I just came to the stunning realization that Roger Federer means more to me than the sport of tennis!!!
Cos there were some moments in the match (you know, in the first set and a little of the second when he hadn’t found his ground yet) that I had a million butterflies in my stomach, so I had my eyes closed and my fists clenched for some of the really amazing shots (looks like I’ll have to catch the replay this noon as well)!
In any case, from the ones I did manage to keep my eyes open for, this could easily be the most ‘beautiful’ tennis match I have ever watched.
Cos it was like watching Roger from both sides of the court!!!!!!
And what can be more beautiful than watching the one player in history to make tennis seem like art rather than sport on either side of the net? Baghdatis is not quite as elegant as Roger, of course, cos you do get a few huffs out of him and he does often resort to that thing called energy, which Federer seems to render superfluous as he glides across the court without a whiff of noise.
If it wasn’t apparent before, it was today, that Federer does possess that rarely seen fifth gear, which was most evident in the match-turning third set (now, nothing can be more match-turning in tennis than a 6-0 that follows a dead-even 5-7, 7-5, can it?). And it was not one of those ok-you’re-losing-your-nerve-so-I-am-going-to-jump-in turnarounds, that often happens in these matches involving top players and unseeded unknowns (or to be more specific, Federer and almost anyone).
Baghdatis was actually playing exceptionally well even in the second and third sets – his hallmark passing shots that almost rival Roger’s, unbelievable backhands, sometimes more lethal than the Swiss’s own, and impeccable forehand winners were all in place, quite literally; where he faltered was his first serve percentage, I think and Roger took advantage of all his second serves, though I must say that Marcos’ second serves are pretty much as good as most players’ firsts.
Talking of which, why was Roger getting almost none of his first serves in? His first serve percentage didn’t seem to improve even towards the end of the match, where he was playing flawlessly. When you see him in that top gear, he’s usually serving extremely well (flashback: the US Open final) but that didn’t seem to be happening today. I guess the young Marcos did de-settle him a little more than the unrelenting veteran did :)
I have to take some time to marvel at the Cypriot’s return of serve!!!
And that unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable backhand return (I am relying on triplicates now, having run out of superlatives) was SIMPLY phenomenal! And that could have won him this match, quite easily it seemed, in the first set followed by that fateful early break in the second (that was when I switched to HBO for a few frantic minutes – while we’re talking numbers, I might as well tell you, that was a first for me ;))
And in some more much-needed glorification of the Greek sensation, though the score read 7-5, 5-7 at the end of the second set, the youngster did actually manage to keep the world #1 on his toes, while Roger had to fight for every point. I think there were more deuces on Roger’s serves in the first two sets, not to mention Marcos’ huge number of break chances. It was probably his comfort with delivering first serves and that powerful forehand that let him dominate so easily. And a lot of factors, including the fact that a grand slam final was unfamiliar territory to the Cypriot played into the turnaround in the critical third set.
Some other noteworthy features about the match were Roger’s ability to churn up aces at the right places and right times, despite a bad first serve % otherwise. I think he did it at least 5 times on deuce, including one back-to-back, and we all know Roger is not really the master of aces. Another thing he’s not yet mastered is the elusive dropshot and he doesn’t seem to be getting around that anytime soon. Apparently he said he didn’t like drops cos they’re akin to “fooling around”!!! A tad too deceptive for the out-thinking, out-smarting, always-one-step-ahead, you’ll-never-guess-where-that-shot-is-going-to-land Roger, I see ;)
My grievances (as a die-hard, objective fan, I am entitled to some): Why did Roger start off playing so conservatively? He does know that you can't win a match playing defensively? I realize he was doing a lot of the same in the US Open. It continues to baffle me that it’s on grass that Roger’s most aggressive, cos he is not really a bonafide serve-volleyer, by any stretch of the imagination. Another very obvious problem is that Federer is a tad weak on mental toughness (to which the great Sampras holds exclusive rights :)), as a result of which, he gets more than just a little befuddled when he finds himself in a hole. Hence, he relies on his opponent to give him some cheap points to turn it around, and Baghdatis, charitably delivered.
But all that doesn’t take away from the phenomenal way in which he rebounded right back from a set and a break down, almost as if some intangible switch somewhere had been turned on.
Like McEnroe or Enberg (I’ve given up trying to differentiate between the two monotones) said -- Looks as if he was just testing Baghdatis [in the first set], seeing if the kid would just give it to him. When the Cypriot didn’t seem so generous, he decided to move to that top gear, in my opinion, reserved exclusively for the true contenders (I think he’s had to use it only against Agassi and Safin in the past). So, that certainly says a lot about Baghdatis.
Now, Roger seems to have laid the same claim to grand slam finals that Pete laid to Center Court. “It’s mine!”, the sign says smugly, “Don’t trespass."
I think there is nothing left for me to say, but his records speak volumes – his 7th grand slam title, halfway to Pete’s all-time, his 7-0 win record in slam finals, apparently an accomplishment no one has ever had in history, not to mention matching Sampras’ 3 consecutive grand slam wins in the same year.
His “uh” on accepting the trophy was quite fitting.
“I’ve had some hard speeches, but this one is a little rough right now,” he finally said. Yep, it’s the speeches that are rough. The game, not so much :) Let’s hope the delightful Marcos is around to make them a little rougher...
Egotism ....a lifelong romance
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Keeping the eye on the ball (Part 3 of ∞)
Posted by Karthika at Sunday, January 29, 2006
Labels: Keeping the Eye on the ball
19 comments:
yeah wasn't it simply awesome?? Much as I love roger, I was rooting for Marcos after his dream run to the finals... he did try. The god that is roger never even sweats from the looks of it!! his speech attempt was such an awww moment, such an emotional case quite unlike the cool dude seen on court!
Looking forward to marcos' continued play and even more successes... but federer's da man! :)
yep you can say that again, and again, and again..reason why I have an open-ended title there, as you can see :)
the emotion was incredible!!! my heart went out to him...i mean, do people realise that it can actually be quite tough, to be up there, all by yourself, ruling the world of tennis ;)
i've never seen him like that. it was unbelievable, esp in the face of his inscrutable aura on the court...yeah, i do think li'l marcos is going to be around for a while, testing Federer. somethin men's tennis desperately needs.
*sigh* Roger....
"BOOOHOOOO. It was a good match. BOOHOOO, BAAAWLLLLL, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Thanks to the fans, thanks to the sweet air around, thanks to every brick in the stadium BOOOHOOOOOO, WAILLLLLLLLLLL,Its been BOOOOOHOOOOO great for me *SNIFFFLE*"
First of all Federer looked rather pedestrian in those first two sets...if Baghdatis hadn't had a case of nerves and suffered a meltdown Roger Rabbit might have been shedding tears for a different reason.However he did play rather well in those last 2 sets...BUT I SAY AGAIN HE'S NOWHERE CLOSE TO SAMPRAS' INVINCIBILITY.
While we're at it..somebody send him a box of tissues...
i cannot believe that you would take Roger’s ONE public display of emotion and turn it around to make it look like he's some kinda tearful wreck.
believe me, Roger is as impassive as it gets; even Sampras had moments where he's bounded up to his box to hug his parents and girlfriend; i am not saying that is a bad thing, but have you EVER heard Roger mention god or his parents or even thank his girlfriend???? Have you ever seen him look up at his box during a match for support or comfort? He’s played an entire year without a coach, for crying out loud! And all he ever normally does at the end of a championship is go through the process of thanking his opponent, the organization and fans.
he obviously cried cos the trophy means a lot to him, and for good reason. this match almost slipped out of his hands.
the one thing I'd give Sampras over Federer (other than that phenomenal serve) is mental toughness; Sampras wins hands down in that category and could consistently (and magically it seemed) come back from two sets down, without a whiff of nervousness and take the match.
Federer sometimes takes a while to get his bearings, but lets face it, he's won all 7 of the grand slam finals he's been in, beating Agassi & Safin, no less. He’s lost just 4 matches in a total of 84 last year. He must be doing something right.
And boy, does he do it well. Have you ever come out of a Federer match feeling like he needs to expend any energy to do all that he does? And to top it all, he has a more complete array of shots than i have ever seen.
Granted, his performance in the first two sets was wanting in many aspects, esp his first serve %. and yes, baghdatis made a few errors but Roger's volleys that got him that break in the final game of the 2nd set were phenomenal (for some reason he was playing defensively the entire first set and some of the second; once he started using the hallmark Federer defense-defense-defense-defense-bam
-offense, he was well on track). And Baghdatis was playing pretty well in both the second and third sets; it was only in the last set that he kinda gave up.
If you truly want to see federer’s credibility, it’s unfair to look at his matches against roddick and hewitt, cos they very obviously haven’t figured him out. His match against nalbandian in the masters was phenomenal (where he had a matchpoint against david), agassi at the US open and the two against safin at Oz (one of which he won in straight sets and the second, that you so like to gloat about, where federer actually had a match point in the fourth set but messed it up with that b/w the legs shot). And Safin is a good yardstick cos while Roger has easily beat Safin or at the very least, come close, Pete always had trouble dealing with Safin in his days (esp the straight sets defeat in US open’00; Pete was still in form in 2000, if his win at the big W is anything to go by).
That said, I think they are both ingenious for completely different reasons.
I think it would be ridiculous for me to categorically state that a Federer in top form would beat a Sampras in top form, but I can say for a fact that it would be tight. Roger now has the luxury of flitting around the court but I doubt he’d do something like that if he were playing someone like pete (we have seen his higher level when he’s playing those that deserve it). For one, Roger could tackle Pete’s serve (IMO, he’s the best returner the game has seen) and he has the added advantage that he can hit winners from some of the most defensive positions on the court (in fact that often seems to be his game plan), and that usually pins the net-rushers. Also, he’s pretty solid on his service games and he can whip up an ace if he desperately needs it. So, I doubt Sampras can be quite as invincible with someone like Roger.
Unfortunately we’ll never know :(
There should be a matrix grade simulation for such things!
First of all Pistol Pete played against one of the best returners-of-serve ever: Andre Agassi and has won convincingly several times. Second, Roger looked almost lost against Baghdatis's serve in the first set - he held his service games quite easily. He does not seem quite as invincible as Pete has looked, for most of that illustrious career.I've seen fully grown men cry over winning the superbowl, Andre Agassi shed tears in that amazing 1994 victory over Goran but nobody quite made a spectacle of themselves as Roger Federer bawling like a 2nd grader who's pencil was snapped by the class bully. My god....he was literally BAWLING. Pete Sampras has given in to emotion on a couple of times but he never bawled.
To keep hearing people go on and on and on about the grear Roger Federer finally displaying emotion is almost unbearable. It was exerience that pulled him out of that hole and not talent.
The peerless Pete Sampras would have found his immortal higher gear and shut his opponent down convincingly..and walked away with a half-smile.
Wud Roggie wodgie like a hanky wanky to blow his sniffly sniffly nosie wosie? :-)
FSN
Can you please pass on some info about 'that amazing 1994 victory over Goran'? And in return, I promise you some info about 'that amazing 1992 victory over Goran'. Fair deal? :D :D
Ok, here’s what Pete had:
Magnificent serve
Incredible forehand
Powerful volley/half-volley
Groundstroke (ONLY forehand)
Mental toughness
Here’s what Roger has:
Powerful serve
Amazing return of serve
A wider array of forehands than ANYone even dreamed possible till he came around
INCREDIBLE backhand, that miraculously appears from EVERY corner of the court
Groundstroke (both f.h and b.h and both massive)
Decent volley
About who’s a better player, I’ll let you figure.
About who’s more invincible, is anybody’s guess, cos we haven’t seen it, except W’01 and I’m sure you don’t wanna discuss that ;) It’s always easier to be more impenetrable when you are a big server cos you basically have your service games sealed (though I doubt Sampras could have had that luxury if Roger had been around. I think Roger has as good a service-return as Agassi, if not better. Plus he has better all-court coverage and more solid service games than Agassi). On Sunday, Federer was definitely struggling in his service games in the first two sets. He almost had to fight for every game at deuce. Even baghdatis had some 40-0/40-15 games; federer hardly had any of those till the last 2 sets.
Now, to the “sniffly” Roger:
Honestly, I wish I could lay hands on videos of ALL his trophy ceremonies so far, so I could send them to you (though I’m quite sure you’ve seen them). Federer has NEVER shed a tear (except upon his first Wimbledon title, which I think even you will admit was justified). Moreover, he NEVER ever seeks “human comfort” like lesser mortals (including Sampras) do. I’ve never heard him thank anyone personal in his speeches nor go bounding up to his supporters to hug them (simply cos there’s noone but himself that should get credit for what he does). Plus I’ve never heard of any top player go seasons without a coach and be unaffected by it. During the rain delays in W’04 he didn’t go running to a coach for advice like all the human beings did. I doubt Sampras could go a single match without his girlfriend or parents cheering him on, and he certainly couldn't do without a coach. Federer sheds a few tears and you immediately make him into some kinda wimp.
There's crying...and then there's bawling. I'm not calling him a wimp for just shedding a few tears. Actually I'm not calling him a wimp for anything. I just wish he wouldn't have bawled with his face all scrunched up like that.
That's exactly why I love Sampras. The human element.He's not some cold machine of a man...he's only human..a human who could just dig deep down and find that extra gear - it has been very palpable on several occasions.
You have shortchanged Sampras.
Here are his weapons.
1.Blistering Serve in terms of SHEER PACE
2.Serve variety. He can pretty much hit the corners or the middle at will.
3.SECOND SERVE.
4.RUNNING Forehand crosscourt: one of his weapons that had no answer.
5.VOLLEYS
6.You forgot the SLAMDUNK SMASH. There was no such thing as an offensive lob :-)
7.Forehand: This was spectacular by itself.
8.Incredible Judgement. One of his key intangibles. He almost seemed to be psychic with respect to balls going out. I have very often marvelled at him letting an opponents return go...only to see it land inches outside the baseline.
I still haven't watched enough of Roger - especially in sticky situations. Remember the story of two sisters called Venus and Serena? How they dominated the world of women's tennis. People said they were going to win ALL the titles between them. However..things have turned out otherwise. SO it is for Roger Federer. He has looked shaky every time I've seen him play a quality opponent. He might get close to 14..but quality players are crawling out of the woodwork now. Time will tell.
I dont think Sampras' parents have been at every match of his. From what I remember they only came to witness his last match because they considered it bad luck and were generally too nervous to watch.Its not like Federer keeps his girlfriend locked up somewhere. She's been right there...all along wondering when he'll stop being a sissy (okay I made that up :-) ).
Sure Wimbledon 01 wasn't all that great - but he was fading away already.So we cannot tell for sure.
All I need really is Aus Open 05 to look on the possibility of a brighter future where the champion will joke around and share his victory...instead of ...well we all know by now.
FSN
Went through the well prepared list. You missed a couple of points though
1) Incredible ball toss for the first serve
2) Unbelievable ball toss for the second serve
Now, that's more like it. 10 solid pro Sampras points. Wonder why you did not do this yourself. Afterall, you went through the trouble of stretching 5 to 8 using the very limits of imagination. :)
This is not exactly my comfort zone you know – bashing Pete, but I gotta do what I gotta do, and if that be showing you the dazzling light that is Roger Federer, by breaking down the weaknesses in the ever-so-sublime Sampras
game, so be it :)
here’s why I think Federer can beat Sampras on grass:
the players that have effectively competed with Pete at wimbledon and why --
Agassi (return of serve & attack from the baseline)
Ivanisevic (serve and serve-volley)
Rafter (incredible serve-volley)
Hewitt (foot-work, quickness on court)
Safin (serve, shot-making, backhand, backhand, backhand)
Now Roger has all of that and then some; some meaning he’s better at ALL of that than all of them, except perhaps the serve&volley. But his serve-volley on grass is still something that can kill an opponent. he even comes in on second serves on grass.
Sampras is not as good a returner (far from it, in fact) as Roger, so I doubt he’d be able to break Roger very often. Plus, he cannot stifle Roger with a backhand that consistently seems to baffle the swiss. Roger on the other hand will constantly take Sampras off guard with his return-of-serve-followed-by-backhand
-down-the-line/forehand-cross-court/
what-have-you, if indeed Sampras manages to leave the net long enough to return them :)
Yep, the Sampras judgment is incredible, bordering on flawless. It’s like he’s gone over three steps ahead in his mind, but then Roger has gone at least two steps ahead, so I don’t really think he could catch him offguard. one thing, though, that sampras seemed to lack judgment on seemed to be the returnability of his serves esp against the best returners (which is what happened to him in all the safin and the one federer match).
But all said, I think Roger hasn’t played many serve-volleyers (I’m drawing a blank on any worthy S-Vs in the current crop), so we haven’t seen his game-plan against them; though I do think his game is almost tailored to desettle them. We have seen Roger adapt his game to a specific player, at a week’s, day’s & moment’s notice. But then again Sampras is quite a pro at game-adaptation himself. I think it would have been incredible to the sport of tennis to have them play in the same era.
In defense of Federer, I think the one thing we miss out when we talk about Sampras being over the hill in W’01 is that federer was an inexperienced 20 year old. He had almost as many odds stacked against him as Sampras did. For him to play the king of wimbledon at that stage in his career must have been pretty intimidating. The federer of today is more mature and more innovative with his shots, not to mention more mentally tough. He would be far more lethal today than he ever was then.
Federer’s girlfriend is his manager!! To deal with the excess media attention that the greatest tennis player in history is subject to :) So she's obviously gotta be there!
Hah, so you agree then: Sampras was super-human on-court; roger is super-human on and off-court :D
Its absolutely wonderful to read some Sampras bashing from an ardent Sampras admirer :D And since return-of-serve kept coming up, I thought that I should comment :)
Federer without question returns more serves than anyone. His single handed style combined with an ideal height and his talent (needless to say actually) helps him reach a lot of balls that a double hander wouldn't be able to. And the rest of his game ensures that once his return falls in, he controls the puppet at the other end.
Having said all that....Agassi without any question had the best offensive return of serve ever. In all my years of tennis viewing, I have never ever seen anyone stand within the baseline to return a first serve on grass. At his peak, Agassi would do that on an everyday basis. To me, it was the single most spectacular sight on a tennis court during the serve dominated 90s.
No one, including Federer can dare to comtemplate such a thing. We have already seen the last of it, unless sometime in the future tennis changes to underarm serving (which they should :))
US Open 1990: The people that Sampras defeated on the way to victory reads like a Who's Who of the tennis world. Ival Lendl, John McEnroe and of course :-) Andre Agassi.
To talk about 'inexperienced' 20 year olds...Pete Sampras won his first Grand Slam at the age of 19!!!
To talk about a possible game between Sampras and Federer: Consider this.
The 'returnability' of his serves dont really matter because 99% of the time Sampras can dig himself out of a service game breakpoint by servin up those special aces only HE can serve. All these guys Safin & Federer met Sampras when he was past his prime. For his record against returners-of-serve we must go back and examine his record against Agassi. Not bad, if you ask me :-).
Also, you forgot to mention the Slam Dunk Smash (meaning its hard to pass him at the net - I haven't seen Federer hit too many great passing shots)and his running forehand crosscourt which was a magical weapon by itself. True Federer's backhand is really good, but Sampras more than makes up for it with his precise and accurate placement.
dream-sporting,
I give ya (and your beloved AA) all the authority on return-of-serve you want, as long as you contend that a return doesn’t do much good if you charitably give up your serve on the next game ;)
but yeah, Agassi's return is more artful and offensive, and understandably, he doesn't do it as often, cos he most often scores when he does it.
it’s true though that Roger uses his backhand mainly as a defense -- a defense, as you rightly point out, vital for the subsequent play that somehow finds an offensive mind-numbing shot somewhere within the next few seconds :)
FS, You haven't seen Federer hit too many great passing shots?? Excuse me, but have you seen Federer?? he did it against pete and he consistently does it against Safin/Roddick and all the big-servers. And his b.h. passing shot around the net post is simply unbelievable and an amazing sight to the eyes.
Giving due credit to the Sampras’ slam dunk smash (apologies rendered for the delay ;)), I admit that he’d be one of the few players that could cut off Roger’s chance at a passing shot with an unreturnable volley, and that’s partly the reason why I think Wimbledon missed something phenomenal cos Roger was born ten years later than he was *sigh*
Yeah, Sampras in 1990 was pure genius. But I wasn’t attempting to compare Sampras in ’90 to Federer in ’01. I was comparing the two in ’01, though I must remind you that both Johnny mac and lendl were on the decline in the 90s.
And of course you more than anyone will agree with me that facing a Pete Sampras, prime or post-prime must be enough to rattle some nerves, even if they belonged to Roger ;)
As for Agassi, he definitely tested Pete with his return of serve, but even if he did manage to break his serve he’d promptly be broken in the next game. that is why it is important to have a reliable service game. Roger is not only incredibly hard to break, he also consistently serves up 20+ aces per match at wimbledon and his second serve is not too bad as well. Safin & Federer can capitalize on the breaks they achieve by returning well, while Andre almost never could; also the reason why Agassi could at least come close to desettling Sampras on hard courts but could never dream of it in Wimbledon.
Katrix
So, Agassi could never hold serve after he broke huh? Was that the reason he was able to win on all surfaces? Actually, due to the frame of comparison here, lets just talk about 'playing' on all surfaces, since winning goes way beyond what 'servers' can do on unhelpful surfaces.
Agassi's serve definitely wasn't his strength, but then, that is something that any sub 6 footer has to live with.
Agassi's peak was as good as anything the game has ever seen. Lets also remember, that he wasn't blessed with the regular supply of 'cheap points' that a few others relied on. That should highlight the quality of play on display when he was on.
So, next time, maybe you check out his resume before making comments.
dream-sporting,
you have to put it in context. it was a relative statement. agassi, as opposed to say Federer or Safin, who can both return well and serve well, to ensure that they can 'keep' the break, so to speak.
i am not comparing him to, say, Olivier Rochus.
I am comparing him to players that can consistently serve well. The other context you missed was 'grass' -- if you didnt notice, it had Wimbledon written all over it; Roger doesnt serve 20+ aces on hard courts nor does he serve and volley much on hard courts (when he does, he finds himself in a big gaping hole).
you AA-touters should stop and wonder at the reason why Agassi could never compete effectively against sampras on grass (no phenomenal matches b/w the two at the big W like at flushing meadows or melbourne).
Katrix
On grass, Safin would have been a tougher opponent to Sampras than Agassi - Is that your point? That needs a re-think, to put it mildly. (Hint: history of results at Wimbledon)
FYI...1993 W Q/F....5 sets. Pretty good match, if my memory serves me right :)
Ok, the minutes are counting down and I am jus toooooo excited about superbowl XL to make a coherent tennis statement right now, so don’t hold any of the following against me ;)
Safin has only been playing since ’97, agassi played almost entirely through sampras’ career. My larger point is that the serve volleyers always gave Sampras something to worry about at wimbledon --- rafter, ivanisevic, henman, federer (though not a bonafide S-V, he mimics them pretty well on grass :D). and since roger is more than jus a S-V (baseliner, returner, all-courter) he offers even more competition than one-dimensional serve-volleyers.
Yep, there was a 5 setter b/w agassi and Sampras in the ’93 W, but we have consistently seen more heart-stopping matches b/w the two in Oz and at the USO (at least 4 come immediately to mind) but jus one in the big W; the other, I think was a straight sets demolition of AA (you could argue that they have met only twice at Wimbledon, but that’s also cos Agassi kept getting out in the early rounds so didn’t get to the stage of meeting Sampras).
Check it ou homes vinyl siding & soffit if your building homes go to Http://siding11.com/side.pl?y=helper. butt if you want to learn to install siding then.....
Post a Comment