday, Mardy Fish won’t admit it.

I never thought I’d be saying this, but Federer’s latest loss has started to make his situation look a bit like Roddick’s. Since 2004 or so, we’ve become accustomed to unheralded or underachieving players becoming emboldened when they come up against Roddick, because they sense that his is a monster scalp that’s there for the taking if they go for their shots. Roddick characteristically praises them afterward, stopping just short of saying ‘So-and-so was playing so well, there wasn’t much I could do’. But Federer went all the way, claiming “today Mardy was really impossible to beat, it almost looked like”, before declining to discuss his own form: “it’s hard to judge, because Mardy took everything on the rise; not many rallies out there” and “When he wanted to attack, everything worked…He would never miss, really, when I needed a miss once in a while.” If that’s not an invitation for the sharks to come and feed, I don’t know what is. The No. 1 player “needed a miss once in a while”?!

It’s no big mystery which shark is going to be at the head of the pack. As of now, Djokovic is just about 1200 points behind Federer. He’s got the championship to defend in Miami, but even if he’s not quite up for the Masters double and loses points there, he’s got the world to gain in the clay and grass seasons. The way he dismantled Nadal yesterday, who’s to say a fitter, more confident Djokovic couldn’t do it on clay? Beyond the obvious superiority of Djokovic’s hard court game (which was already obvious), yesterday showed a new kind of futility in Nadal.

I’ve seen him dejected before, against Blake, Youzhny, Tsonga, Berdych in Madrid, but there was a different dimension to it in the Djokovic match. First, I should point out that Nadal had just persevered to take out two of the four names listed above. I believe his claim that those two matches sapped him physically to a degree (of course I believe him, he’s Nadal), and he certainly wasn’t looking sharp–especially in the second set. But with Djokovic serving at 1-2 in that second set, Nadal had a legitimate chance to turn the match around. He played a brilliant point to get to 30-30, one of those times when Djokovic does to Nadal what he usually does to everyone else–made him win a point two or three times over–but Nadal stayed calm and won it by ripping a pass at close quarters that was too heavy for Djokovic to handle. He then played a few more aggressive shots to earn a break point, at which time he got to hit one of his signature inside-out forehands, made it, but received just as deep of a response from Djokovic as you’d expect from any normal rally ball, and a couple shots later he went just long in trying to keep the same depth on his own backhand. That was his chance, Djokovic quickly erased it by getting out of the game after only one or two deuces, and after that Nadal was over.

He gave up the break mostly on errors, framing backhands left and right. Too quickly, Djokovic had held and it was Nadal’s turn to serve again, and too quickly he found himself facing another break point. A tense rally ensued, but Nadal managed to set up another inside-out forehand, and this time it did do the damage–Djokovic’s ball landed short enough that Nadal had the opening for a cross-court winner–but he was so lacking in confidence that he went for a drop-shot instead. That he missed the shot isn’t the point. He should never have gone for it, and wouldn’t have against any other player. But Djokovic sucks up all his self-belief when they play.

The reason, I think, is because Djokovic doesn’t just do it with offense. Sure, he hits a more penetrating ball than Nadal on hard courts, but his defensive abilities and, above all, his unflappability are something that the Blakes, the Youzhnys, the Berdychs (cough), and–as of this week–the Tsongas lack. Djokovic doesn’t have to go into a zone to defeat Nadal, and Djokovic knows it. That knowing is the really scary part: for Rafa fans and for Rafa himself. In his two previous losses to Djokovic on hard courts, Rafa had stayed sharp and fighting until the end–forcing Djokovic into those Gumby-like positions from which he could seemingly play an entire match–and Djokovic never faltered, never cracked. Those matches, and Djokovic’s recent success against Federer and everyone else are what did the damage. When Rafa stares across the net at him, he sees an opponent with equal–no, I’m going to say greater–mental strength, in addition to all the more tangible advantages of his game. Yesterday he saw it, and couldn’t even muster the energy to protest. I don’t expect their next match to be as routine, even if it occurs on hard courts, but I don’t expect Rafa to win it either.

Which leaves Djokovic nowhere to go but up. The only question mark about him is his physical fragility. It may be the only limit to his dominance, because his game is so efficient, and his head so cool, he’s going to be hard to stop. Fish showed some real fight in the second set of the final today, but, in the end, Djokovic made him pay for serving below 40% in the way that Federer (not to mention Nalbandian…) should have. But Fish deserves a few more words. His run was exciting. He gave showed us some absolutely fearless high-risk tennis, made even more thrilling by his choice of wearing socks small enough that it really looks like he isn’t wearing any at all, and the way he always has the slightly abbreviated walk of an experienced drunk on uneven sands. Even as he was beating Federer, and wresting that set from Djokovic from a break down, in between points I couldn’t suppress the thought: “How is a beach bum competing with the best in the game?”

I can’t get equally inspired by Ana Ivanovic or Svetlana Kuznetsova. So Sveta beat a Sharapova who has withdrawn from Miami because of her shoulder (that word should cause plenty of fear and trembling among her fans…). But even without the “shoulder” part, what’s exciting about Kuznetsova losing yet another final? For that matter, what’s exciting about Ivanovic beating her in one? Apparently, I’m not alone in my tepid reaction. A few minutes ago the headline over at tennis.com was “Solid Win”, picture of Ivanovic, and an utterly neutral sentence about her living up to her seeding. When tennis.com can’t force themselves to come up with anything better than that, you know something’s wrong. Now they’ve changed the headline to the convenient “Serb Double”, but that’s a case of the men’s game coming to the rescue. Admit it, you may not like Djokovic but at least if you don’t like him, you don’t like him. Do you feel anything about Ivanovic aside from, maybe, that she’s cute and she hits a big ball? No, the woman’s game right now is about Sharapova’s shoulder and whatever’s going on with Henin. The only way anyone can change that is by taking one of them out in a final…

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 23rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm and is filed under Svetlana Kuznetsova, Ana Ivanovic, Maria Sharapova, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Mardy Fish, Tomas Berdych, James Blake, Mikhail Youzhny, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Andy Roddick, Justine Henin, David Nalbandian, AMS Indian Wells. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.