|
Monday, 12 June, 2006
Federer the Grasscourt King Returns
By Kate Battersby, Wimbledon
Rumour
has it that Roger Federer is not infallible on a tennis court. “Look!”
cry the doubters, “He cannot win the French Open.” Federer has lost six
out of seven career matches against the world number two, Rafael Nadal,
the most recent defeat being on clay at the 2006 French Open. Not
to worry. Welcome back to Wimbledon, Mr Federer. Welcome back to
grasscourt Grand Slam tennis. Welcome back to the tournament where you
have not been on speaking terms with defeat since 2002. Welcome back to
the place where it requires a quite riotous imagination to envisage
anyone but the Swiss lifting the golden gentlemen’s trophy come 9th
July. Breathing in the sweet air of the All England Club should
have the three-time champion feeling invincible again in no time. Here
his unforced errors are miserly, his lost sets parsimonious, and his
defeats non-existent since Mario Ancic despatched him four years ago –
in straight sets, no less. How strange to think there was a time when
Roger Federer could be beaten in straight sets in SW19. But then, how
strange to think of a time when he could be beaten here at all. Is
it reasonable just now to discuss Federer without mentioning the words
“Rafael Nadal”? Well, yes, surely it is - at Wimbledon. By all means
when the hardcourt season rolls around, then it is possible to think of
the Spaniard adapting his claycourt magic to that surface, and perhaps
even mounting a serious attack on Federer’s number one spot. But even
the most visionary mind would find it unfeasible to picture such an
event during the scant four weeks when tennis pauses on its axis for
the grasscourt season. No doubt Federer would relish a first grasscourt
encounter against his Spanish nemesis. Of course, all matches between
these two are anticipated with glee, and at Wimbledon Federer would
surely deliver a tennis lesson Nadal would remember. But could Nadal
make the Wimbledon final at all? The odds are against it. Last
year the seeding committee’s habit of disregarding the world rankings
caused a momentary tiff as to whether it should be Lleyton Hewitt or
Andy Roddick whose right it was to lose to Federer in the final. In the
event he faced both men consecutively in the ultimate stages of the
tournament, but it made no difference who he played. Nothing means as
much to Federer as Wimbledon, the place where he won the first of his
seven Slam titles to date. “I revere Wimbledon and I feel the
Centre Court is the most magical place for a player,” he said in 2005.
“If I could choose between winning Wimbledon and Roland Garros, I would
always choose Wimbledon. Looking into the future, if I were to win ten
Wimbledon titles but never managed to win the French Open, and was then
given the choice, I would still pick an eleventh Wimbledon rather than
a first French.” It is still strangely shocking to remind oneself
that Federer has not won that elusive French, and that still only
Donald Budge and Rod Laver have held all four Major titles at once.
There is time yet – the Swiss is still just 24 – but sport does not
always oblige even its greatest alumni. There are those who say Federer
is getting nearer to winning the French, and if he is desperate for a
silver lining to his latest failure then it does mean he still has
something to aim for, having won everything else. But these are lame
words. If he had captured the Slam, and been asked what was left for
him to do now, one can only imagine him giving that shrug and
half-smile, before replying: “Winning it again.” It is a phrase
which applies even now. He has captured three Wimbledon's on the
bounce. The All England Club is his kingdom. What is left for him to do
here in 2006? Why, winning it again, of course.
|
