November 28, 2005

Federer On Federer

By Steve Flink, Tennis Week

A few days before the start of the Tennis Masters Cup in Shanghai, an upbeat Roger Federer, hoping to garner a third consecutive title at the prestigious season-ending event, is in his room at the Shanghai Hilton, which overlooks Jing An Park. His manager and girlfriend, Mirka Vavrinec, is with him, keeping close tabs on his schedule. He has a massage scheduled within the hour.

In two days, the formal media-rounds for the tournament take place, though he took time for this exclusive telephone interview. Federer, needing no validation of his status or stature, has already assured himself of a second consecutive year at No. 1 in the world after sweeping 11 of 14 tournaments along the way, taking two more major championships in the process, becoming the first man since Don Budge (1937-38) to rule at Wimbledon and the U.S. (Open) Championships in successive years, and winning 35 matches in a row before suffering a torn ligament in his right ankle during an October 11th practice. The ankle injury forced Federer to miss most of the indoor season while he recuperated on crutches, but he seems reinvigorated and eager to remain on the ascendant, reflecting on his astonishing 2004 and 2005 campaigns while looking ahead to 2006.

The 24-year-old Swiss stylist collected three Grand Slam tournament championships in 2004 before his blockbuster season in 2005; no man since Rod Laver (1968-69) had swept five majors in a two-year stretch. Federer clearly does not take that brand of success for granted, particularly in light of the ligament tear, which disrupted his autumn and dampened an otherwise brilliant season. If anything good could come from being forced to walk on crutches for a few weeks, for Federer it was the realization that there is something more at stake than defending his crown in Shanghai or even returning to Australia for a run at regaining the title he took there in 2004. The larger issue is his long-term well being, as he looks to stretch his greatness deep into his 20s and beyond. His most formidable challenge in the coming years won't necessarily come from Rafael Nadal or Andy Roddick or Richard Gasquet or any other man. The test will be maintaining his physical health so that his body doesn't break down, wrecking the volumes of promise that are evident to all. To be sure, Federer is doing everything he can to keep his body intact and to compete with as little pain as possible. If successful, he will inevitably keep raising his stock among the sport's all time greats.

Many in the know are projecting that Federer, with six majors, will put himself in a position two to three years down the road to challenge Pete Sampras's record of 14 Grand Slam tournament singles crowns. Remarkably, Federer, essentially a modest and understated man, is willing at least to address the possibility of becoming only the third man in history after Don Budge (1938) and Rod Laver (1962 and 1969) to record a Grand Slam before thinking about the Sampras mark. Certainly if Federer makes it to the final "Down Under," he will be heavily favored to take the title. After all, he had won an astounding 24 finals in a row (from the middle of 2003) upon arriving in Shanghai prior to Sunday's 6-7(4), 6-7(11), 6-2, 6-1, 7-6(3), loss to David Nalbandian in the Tennis Masters Cup final. Included in that streak are his last five "Big Four" triumphs. Altogether, he stands 6-0 in Grand Slam tournament finals. Win No. 7 in Melbourne, and the Grand Slam quest is on.

What makes Federer's ongoing success all the more remarkable is how much he has done on his own to make it all happen. Throughout the 2004 season, after he had parted ways with Peter Lundgren, Federer competed without a coach and celebrated his finest year yet. Then he joined forces with Tony Roche in December 2004, and the wily Australian has guided Federer on a selective basis throughout this year. Still, Federer has thrived as largely a solo competitor, not leaning on a coach, because his instincts are so sharp, his judgment so sound. While Federer credits Roche with a substantial contribution, the fact remains that he has not relied on him as much as most players do on their coaches. Roche, of course, was of the old Aussie school, a superb serve-and-volleyer outstanding at the net, boasting as he did perhaps the best backhand volley the game has yet seen. It was his skill in the forecourt that led Roche to the finals of Wimbledon and the U.S. Open early in the Open Era after a triumph at the French Championships in 1966. Surely he would love to see the great Federer come forward more frequently, serving and volleying much more regularly than he does now. In fact, over the last two years, Federer has improved his ground game immensely, developing by far the best forehand in the game and displaying an increasingly effective blend of topspin and slice off the backhand. Yet he does not come in as often as perhaps he could.

Unmistakably, Federer has demonstrated across the last three years that he has the right set of priorities on the court, competing with a growing assurance, imposing his game on every opponent. He has solved all his most familiar rivals. Since the start of 2004, he has played Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt a combined total of 14 times and has not lost a single match to either of them. That is why close followers of the game look to the surging Nadal and the enormously promising Gasquet — two of the players who beat Federer in 2005 en route to Shanghai — to provide the most severe challenge to the world No. 1 in 2006. Nadal, seemingly, will be the most consistent threat to Federer over the next bunch of years, and a gripping rivalry could develop. But from the standpoint of tennis fans, it is a real loss that the paths of Federer and Sampras did not cross for much longer. They clashed only once head-to-head in a stirring, five-set skirmish at 2001 Wimbledon, where Federer toppled the seven-time champion, 7-6 (7), 5-7, 6-4, 6-7 (2), 7-5, ending the American's 31-match winning streak at the All England Club. At that juncture, Federer was not nearly the overwhelming force he has become and Sampras was past his prime, but both players performed honorably.

Federer demonstrated with his career-altering triumph that he possessed rare talent and immense capability, although few realized then that he was destined to become one of the finest ever in his field. A prerequisite for being regarded as an all-time great is recording major victories over a long span. Two-time Grand Slam victor Rod Laver (1962 and 1969) did just that, and Sampras raised his stature immeasurably by securing Grand Slam championships for eight consecutive years (1993- 2000), a men's record he shares with Bjorn Borg (1974-81). Federer is a player of astonishing gifts and must be regarded along with Sampras and Laver as the most complete players of the modern era. But he seems to realize that many admirers may have placed him a bit prematurely alongside Sampras and Laver as a candidate for "the best ever." Nevertheless, it has been fascinating to watch Federer sweep so rapidly into his own after Sampras captured his last major in his final tournament appearance at the 2002 U.S. Open, making the comparisons between the two champions among the pundits almost inescapable, even if there is a disparity in their respective records. Like Sampras before him, who started playing for history after establishing his dominance in the mid-1990s, Federer is currently striving for his place in the history books. And as he keeps breaking or setting new records, Federer, perhaps more than any of his predecessors at the top, seems to take great pleasure in following the numbers and finding out precisely what he has left to conquer.

Steve Flink: How aggravating was it for you, though you lost only three times on your way to Shanghai, to have two of those defeats come at the majors, in the semifinals of the Australian and French Opens, against Marat Safin and Rafael Nadal?

Roger Federer: If I can keep winning two or three [Grand Slam tournaments] a year, that would be fantastic. It did get me worried after the first two Slams this year when I hadn't won one because everybody was talking about me and saying that nobody could stop me at the Australian Open, but I knew that was not the case. Anybody can beat me at certain times and I have to make sure I am aware of that. With the Safin match, it was just unfortunate. I had match point and who knows what would have happened if my foot had not hurt. Nadal was better on the day at the French Open. I didn't deserve to win that match, but I made it to the semifinals there. That gave me confidence to get so close to winning the tournament after the past few years when I had no clue how to win matches in Paris. Then I felt the pressure coming into Wimbledon, but from there I am happy with how the year turned out.

SF: There were different reports about your injury in October that kept you out for a month. Was it the ankle or the foot?

RF: Sort of in between, I guess. I tore a ligament and the ligament goes from the ankle into the foot. I have played many times with pain; so this will be nothing new. I did it exactly four weeks ago [October 11] running for a forehand in practice. I rolled over the ankle. I fell down and couldn't get back up. The foot got swollen within five seconds.

SF: Did this injury make you think that maybe the toughest opponent any great player has is the body? How much did it scare you?

RF: You are right that maybe injuries are the biggest rival of all. Every step we take on court is really brutal and anything can happen at any moment. It makes you think and wonder. Did this torn ligament scare me? Absolutely. You are so vulnerable and we are so close to injuries all the time. But the harder you practice, the fitter you are going to get and hopefully the less injuries you are going to have. So far I have been very lucky, which has helped me to keep up playing so well. This injury did not come at a bad time, and hopefully I can defend my Masters Cup title and be fit for next year. It is so difficult to win Grand Slam [tournament] titles because for two-and-a-half weeks you are not allowed to get injured or sick or whatever. You have to be on top of your game or, otherwise, you are not going to make it.

SF: Do you allow yourself to think about trying to break Pete Sampras's record of 14 Grand Slam tournament titles? Does that enter your mind at this stage of your career?

RF: I am getting asked many times about that, but to be honest the thought doesn't cross my mind even once when I practice or play or think. This is not what I am looking for [as if], every time I win a Slam, I go, "Wow, it's already five" or "Wow, it's six." I look more at the moment, but I never set for myself in my life a career goal [that] I want to achieve because everything I set for myself happened much earlier. So all I do now is set myself goals for one year to come, and now I have to look at my goals for next year: to stay No. 1 in the world, try to defend Wimbledon again and have the same focus on all the Grand Slams. Now that I have come so close in Paris that is obviously a big goal for me now. Maybe I feel more importance with Paris now, but the preparation for me is probably going to be the same.

SF: You have won six of the last 10 Grand Slam events going back to Wimbledon in 2003. Is winning a Grand Slam, that is, sweeping the four in a single year a possibility for you?

RF: The Grand Slam is sort of a talking point once you go to Australia. But once you fail there it is gone. If you win it, then obviously it gets very interesting because I have won Wimbledons and U.S. Opens. With the French Open the second one of the season, that would really show if I could go further. So I have definitely thought about it, but it is not worthwhile talking about it because the Australian Open decides everything.

SF: How do you explain not only your extraordinary ability to win every Grand Slam final you play but also your incredible record of winning 24 straight finals altogether? How do you constantly rise to the occasion?

RF: It is hard to say. I remember in the juniors I was already very good in finals. So when I came on tour, I actually had a mediocre sort of start in ATP finals, and I was really disappointed. That was a very uncomfortable situation for me to be in, and I think I just learned after that how to prepare for big occasions. Now when I move into a big occasion it is basically with the same preparation as for any match, whether it is the first round or the final. I have just gotten used to pressure situations. So maybe I don't get as tense as I used to, and of course it helps to have No. 1 on my back. That helps with my confidence and maybe the opponent feels that and falters, while I also play well when it really counts. But I am amazed, too, because 24 is a lot, and not just for tennis [but also for any other sport].

SF: You seem so comfortable being No. 1 in the world. John McEnroe appeared uneasy in that position, while Sampras and Lendl felt they belonged there. Does dominating the game as you have over the last two years just make you that much sure of yourself?

RF: You do become sure of yourself because becoming No. 1 is not just a fluke. It doesn't happen overnight. Winning a Grand Slam [tournament] title can be a little bit that way, but becoming No. 1 is really hard work. And once that pays off, you are very satisfied. And then there are two options: You can either lie back and enjoy it, which means that the moment is going to be short, or you can decide you want to stay there at the top and enjoy it a long time. That (the latter) is what I have chosen to do. For me it is a very comfortable situation to be in because there is nobody better than me, and every time I walk on the court I am the favorite. I would rather be the favorite than the challenger, and I think that is why I have handled the situation of being No. 1 so well.

SF: You parted ways with Peter Lundgren at the end of 2003 and played without a coach all through the 2004 season. Then you brought in Tony Roche at the end of that year, but Tony is not there all the time. How are you able to do something that none of the other top players have tried to do these days, namely, figure out so much by yourself?

RF: This is not a regular thing to do, to play as No. 1 in the world without a coach. When I split with Peter at the end of 2003, I started 2004 in Australia expecting the media to really kill me because it was my feeling that they could not understand why I split with Peter. Then I made it to No. 1 in the world. I won that Australian Open and the confidence I got from that tournament carried me through the whole season. I think I was looking at the time to be a little more independent, to get to know more about life and myself and how everything is done. But I knew that I didn't want to continue for that long without a coach. I was looking around and thinking about it, but there are not 100,000 coaches out there that I would be a good match with. I think traveling on my own all the time and believing in my own strengths and capabilities and my own advice, basically I knew that eventually I would get to a dead end with that, where I have no more information for myself. With Tony, I got new information and that has been fantastic.

SF: Will you have the same routine with Tony for 2006?

RF: To be honest, I haven't spoken with him about next year yet. I will see what he is intending to do, but I don't want to force anything. If he wants to do it one more year, that would be fantastic, but if he doesn't that is no problem. He doesn't need it.

SF: Over the last two years, you have played a serve-and-volley game less and less. Overall you are more selective about using that tactic. But you do it so well and you are such a complete player. And the fans would surely like to see you do it more. Is it impossible in the modern game to play serve- and-volley regularly?

RF: You have to have a very, very good serve to do that. I believe I have a good serve, but is it that incredibly good for playing serve-and-volley? This I don't know. At this time, my volleys are not good enough to serve and volley on a consistent basis. It is a combination of maybe me not volleying good enough and the guys running down too many shots and passing and returning too good in this modern game, which makes it really hard. I think players these days don't work on their volleys anymore. Eighty [percent] to 90 percent of the practice sessions are played from the back. So where guys before would stand at the net all the time, as Tony has told me, it has changed. Of course, I do try to spend more time at the net in practice and try to improve that area of the game because all of a sudden that could make a big difference in the long run for me. I would like to be able to shorten up the points and have that solution. We will see what happens. I wish I could play a little more serve- and-volley because I enjoy doing it, but in the end I am playing the matches to win and not just to please myself.

SF: Do you believe you were a better player technically in 2005 than you were the year before?

RF: Not technically, but more mentally. I am more match tough, a little more fit, a little bit more experienced. And those things sometimes make a difference. But I have to say that I played an equal number of great matches in 2004 like I played in 2005.

SF: Do Nadal and Richard Gasquet stand out in your mind as your biggest threats in the coming year?

RF: I do think so, yeah. There really is a new generation of players coming along right now. The guys I am playing now - Safin, (Lleyton) Hewitt, (Andy) Roddick - I know them all, but I definitely am going to start to focus on the young players coming along because these are the guys I don't know so much about. And look what has happened: I lost to a couple of young players the last two years, like Nadal, Gasquet and Tomas Berdych (2004 Olympic Games). So you have to watch out. It is hard for a rookie to keep it up, but he can be very dangerous in one match. That is exactly the danger for the top players. We have to make sure we are on top of our games against these guys. Definitely I think that Nadal has proven himself. He doesn't belong anymore in the younger group because he has already proven himself so much. Gasquet still has much to prove, but he has huge potential.

SF: Are you sorry that you and Sampras did not play each other more than the one time at 2001 Wimbledon? Have you thought about that?

RF: Maybe it is better this way. Keep it to one match. Let it stay very unique because it was my first Centre Court appearance and it sort of closed his career at Wimbledon. It was my start and a very special moment, first time on that court, first time against him. And the same for him against me. Who knew how good I was going to get? I never thought I would rival anybody like him, but suddenly now I am. So maybe it is actually good that we played only that one time, on grass, on Centre Court at Wimbledon. That is quite special.

SF: You seem to enjoy hearing about all the statistics, the 24 straight final round wins, breaking other records. How much attention do you pay to that?

RF: That is the fun side next to all of the success and the hard work, to sort of see where you stand, what else there is to achieve, what else can be done. And somehow if you play so great like I did the last couple of years, eventually you are going to start breaking records or equaling records or equaling idols like (Boris) Becker and (Stefan) Edberg with six Grand Slams. That is a lot of fun and it gives you a motivation boost. That is how I see it.

SF: You seem to take your losses harder now and you have so much pride. Is part of dominating the game accepting losses, but not taking them easily and always finding reasons why you could have won?

RF: What is it, 10 losses in the last two years? [It was nine at the time of this interview.] Of course I remember every one of the losses very clearly because I have lost so little, but to be honest, I get over the losses very quickly these days, not like the way it used to be. When I used to play, I wasn't always 100 percent sure if I gave my best effort or if I just started to really lose hope in winning, and that would make me play very differently. Today I play from start to finish at a hundred percent, and when I walk off the court, I can only say [if I've lost] that the other guy played too good today or it was just not my day. And then I can move on. But I think you have to analyze your losses because sometimes you can learn more from them than from matches you have won. So maybe it will be an hour or two after a loss where I felt like, "What a pity," but then I move on and I have more time for myself, more time for vacation. I always try to see the positive side.

SF: Like Martina Hingis, Swiss is your native language. Isn't it difficult to be as precise with using the English language as you are with your strokes on the court? Can you be misconstrued?

RF: I am very lucky to have a South African mom, and I grew up with English also. So I have a feeling I feel very comfortable speaking the language. But to be honest, when I do interviews or I go on shows and it is in English, I am much more relaxed than if it was my native language because in my native language I am not allowed to make mistakes, while in English or French, I feel like this is not my perfect language, so everybody will understand if I make mistakes. So I am more relaxed. It is funny.

SF: So where do you go from here? Looking at next year and beyond, how do you maintain your success and make the most of yourself?

RF: When I go on the court, I have to be at 100 percent; so I will try to keep that up. After that, all the other Grand Slam tournaments are very high in the priority list, but right after that are all the other tournaments and trying to win them. Whenever I play I want to win the tournament, and I know I can do that. I think I have done some good scheduling and I definitely want to keep that up, be smart, and look at the big picture and the long term.

Senior Correspondent Steve Flink previously analyzed the legacies of Pete Sampras ("Kiss And Say Goodbye" and "One Last Look," TW, March 16, 2004) and Rod Laver ("Great, Greater, Greatest", TW, Feb. 11, 2003). This story is featured in the current issue of Tennis Week magazine along with Richard Evans' review of the BNP Paribas Masters in Paris, Eugene L. Scott's Vantage Point and a feature on the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour Championships. To subscribe to Tennis Week, please click this Subscription link.

©2003 - 2008 Shinanat Mahamaytakit