|
September 8, 2006
Pure genius never dull
By Johnette Howard, Newsday
Even before Roger Federer swatted away James Blake last night in
the U.S. Open quarterfinals to continue his quest to seize three of the
four Grand Slam titles this year, a resilient debate was popping up
again in internet polls, among TV talking heads and sports-page
columnists, tennis bloggers and fans in the stands: Is Federer's
dominance bad for tennis?
It's a curious question, one that certainly doesn't float up at
the same decibel level whenever Tiger Woods is decimating the
competition on the PGA Tour, or folks re-live how Michael Jordan ruled
the NBA, or Barry Bonds once sent home runs soaring over the fences
with record-shattering frequency.
Since when do exhibitions of greatness hurt a sport?
Sports always have been made better because of the presence of
genius. Think of Wayne Gretzky inventing a new way to play hockey from
behind the net, or the awe-inspiring sight of Woods tossing out all the
old conventions about club selection and humbling courses like Augusta
National or St. Andrews.
Tennis, more than most sports, often has been given to long runs
of individual dominance. Renee Richards, one of Martina Navratilova's
coaches in the mid-1980s, has the most convincing explanation I've ever
heard for why it happens more frequently in tennis.
Richards maintains that the better player almost always wins
matches because in tennis, a victory can't be stolen with a single
blow. There's no equivalent in tennis to the buzzer-beating shot in
basketball, or the lucky knockout punch in boxing, or the home run that
steals a victory in the last of the ninth.
A tennis match is a war of attrition that's won only after
hundreds of points have been played. On top of that, Richards pointed
out, "The scoring system in tennis is very much in favor of the
slightly better player. It's very forgiving. You can make mistakes and
still win a game. You can lose a set and you can still win a match.
[so] the better player is going to win almost all the time."
Federer's results the past three years support that notion. The
25-year-old Swiss star has won eight majors in the last four years - or
twice as many as Tiger, the athlete to whom he's most often compared.
Federer took over the No. 1 ranking in February of 2004 and hasn't
surrendered it since - a feat he's justifiably proud of. And clutch?
Federer is eight-for-nine in Grand Slam finals, with his only loss
coming on clay to Rafael Nadal at this year's French Open - the one
major Pete Sampras never won, either.
Yet, Federer still has to hear gripes that he's elegant and his
game is scintillating but he's also "boring." He mows down everyone
they put in front of him as ruthlessly as Rocky Marciano or Joe Louis
once did. Last night, Federer's rebound from an error-strewn start to a
7-6 (9-7), 6-0, 5-7 (9-11), 6-4 victory over the fifth-seeded Blake was
rocky but determined.
And yet, if Federer were surfing the internet yesterday before his
match, he might've come across a couple of snarky quotes from Sampras -
one in USA Today, the other uttered to the Houston Chronicle in April -
in which Sampras concedes that Federer will almost certainly breeze by
his men's record of 14 Grand Slam titles, but adds: Who has Federer had
to play? "I don't see anyone pushing Roger consistently," Sampras said.
"I see a lot of good players out there facing him, but no great
players."
Yeah, well . . . Federer had an 8-3 career record against Andre
Agassi, Sampras's great foil. At age 19, Federer out-dueled a
30-year-old Sampras in their only career meeting to dismiss him in the
round of 16 at Wimbledon, the place Sampras lorded over before then.
And if you think the gap between Federer and the active Grand Slam
title holders has widened in recent years, you're absolutely right. But
perhaps that's because all of them have had their hearts ripped out by
Federer in a big spot - Andy Roddick in their two Wimbledon finals;
Lleyton Hewitt in a blowout for the 2004 U.S. Open title. Even Rafael
Nadal got his comeuppance from Federer in the Wimbledon final this year.
So don't let Federer's nice-guy façade fool you. The other day,
Federer didn't lose a point against Marc Gicquet until the fourth game
of their match.
You can call that boring if you like. But it looks transcendent from here.
|
