Thursday, December 28, 2006

Federer: sportsperson of the year

By Rohit Brijnath, The Hindu

In 2006, Roger Federer played tennis better than anyone else played any other sport, writes Rohit Brijnath

Instantly Roger Federer would have noted the flight, assessed velocity, estimated topspin, calculated the ball was going to land almost on the baseline, on the backhand side, and that he lacked enough time to move his feet and arrange his body for an orthodox reply.

Whether in the half-second he had Federer simply reached into his boundless portfolio of shots, whether he searched his imagination and found a creative answer, whether there is an instinctive genius that propels him to do things sometimes even beyond his understanding, we don't know.

What we know is that the shot he then manufactured against James Blake in the Masters Cup final drew oaths and exclamations even from subdued men.

He half-turned and, not entirely balanced, in a sweeping motion, on the half-volley, with his backhand, didn't drive it, but flicked it, like a table tennis shot almost. The shot could work only if it was perfect. It was. Perfect whip of wrist for speed, perfect position of racket for direction, perfect caress for spin, and the ball whirred, rose, dipped and passed a stupefied Blake.

Till that moment, that shot did not exist, it had waited for Federer to come to play it, an act of invention and effrontery beyond the compass of even the very good player.

Of course, Federer won this year, more than any athlete. In matches, 91 won-5 lost; in tournaments, 17 played, 16 finals, 12 wins. He was triumphant at Wimbledon, Australia, the U.S., only a match removed (French final) from tennis' greatest season.

Proof of excellence

The winning is proof of excellence, but this was more than just winning. Federer was, on some days, not just playing tennis better than anyone had before, he was occasionally playing tennis we had not seen before. A fresh shot, a singular attacking idea from a defensive position, a unique sequence of angles. This man, a union of the athletic and aesthetic, was expanding tennis' vocabulary.

He'd say, often, after matches that he "played fantastic" and he was not merely delighted with his performance, it seemed a part of him was stunned as well by his brilliance. As if he, too, believed that practice, genes, speed, technique was insufficient to explain what he occasionally does, as if some otherworldly force was leading him.

Asked if he ever surprised himself at how well he played, he replied: "Yeah, I do." At the Masters Cup, he added: "For me, there's no real explanation why I play so well in the big moments. I came up also with incredible shots again today on big points. For some reason it just ends up always happening. I don't see what the secret is behind it, I really don't." What is too casually overlooked because it's not new, is that no one holds Federer's hand. Everyone else's is. Roddick's a new man because of Connors. Tiger Woods needs Hank Haney to reshape his swing. England bemoans the loss of bowling coach Troy Cooley. Nadal looks for reassurance from his uncle Toni.

A few weeks here, a few weeks there, Tony Roche plays mentor to Roger Federer. Gives ideas, reinforces a point. But mostly Federer is both tutor and student.

Uncomfortable

No athlete is an island and Federer admits that without girlfriend Mirka he is uncomfortable. But he requires no constant eye on his technique, no emotional sustenance during play, no stroking of his ego, no stare of encouragement from the stands. This athlete is as close to complete as we can find.

Sports psychologist Sandy Gordon believes "the whole idea of the coach is to make the athlete independent of you. People who are dependent on coaches for everything haven't got to the holy grail of the autonomous state." This man has got there.

In 2006, Roger Federer demonstrated that it is hard to master a man who has mostly mastered himself. Of course he is sportperson of the year.

©2003 - 2008 Shinanat Mahamaytakit