Return to Normalcy
So, Nadal is out of the French Open in the 4th round. I think we all are shocked to say the least. You have to hand it to Soderling, he played phenomenally. Anyway, this post is not about the match, I hardly have the qualifications to analyze what went wrong with the world # 1. This post is about the chatter of the tennis world for the last year on how Roger Federer has "lost it" and the maddening analysis of Roger's demise from # 1 all the way down to # 2, a huge drop. I have had my views on this for some time now but never written about it. Something about Rafa's loss (on clay) today inspired me to sit and type it out.Firstly, let me say that this is probably the only great rivalry where I have not hated one of people involved. I am a die hard Roger Federer fan but can't help liking Nadal as well. His game, movement on the court and some of the shots he hits leave you stunned in amazement. The best part about him is his attitude and the respect he shows every player especially Federer. Rafa is a class act.
Back to the post. My biggest pet peeve in 2008, besides the stock market, was the chatter about how Roger has "lost it". I never quite understood how a person who reached three grand slam finals (winning one) and one grand slam semi final (where he lost to the eventual champion) has "lost it". If you can see logic in that theory then you are smarter than I am.
Sure, I'll admit he had some losses that were out of character and some losses that any Roger fan would like to forget. Also, Nadal dominated the game this past year and may be got in to Roger's head a little bit. But seriously, if anyone can say that someone who won the U.S. Open and played in a classic Wimbledon final that could have gone either way has "lost it". I am sorry, I think you have lost it.
The only reason that the "lost it" conversations began was because of the unrealistic expectations that Roger had created in the tennis world. What he did from mid 2005 till the end of 2007 was one of the most unbelievable streaks in the sport. At no point in the history of the game has anyone dominated the circuit for so long. Even Rod Laver, who won all four slams in 1962 and 1969, never won a single slam in the years that followed (1963 or 1970). The reason is that it is not humanly possible to be at the top of a game for so long, more so in the modern era. What Roger did was unheard of.
Roger's game in 2008 and most of 2009 has been a return to normalcy. It is what is supposed to happen in sports. You are supposed to have a challenger like Nadal who gets the better of you very often. You are supposed to be beaten by a rank outsider once in a while. That is what is normal. Having an 81-3 record which Federer had in 2005 is not normal.
Pete Sampras won his first slam in 1990 and his last slam 12 years later in 2002. Records like his don't come in a span of 4-5 years. Rafa's loss today was also a return to normalcy. He is probably the greatest clay court player ever to play the game and yet he lost. 
His streak on clay and the way he has dominated the game from last March-April has been something special. But it is supremely difficult to not lose at a major tournament for 5 straight years. A loss is bound to happen, the law of averages makes it so.
His streak on clay and the way he has dominated the game from last March-April has been something special. But it is supremely difficult to not lose at a major tournament for 5 straight years. A loss is bound to happen, the law of averages makes it so.It is easier to understand longer streaks in team sports. A team game involves far more factors than an individual sport. It is based on the talent pool and most importantly the system of development of that talent pool. That is why you see teams in cricket like the Australian team of the past 15 years. Their system of talent development has been perfect. In an individual game it is just one person. An injury, mental or physical exhaustion or the emergence of one other individual can change things.
I don't know if Roger will win the French Open this year or any grand slam for that matter. But before you write off Roger or may be someday Tiger or Rafa or any other player as having "lost it", think about whether they are actually done or is it just a return to normalcy.
Photo Credit Federer and Nadal http://www.topnews.in
Absolutely agree PG. People dont realise what Federer was doing from 05-07. His record was 300 wins to 15 losses. He had such a flawless record in finals that it was often said "Never play Roger on a Sunday". Before he started dominating there were a bunch of players poised to take over from the previous generation - Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Guga, Ferrero, etc. Sure all these guys were dismantled but they were strong contenders who simply played in the wrong era. Federer had a winning record against all the top players and unbelievable streaks in all the slams and masters barring of course his one nemesis - Nadal.
ReplyDeleteHe reached a level where entering a tournament meant he was certain to win it. As far as I know, never in any sport has that level of domination been achieved. When you consider it was done in the modern era where one off-day means elimination it makes his achievement all the more unbelievable. The forums christened him with the title "Fedbot" for his uncompromising ability to make victories look routine.
In fact Federer will face immense pressure now that Nadal is out and the media/fans will expect him to win this and equal Pete's all time slam record. In the last 18 slams Federer has reached the semis or better of every slam (another staggering achievement which perhaps may never be matched). Will it be a case of the averages pulling Federer away from becoming THE greatest or will the averages wait? We will have to wait a week more. Till then as one Fed fan posted on a forum - "Fedbot, time to return to full power. Commence win sequence". (Haha sorry had to write that - it really cracked me up).
PRG, well said. As a tennis player & a Federer supporter , I look forward to Federer holding the trophy that has eluded him (but its still a task, considering the dark horses in form of the South Americans & clay court specialits that are hanging around)
ReplyDeleteI still dont agree that Federer is playing his best tennis, he has lost that sting & hopeful that he gets a full time coach.
2 sets to love down against Haas - can he still do it - tough question
ReplyDeleteI agree. Its like how I felt when Steffi finally gave up the circuit, losing in the initial rounds. A great player can never 'lose it' - they have peaked and then been replaced by a younger player, whose time has now come. Their performances can be disappointing at times, but a great player will always go down in history. It is like what will eventually happen to Tendulkar too.
ReplyDeleteMaster Federer, what an awesome display being 2 sets down & on clay, a surface where he is not at his best. 6-4 6-0 6-2 to beat Haas wow!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe inevitable question at Roland Garros is no longer How do you beat Nadal ? The inevitable question now is Can Federer really win ?
ReplyDeleteWith last evenings display I an beginning to believe that Federer can win.......almost
Roger is not inspiring any confidence in his ability to win it right now. Until he lifts up that trophy nothing seems certain. Good come back though...
ReplyDeleteJust three more wins...I know thats a lot..but still COME ON ROGER
ReplyDeleteGreat Blog btw...analysis was great
ReplyDeleteJust a note on Laver
ReplyDeleteHe turned pro after the slam in 62. Pro Players were not allowed to compete for slams till 68, he returned in 68, and promptly won Wimbledon.
The argument for best of all time is debatable, but proponents of Laver argue that the loss of those 5 years, arguable at the prime of his career must be factored into any such comparison
Just to add a lil perspective, not to hate on Fed ofcourse.
great article pg ! just read it.... super analysis.
ReplyDeleteGreat Blog btw...analysis was great
ReplyDelete