|
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
How much better can Federer get?
By Rohit Brijnath, The Hindu
Do an MRI and take a DNA sample. Check his
brain, analyse his genes. Call in a shaman, summon a seer. Read his
mind and search his soul. Hire Sherlock and ring Poirot. Investigate
his past and track down his forebears. We need to know what his secret
is.
Because, how in any God's name can a man play tennis like this?
It's downright impossible to go from talented
player in 2003 to greatest player ever-elect in just three years. It's
simply ridiculous that when the Open quarterfinals were over, his
record against the remaining contenders was 7-0 v Davydenko, 7-0 v
Youzhny, 10-1 v Roddick. It ought to be illegal for a man to be so
tough and yet so pretty; would it be fair if Joe Louis could write Ode
To A Nightingale?
If it wasn't for Rafael Nadal, we'd be asking for proof that he belonged to this planet.
When I ask India's greatest player, Ramanathan
Krishnan, what impresses him most about Roger Federer, he says, "he
doesn't have many off-colour days," which, he suggests, is well,
"inhuman." Fifty-two winners (not counting aces) in four
sets, in the US Open final, is inhuman. That's about 13 polished,
perfectly spun, precisely angled, unreachable shots per set.
In the entire tournament he hits 254 winners. That's 90 more than Roddick. NINETY?
He hits them off-balance, while combing his
hair, when he's 30-40, till Ramesh Krishnan says, "he hits more winners
than anyone I've seen." Till Neale Fraser, former US Open champ, says,
"I think he gets bored hitting winners, so he tries to hit better and
better shots."
Hapless Roddick Roddick, in the last set, resembled the
dismayed fellow at the circus who gets tied up for the grinning
knife-thrower to commence his act. It's as if Federer goes on
shot-making binges trying to get high on perfection, the opponent an
irrelevance, as he pursues the faultless rally. In an era of such depth
of competition, 10 times in grand slam matches this year he has won 6-0
sets. Twice in finals, twice in semifinals. Which is why James Blake, who received one of
those sets, when asked to describe Federer in a 100 words, needed 119,
and then said: "I could keep going." Blake says Federer serves well, volleys well,
has the best forehand in the game, doesn't panic, handles the pressure
of No.1 beautifully, and the pressure he puts on himself, plays offence
unbelievably well, and defence better than anyone. Phew.
Nikolay Davydenko's English is a trifle scratchy, so we'll skip the 100 words and settle for one. "No."
His answer when asked if Federer has a weakness.
Ramanathan Krishnan knows Federer hits fine
strokes, but it's his mastery of the "non-tennis factors," he says,
that completes the equation. Guts, nerve, temperament. The ability at
5-5, crowd on your back, sweat down the neck, opponent inspired, and
you lift to meet the moment.
Superb conditioning
If we slice open Federer, we'll find gleaming
crankshafts, oiled levers, valves, and yes, gears, more than any
athlete owns. It's as if he wants to be pushed, mentally and
physically, so he can shift up a gear, move up a level, show off his
talent, express his art. It's scary.
Only once in four slams this year was he taken to five sets. Imagine, how many more gears he owns, we don't know.
Sometimes, of course, he merely gives the
illusion of elevating to a higher plane of shot-making; in truth, he
has not altered his standard, merely that his opponent has been unable
to sustain his. For two sets Roddick raised his game; then at 5-6 in
the third, as if the effort was too much, this level beyond him, he
made a few errors and it was over. Some people say Federer is dull and lacks
charisma, which only confirms that some people are best not introduced
to art. Meanwhile, let's call off those DNA samples, shamans and
Poirot. For what moves Federer, and what wavelength he operates on,
evidently only one man knows. Tiger Woods.
As Federer said, finally he had met a man who comprehended how he felt. How it feels, "to feel invincible at times."
|
