Keeping the eye on the ball (Part 2 of ∞)

I've said before -- incidentally, in a nostalgic post-Pete phase when I hadn’t warmed to Roger yet – that all Federer seems to have to do to play impeccable tennis is to keep his eye on the ball, and since there is no better way of saying it, I will say it again and probably a zillion more times to come.

The first set yesterday was a “perfect” set in many ways. There were very few errors from either player, if at all, and the only reason Roger won it was cos he had the edge on his service games, what with a remarkable first serve percentage and the relentlessness with which he attacked the all-time returner’s returns. Most serve and volley players lose out on getting back at the returner, probably because of the extreme confidence they have in the unreturnability of their serves, and frankly, are visibly baffled when someone like Agassi can smash them right back. But Federer takes no chances, and being the amazing returner he himself is, helps him anticipate that the ball is making a trip back.

That said, if not for Agassi’s bad first serve percentage Roger may not have won this match. Not because Agassi is the better player (by no stretch of the imagination), but Roger seems so flabbergasted when he loses a set that he takes a while to regain composure. I realize he is used to winning in straights (an unbelievable record of losing just two sets now in 23 straight finals) but he should realize that it does fall within the bounds of human credibility that he will occasionally need to take a match to a fourth set.

Of course, he is not quite as invincible on a hard court as he is on grass, but even so he didn’t seem as vulnerable against Andy at the Open last year. Granted, Andy is no Andre. A ton of difference comes with that last syllable. But Roger needs to realize that his opponents have raised their games to match up to his, so he has to have his answers to their answers as well. In the ever-eloquent Chandler’s words, “The messer has become the messee”.

Agassi needs a standing ovation for his performance. He played an incredible match for any top-seeded player, but considering the odds stacked against him, he was pure magic. Which makes me wonder if Federer could have beat Agassi in his prime (though some might argue that this is Agassi’s prime — I don’t think he’s ever played better; he’s certainly never returned Pete’s serves as well as he did Federer’s), Sampras notwithstanding. Since Federer seems to be playing a net-rushing game, Federer and Agassi might have been an incredible treat to watch.

Which brings me to my next point — why IS Roger net-rushing so much? Isn’t his biggest advantage that he can play baseline as well as chip’n’charge and while serving and volleying IS the thing to do at the big W, hard courts have always favored players that can stay behind (Pete’s record speaks volumes)? Agassi took advantage and attacked him on all his net points.

In any case, bigger picture: Federer has proved yet again that he can do it again and again and again. When he needed to elevate his game, he did. When you can serve at 75% and get all your first serves in at the most trying moments in a match you have to be a little more than just human. Even the great Pistol Pete offered a few double faults in a tight corner…

That said, I have a tip for Johnny Mac: some times it’s all right to just let it go! Granted, when he is complimenting Federer, his voice is gushing with barely concealed awe, but when he is sounding off and spurting sarcasm, he is doing it in the same unrelenting way that is so becoming of McEnroe. I understand how unforgivable it is to watch the flawlessness that is Roger Federer falter, because I am probably as fanatically obsessed with his shot-making as he is, but harping on every little error (however unbelievable) robs you off some of the pure ecstasy ONLY seeing Roger glide on a tennis court can provide. For instance, glossing over his 75% first serves in (an incredible accomplishment when you are playing in so tight a match against so fearsome an opponent) and going on and on about a backhand slice that went an inch wide took away some of the magic from the beautiful orchestration only two maestros like Roger and Andre can produce (yeah, sometimes you want to see it from both sides of the court!).

That said, Roger really needs to remember that he is not playing at Wimbledon when he slices that backhand like that… The ball is not going to bounce the way it does on grass. Though I must say his backhand returns almost went back to their flawless perfection in the tiebreak, where he won points off them and in the fourth set when he had that awesome backhand crosscourt winner. Tiebreak sealed and leading a comfortable 3-0 in the decider, having regained his composure, and more importantly, McEnroe’s patronage, Federer was back on track :)

The match ended with Johnny Mac (now firmly on the champion’s side) saying, Noone has ever hit a tennis ball as well as Federer. And that is probably the only way to justify Andre’s loss after so laudable a performance. Anyone less would have fallen prey….

[I’ve noticed something about Roger (backhand overheads and versatile forehands apart) --- he never thanks anyone personal in his thank you speeches, except the customary thanks to the organization, sponsors and fans. No girlfriend, no coach, no mother nor father…
Probably cos he depends on no one but himself for his wins…
Can there BE a more invincible human being?]