Egotism ....a lifelong romance

Monday, September 11, 2006

Keeping the eye on the ball – Part 5 of ∞

And you thought I’d have finally hit my Federer writer’s block. Nope! The guy just finds something new to do on a tennis court every single time, and I try to come up with new adjectives to describe it every single time. Call it my own way of getting over it.

The CBS coverage of the championship match showcased a clip of a Federer crosscourt forehand followed immediately by a wide backhand crosscourt (like the magic he performs in real time weren’t enough) and Mary Carrillo summed it up – “there’s his range of winners”. You could take that literally, cos I bet I’ve seen him hit the ball at every angle in between, and I’m talking degrees. There! That’s the best way to describe it – or at least it will have to be till I find a better way.

That said, I concede - I need to stop making predictions. Though I did get the 4 sets right – that’s a 1 in 3 shot! And the match was certainly tight between 5-0 Federer and the start of well, 5-0 Federer. It could have gone either way in the third set but for the fact that Roger’s been here 8 times before and gotten it right 7 times. And the fact that Andy’s been here 3 times before and gotten it right once. And that Fed’s been here 11 times before and gotten it right 10 times. And that A-Rod’s been here 11 times before and gotten it right once. Ok, you get it – pro level tennis is all about keeping your composure on the toughest stages in the tightest corners.

In the first set it certainly did look like Federer was going to run away with it. But then the tennis stars began to shine (pun intended) and Roddick decided to get back into it. The second set was fascinating -- Andy was better than I have ever seen him and Roger fell just short of his usual clinical perfection – which brought them to just about evenly matched. Fortunately for tennis fans, the magic lasted through most of the third set. The two back to back games in that very tight set, where each saved 4 breakpoints on his serve were inarguably the best part of the match – light caresses, gentle coaxing, hard-hitting strokes, explosive smashes - the ball saw it all, and at its expense, we were witness to the most beautiful tennis Ashe stadium had seen through the entire tournament -- 25 shot ralleys ending in elegantly placed finishes, incredible net exchanges culminating in perfectly timed winners, followed by the flourishes - Roddick screaming all the way to the stands and Federer doing the contained, calculated fist pump – I think it’s measured, just like every shot he creates!

In the end, the better man came out on top. Federer makes it look so easy we tend to think the competition isn’t the greatest. But the truth is that he has the amazing ability of making even good players look mediocre. Consider this: Andy Roddick is arguably playing the best tennis of his career; he won the US Open series, had been broken only five times in the entire championship before running into Roger, dismissed a former world number one of such versatility as Hewitt in straight sets and countered the elegant artisanship of the talented Russian, Youzhny with some phenomenal shot-making of his own. Federer broke Roddick three times in the first set, six times over-all and blocked Andy’s biggest weapon so decisively that Roddick, the distinguished ace-leader at this tournament with an impressive total of 102, was stifled to a meager 7, and what is more, Federer led him by 10. He doesn’t just snuff out his opponents’ strengths, he also manages to beat them at it, merely to make a point (literally)!

Of note is the observation that Andy has become less gracious and less generous with the compliments; there was more about him getting better and knowing where he was going than about Federer being the greatest ever in his acceptance speech and press conference after, which might be a good thing. It’s the Connors-esque “bad guy” intensity that could make the nicest guy in current men’s tennis give the world number one a run for his money. Countering composure with excesses of emotion has, after all, been the name of the game in the history of tennis rivalry.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Rog vs. A-Rod – The Grand Slam


[These two don't look like they can battle! A truly heart-warming relationship, both on and off court]

As Roger Federer continues to hold the crown at most tournaments and gets as far as the championship match for the ones that elude him, his challengers alter playing styles, seek different counsel, chew over the maestro’s game, scrutinize his strategy, up their strengths, probe for non-existent weaknesses and get ready to give it their best shot, year after year, major after major, game after game.

‘Who is it going to be this time?’ is usually the 64 thousand dollar question. This US Open, the hopefuls and the hopes were many and varied. Most tennis fans had penned down another Roger-Rafa final, and for good reason – the left arm wielding relentless youngster seems to be the only one with even a remote chance of putting Roger on the wrong foot. A host of other names hovered on people’s lips -- would Richard (baby Fed) Gasquet make this his breakthrough tournament and challenge the indomitable player many claim he emulates? If the Frenchman had garnered half the arsenal he boasted in the series preceding the slam, we could have hoped for some notes to complement Roger’s symphony. Would the delightfully charming Marcos, magical shot-maker and relentless go-getter, give us another stunning run at a major and test the world number one? If an unrelenting contraction and a rogue nation hadn’t gotten in his way, he might have had a shot. American fans were rooting for their number one player, whose incredible return game did seem to baffle a slightly faltering Federer in the quarters, but Blake clearly didn’t have enough to come out on top. Some wishful thinkers even had the temerity to hope that their ailing icon might repeat last year’s incredible run before retiring, but they had to see him go early.

Until a couple weeks ago, few would have bet on a stumbling Andy Roddick, albeit a resurgent one, to make it to championship Sunday and meet his nemesis for the third time in a grand slam final. Typically, such a meeting would not warrant a pre-match analysis, but Roddick has never looked better on a tennis court – rushing to the net whenever and wherever possible, throwing in more attitude on that already beautiful first serve, perfecting his ground strokes, baffling opponents with a Connors-esque down-the-line backhand, a forehand that seems more potent than ever and a slice backhand that as far as I can remember never belonged to him. Not to mention the fact that the usually irrational, ace-blasting Andy is actually thinking (we should have known that incredible wit could be put to good use on a tennis court!) Factor in all of that with the premise that the crowds will be on his side (despite New York’s adoration of the unflappable Swissman that makes it his business to walk away with the trophy every year) and like Johnny Mac says, Roddick has his swagger back. And boy, will he need it when he faces off against a man to whom he has lost 10 out of 11 times in his career!

My prediction: Federer wins in 4 tight sets. Okay, I am going to go on a limb here and suggest a score:

Roger Federer 6 7 6 6
Andy Roddick 4 6 7 3

In other US Open notes, a disappointing loss for Justine Henin-Hardenne today. But I guess if you are five foot five and playing a power player that’s six foot three, you have to be on top of your game, and at worst, get most of your first serves in. With due credit to the 19-year old, Sharapova appears to be using that thing called judgment on court (at least she didn’t keep tossing the ball right back to Justine as she did in her four previous losses!) Hope she continues on this line of thought, because as often happens in women’s tennis, those that are blessed with the brawn often seem to forget they have a brain.

Congratulations to the Belgian for the pretty impressive feat of reaching all major finals this year; she is clearly the Roger Federer of the women’s draw. And what could better say that than the fact that for only the first time in tennis history have a man and woman made it to all four major finals in a single calendar year?

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Pete’s last laugh

If I were Pete Sampras today I’d break into that endearing half smile I so often did at the end of a phenomenal forehand winner, sometimes unbelievable even to me. If I were Pete Sampras today I’d switch off the CBS telecast, put my arms behind my head, shut my eyes and sigh. If I were Pete Sampras today I’d try to get the full impact of the magnitude of what I have accomplished in my more than illustrious career.

Not that there was ever any question, not that there was ever any contest, not that there was ever any doubt, but today, he has shut up his worst critics for the last time. Today, after all these years people are left with no excuses: the doubts that wouldn’t go away after he won seven Wimbledon titles in eight straight years, the questions that were still prevalent, when he captured his record 14th grand slam after a two-year hiatus, the skepticism that was not erased because he didn’t smile often enough.

He took an injection before almost every match he played during the big W in 2000 and went on to win it. Most people didn’t know because he doesn’t prick and tell. He played his entire career with an inherited blood disorder, but he doesn’t talk about it because it has nothing to do with his tennis. He leaves it to mortal beings to resort to such excuses as health and age and needles.

Not to take anything away from Agassi, he’s had a great career, inspired many and given something to the sport of tennis. But not everyone can be an immortal, not everyone can rise to the occasion and dictate destiny in the way only true genius can. Not everyone can decide on a storybook ending and actually manage to write it.

Just to lay it out for the Agassi-worshipping section of the world, let’s review their final major tournaments. I’m not really trying to rub salt on the wound here, but sometimes you have to break it down for Agassi fans because that sort of unconditional devotion - no questions asked, no answers expected – is often irrational. I have little choice but to assume that when you see endless re-runs and re-plays and highlights of Agassi’s meager wins, when you see people stand in silent ovation for a barely convincing forehand winner (or an opponent’s unforced error) you begin to believe he has done more than he has.

[I sure hope there are no more rain delays through the remainder of the Open cos I couldn’t stand another Agassi-All-day marathon. If anyone’s noticing anything other than his eyes, his playing style is far from entertaining the first time around!]

Anyway, here goes:

Pete Sampras at US Open ’02
1st round: beats Albert Portas 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
2nd round: beats No. 85 Kristian Pless 6-3, 7-5, 6-4
3rd round: beats No. 33 Greg Rusedski 7-6 4-6 7-6 3-6 6-4
4th round: beats No. 3 Tommy Haas 7-5 6-4 6-7 7-5
Quarter Final: beats No. 11 Andy Roddick 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
Semi final: beats No. 24 Sjeng Schalken 7-6, 7-6, 6-2
Final: beats No. 6 Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4
Wins championship

Andre Agassi at US Open '06
1st round: beats No. 75 Andrei Pavel 6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 6-2
2nd round: beats No. 8 Marcos Baghdatis 6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 5-7, 7-5
3rd round: loses to Qualifier Benjamin Becker 5-7, 7-6, 4-6, 5-7

Pete is too noble, too much of a gentleman, too much of a sportsman to do it himself, so let a mortal being do it on his behalf:

Hahahahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaah