|
August 28, 2005
Great expectations
By Rohit Brijnath, The Age
Tony Roche tells Rohit Brijnath why he's impressed with his star
pupil Roger Federer - and not just for his tennis prowess.
IVAN Lendl is apparently not an ardent tennis watcher, is not
really moved to switch on the television and regularly measure
Roddick's forehand against the memory of his own. Until the flinty
Czech-American sees the striking Swiss. Hey, he tells Tony Roche, I
will pay to watch Roger Federer practise.
Tony Roche, 60, his lined face a map of experience, is telling
this story. The grand Australian leftie, French champion in 1966,
was Lendl's and Patrick Rafter's tutor to greatness. Now he's
Federer's part-time specialist coach, a wise presence for the great
one to lean on, gently offering a suggestion here, quietly a
recommendation there.
After all, even Roche believes: "There's no such thing as the
perfect tennis player", but hell, Federer occasionally has us
fooled.
Roche, who usually travels to the grand slams with Federer but
is skipping this year's US Open — which starts tomorrow —
lived an unobtrusive life. Then this year the Swiss comes knocking
and how exactly do you say no to a man who is redefining tennis?
One thing is fundamental to accepting the job: Roche must like
Federer. But one thing is evident: Federer is an affable man.
When James Blake seriously injured his neck last year, a few
American players visited him, but he got only one note in hospital.
It was from Federer and read: "We'll miss you and we really hope
you get back here quickly."
Last week, Andy Roddick expressed bewilderment over why the US
public hadn't swooned over Federer: "Roger does his business, he
goes home. He's not looking for anything besides winning.
Unfortunately, that hasn't been embraced. It's almost like people
want more of a story. He's a class act. For some reason, that's not
a good story."
Roche is taken with this Swiss he views as "laidback". He sees
Federer as a sweet echo of old-fashioned values. "He has respect
for the game of tennis, he feels he has an obligation to the game
because he's No. 1, he cares about the game and that's a throwback
to (Rod) Laver and (Ken) Rosewall."
The Australian does not flirt with overstatement. As a player he
shared court space with Rosewall and Lew Hoad and Roy Emerson and
John Newcombe — the supreme generation of Australian tennis
— and is not easily impressed. Yet ask him if Federer has ever
done something even he has never seen before and he says
yes. "Very much so, at the Wimbledon final (this year) against
Roddick. I really hadn't seen anyone play that level."
It's what champions do, he reinforces, "produce their best on
the biggest stage". It is like Laver, he adds. Indeed, often in the
conversation, Roche will, almost involuntarily, summon Laver's
name. He is too prudent to suffocate a maturing Federer by
attempting comparisons in record, but it appears almost as if in
grace and gifts as a competitor Laver is his benchmark.
Perhaps for Roche part of the attraction is that he finds a
resemblance between the polished Swiss and the majestic Laver.
"Certainly in the way they play, so many different shot selections,
able to hold the ball until the last minute. Roger is such a
beautiful athlete, he doesn't give the impression that he's very
quick, but he's always there. He reads the game very well." And, of
course, so did Laver.
Federer astonishes with his consistency and versatility, his
winning of 22 consecutive finals on varied surfaces a stunning
mastery of self and opponent and moment. He appears, says Roche,
not to "stress on the outside", and while nervousness is hardly
absent it is perhaps the collected cool that Federer projects that
unhinges rivals. But this confidence Federer wears so comfortably
now has been earned.
Belgian player Olivier Rochus last week said that when "Federer
was young, he was really bad. I remember him when we were 13 years
old. He was always losing 6-0, 6-1 against everybody. We were
almost laughing at him, and now he's laughing at us."
Roche credits the late Peter Carter — of whom Federer once
said "Peter wasn't my first coach, but he was my real coach" —
with helping the Swiss in developing so many shots. But Roche says
even now Federer is inquisitive, eager to pick up things. It's the
key, he states, and calls on the memory of Lendl, saying "he got up
every morning wanting to be a better player and you have got to be
like that".
Federer's symmetrical game may appear without weakness, but he
is still harnessing his skills, so many shots immaculately
designed, but some perhaps unequal to the other. Roche sees him
"improving his volleys", raising them to the "same standard as the
rest of his game".
Players return significantly more adeptly these days, and
Federer occasionally does not seem to even require the volley, but
it is, says Roche, something to keep up your sleeve. Roche also
sees the second serve as a vital weapon, a shot that found its
ultimate expression in Pete Sampras, and believes Federer will
continue to "work on that". Federer's first serve itself lacks a
Samprasian heft, but uncannily he manufactures a multitude of aces,
for, as Roche explains, "his deception is so good".
With a month's sabbatical to heal his foot, having won his sole
warm-up tournament in Cincinnati, Federer is now in New York. Last
year he won three grand slam titles, this year so far one. For most
a single slam would be a splendid year, but Federer does not
measure himself by such mundane yardsticks. In Cincinnati, he
dropped two sets and eyebrows twitched.
Federer is not invincible, he only appears so. At Flushing
Meadows everyone will want his head, but he will merely pluck at
his, before unveiling his artful mayhem. As Roche, nailing
perfectly a collective view of this champion, said: "Roger gives
the unique impression that he can go to another level."
We know. It is why we, like Lendl, would pay to watch him.
|
