|
October 25, 2006
Building the perfect beast
By Rohit Brijnath, The Hindu
Rohit Brijnath, with inputs from Ramesh Krishnan and Nirmal Shekar, attempts to construct the perfect player to beat Roger Federer.
In Sunday's Madrid Masters final, against
Fernando Gonzales, who is world No.10 if you please, Roger Federer won
his 17th 6-0 set of the year. In 1994, when Sampras won 10 titles, he
had four 6-0 sets. A 6-0 score suggests no contest, which is
what the tennis tour has turned into. Nadal got us all excited for the
second straight summer only to wilt in the hard court autumn. Roddick,
Safin, Hewitt, Blake, Ljubicic are hard to get excited about. This is
the Incredible Hulk against the Seven Dwarfs. Since Federer has no peer, we must build one.
Reality has become so one-sided that we have to resort to fiction. In
the time of the ridiculous we have to embrace the absurd. And so, by
choosing the best strokes from players from 1976-2006, we will
construct the perfect player to tame the Swiss. To get another view, I asked this newspaper's
learned tennis writer Nirmal Shekar and former Wimbledon
quarterfinalist Ramesh Krishnan to submit their own lists of what
comprises the perfect player.
Forehand
Nowadays everyone not named Santoro hits a big
forehand. Gonzales pelts it, Blake pounds it. But the old guys were no
slouches. Sampras's cross-court effort was designed to damage, but it
was Lendl's slapped, heavy forehand that still echoes. Federer's
forehand is from Rolex: reliable, advanced engineering. And perhaps the
man to rival him is Agassi, short backswing, slightly flatter ball to
rush the Swiss, a juggler's control and unreal timing.
My choice: Agassi. Ramesh Krishnan: Lendl. Nirmal Shekar: Lendl.
Backhand
Bjorn Borg with his long-handled Donnay was so
reliable he'd make passing shots in a wind tunnel. Metronomic Mats was
innovative because despite two hands he could do the sharp, one-handed
slice. These days Richard Gasquet's backhand is auditioning for the
Louvre, but it's a third Swede whose backhand astonished. Stefan
Edberg's forehand was fashioned by a drunk mechanic, but his backhand
was constructed in God's design studio.
My choice: Edberg. Krishnan: Edberg. Shekar: Edberg
First serve
Stich could gouge the court and Goran terrified
linespeople. Yet the most dazzling machinery belonged to Sampras, whose
serve was too quick to follow and harder to read than Sanskrit
homework. Federer's serve lacks such heft, but he also has terrific
disguise. But I'll pick the McEnroe serve, for his outrageously
swinging lefty effort would pierce the heart of the Federer backhand.
My choice: McEnroe. Krishnan: Sampras. Shekar: Sampras
Second serve
No contest because only one second serve has been classified as a weapon.
My choice: Sampras. Krishnan: Sampras. Shekar: Sampras
Return of serve
Men like Connors and Hewitt are part brilliant
interpreters of serve, part hand-eye freaks. It is also the most
under-commented about shot in tennis. McEnroe might go well against
Federer, because he'd follow an early-taken ball to the net, which no
one does. But we'll play safe and smart and go for old baldy who beat
Sampras 14 times and is a returning savant.
My choice: Agassi. Krishnan: Agassi. Shekar: Agassi
Volley
A net-shy generation means one crucial element
of Federer's game is insufficiently tested — his passing shot. Would he
blink if Stich were guarding the net, or Cash, or the athletic Rafter?
Could he get one past the balletic, technically assured Edberg or go
into a funk at the sight of a cotton-wool drop volley from McEnroe?
My choice: McEnroe. Krishnan: McEnroe. Shekar: Edberg
Speed
Few notice Federer move, yet he's rarely late
to a ball and returns shots whose authors believe are winners. His
stroke repertoire means a lot of running for his opponents and no one
ran as quick, or as long, as Borg. In modern times, Hewitt chases the
ball as if he has a score to settle with it while Chang made a career
out of sudden acceleration.
My choice: Chang. Krishnan: Borg. Shekar: Hewitt
Mental toughness
Wilander said modern players fail to get inside
Federer's head. The Swiss may be amiable, but Connors would sneer and
spit on his shoe. It's hard to recommend a fellow of Connors's manners,
but perhaps to rattle Federer we must give up grace, and anyway there
was a raw beauty to Connors's late-career raging desperation. But
equally unsettling might be Borg the clinician, and perhaps his
impassiveness would bother Federer. The Swede's toughness can't be
underplayed, for he tamed Connors and McEnroe, boys both bad and
skilful.
My choice: Connors. Krishnan: Borg. Shekar: Connors.
Would this perfect player beat Federer? Yes. But at least it'll be a contest.
|
