Messin' With the Kid
How could such an up-and-down match have been so boring, so vanilla?
On the face of it, it could've been thrilling: the world's #1 charging out to a set lead against his nemesis, primed to vanquish him at least and ascend to the pantheon of tennis immortality. But the young gun, too young to know when he's beat, turns the tables with the panache of a kid gunslinger at high noon. Flustered, the veteran doesn't find an answer until he's two points away from losing the title, when he plays one of the most brilliant points anyone has ever seen. Energized, he forces a tiebreak and, it seems, a fifth set. A tense breaker ensues, with the defending champion fending off the champion of everything else and claiming the Musketeers Cup once more.
If I were in the business of writing political speeches, that's how I would have described Sunday's tilt in Paris. But anyone who saw it knows they witness a display of nerves, weakness, and errors. In other words, it was about as disappointing as can be. Most of us were expecting some titanic clash, clay's version of Borg-McEnroe. This expectation was not without cause; anyone who saw the terrific final in Rome when it semed Federer had the title all but in his hands and lost it. We reasoned that because it was a bigger stage, that more was on the line, that history was on the line, that it would be even better. Maybe 30-28 in the fifth set in the seventh hour of the match.
Instead, we saw a match that was as uncomfortable as a Venus-Serena final. It's almost as if the two guys didn't really want to play each other after all, that they had too much respect for each other and didn't want to be the reason the other guy won. Or maybe the weight of the occasion was pressly down too firmly on their shoulders. Nadal was looking at a 60th straight win on clay, running his record in Roland Garros to 14-0, and scoring the most significant victory in the Federer-Nadal saga so far. Roger was attempting to complete a contiguous (if not calendar) Grand Slam and join Budge, Laver, Emmo, and Agassi. He was also trying to gain a foothold in the burgeoning rivalry between the Swiss and Spaniard, prove to the world (and himself) Rafa didn't have his number.
For a set, I was convinced he would. Granted, Rafael clearly took Chatrier with some butterflies in his stomach, but they had to have grown in size after a dizzying display of tennis from Roger in that first set. Fed was working Nadal's backhand, keeping his opponent's motor from getting too revved up, stealing into the net and finishing off points. He was playing smart, aggressively yet contained. He had a plan and he was sticking to it. It was as if he was saying, I've figured you out, Rafael. Every match we've played, I've been studying, storing away information. You're mine now.
But at the start of that second set, Rafa got up off the mat, dusted himself off, and stared right back at the man across the net. And here is where Roger gets into unfamiliar territory. Sort of like Mike Tyson, once he throws his knockout punch, people go down, lose their morale, and he gains the upperhand if he doesn't knock the opponent out clean. If you look at his major victories, Roger throws that haymaker and connects. And everyone, Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, loses their heart, rolls over. You can see it happen. But not with Rafa. He took the prize fighter's best shot and stood back up. He wasn't going to quit.
In a sport where he's used to being unchallenged, Federer blinked first. He changed his entire game after that first set. Maybe he thought he could win the match from the baseline (which reminded me of McEnroe-Sampras in 1990 at Flushing Meadows), because he didn't come into the net like he had. Or maybe he realized
he was going to have to play at a level equal to the first set for the whole match, and he wasn't up to it. He sleepwalked through the second set, and looked lost in the third.
It seemed like he figured things out after breaking Rafa in the tenth game of the fourth. He held easily in the next game, and seemed recharged. But he went right back into tentative mode after getting a quick mini-break and relinquished the lead at 3-2. But 4-2 is a point I think he'll regret for a long time. He was in clear control of the point, delivering punishing forehands deep. Nadal was scrambling back and forth, only able to push the ball back, and he returns were landing short. Roger eventually smacked one long, giving Rafael a 5-2 lead. Why he didn't go into the net was beyond me. This was a classic point he would've won at the net, and the way the point was going, that's exactly where he needed to be, but he hung back for reasons only he knows, keeping Rafa in the point and eventually comitting an unforced error. And it looks like he knew he made a tactical mistake, because he promptly approached the net in the next two points and won them both. But had he done that at 4-2, he would've put all the pressure back on Nadal, who would've been serving down 4-5.
It's clear Rafael has gotten into his head. There's a stigma attached for the Majorcan he's not able to shake at the moment. He should have beaten him in Rome, and he should have won in Paris. Instead, he lost them both. It's becoming clear Roger's mental toughness isn't as strong as we thought it was. He's becoming passive when he should be aggressive, staying at the baseline when he should be closing in and finishing points. Getting to net was a wise strategy; he won 73% of his net approaches Sunday. On clay!
Nadal, to his credit, has the heart of a lion. The man refuses to give up and fights through everything. It's amazing. He won that title through sheer strength of will rather than any inspired play (his -3 differential was his worst since his opening match). There's no way I'm going to criticize a man that's 14-0 at Roland Garros. What he is doing is obviously working.
Federer, though, has some questions to answer. His backhand was simply awful (reminescent of his pre-major champion days). It's fairly obvious he has trouble handling high shots to his backhand side. That's a classic problem of the one-handed backhand. But running around it is not the answer; he needs to take that ball earlier, spend more time on the practice court, or even slice a few of those back. That ineffective backhand led to him going for more than he should've on his forehand side, which led to more errors (his differential was -16!) He also needs to stick to strategy that works. Looping, spin-heavy shots to Nadal's backhand, keeping the pace of the point contained, keeping Rafael in the middle of the court, and finishing points at the net when able. Rafa wants to get into a wild slugfest. Most importantly, he is he going to respond to losing in a Grand Slam final for the first time?
On the face of it, it could've been thrilling: the world's #1 charging out to a set lead against his nemesis, primed to vanquish him at least and ascend to the pantheon of tennis immortality. But the young gun, too young to know when he's beat, turns the tables with the panache of a kid gunslinger at high noon. Flustered, the veteran doesn't find an answer until he's two points away from losing the title, when he plays one of the most brilliant points anyone has ever seen. Energized, he forces a tiebreak and, it seems, a fifth set. A tense breaker ensues, with the defending champion fending off the champion of everything else and claiming the Musketeers Cup once more.
If I were in the business of writing political speeches, that's how I would have described Sunday's tilt in Paris. But anyone who saw it knows they witness a display of nerves, weakness, and errors. In other words, it was about as disappointing as can be. Most of us were expecting some titanic clash, clay's version of Borg-McEnroe. This expectation was not without cause; anyone who saw the terrific final in Rome when it semed Federer had the title all but in his hands and lost it. We reasoned that because it was a bigger stage, that more was on the line, that history was on the line, that it would be even better. Maybe 30-28 in the fifth set in the seventh hour of the match.
Instead, we saw a match that was as uncomfortable as a Venus-Serena final. It's almost as if the two guys didn't really want to play each other after all, that they had too much respect for each other and didn't want to be the reason the other guy won. Or maybe the weight of the occasion was pressly down too firmly on their shoulders. Nadal was looking at a 60th straight win on clay, running his record in Roland Garros to 14-0, and scoring the most significant victory in the Federer-Nadal saga so far. Roger was attempting to complete a contiguous (if not calendar) Grand Slam and join Budge, Laver, Emmo, and Agassi. He was also trying to gain a foothold in the burgeoning rivalry between the Swiss and Spaniard, prove to the world (and himself) Rafa didn't have his number.
For a set, I was convinced he would. Granted, Rafael clearly took Chatrier with some butterflies in his stomach, but they had to have grown in size after a dizzying display of tennis from Roger in that first set. Fed was working Nadal's backhand, keeping his opponent's motor from getting too revved up, stealing into the net and finishing off points. He was playing smart, aggressively yet contained. He had a plan and he was sticking to it. It was as if he was saying, I've figured you out, Rafael. Every match we've played, I've been studying, storing away information. You're mine now.
But at the start of that second set, Rafa got up off the mat, dusted himself off, and stared right back at the man across the net. And here is where Roger gets into unfamiliar territory. Sort of like Mike Tyson, once he throws his knockout punch, people go down, lose their morale, and he gains the upperhand if he doesn't knock the opponent out clean. If you look at his major victories, Roger throws that haymaker and connects. And everyone, Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, loses their heart, rolls over. You can see it happen. But not with Rafa. He took the prize fighter's best shot and stood back up. He wasn't going to quit.
In a sport where he's used to being unchallenged, Federer blinked first. He changed his entire game after that first set. Maybe he thought he could win the match from the baseline (which reminded me of McEnroe-Sampras in 1990 at Flushing Meadows), because he didn't come into the net like he had. Or maybe he realized
he was going to have to play at a level equal to the first set for the whole match, and he wasn't up to it. He sleepwalked through the second set, and looked lost in the third.It seemed like he figured things out after breaking Rafa in the tenth game of the fourth. He held easily in the next game, and seemed recharged. But he went right back into tentative mode after getting a quick mini-break and relinquished the lead at 3-2. But 4-2 is a point I think he'll regret for a long time. He was in clear control of the point, delivering punishing forehands deep. Nadal was scrambling back and forth, only able to push the ball back, and he returns were landing short. Roger eventually smacked one long, giving Rafael a 5-2 lead. Why he didn't go into the net was beyond me. This was a classic point he would've won at the net, and the way the point was going, that's exactly where he needed to be, but he hung back for reasons only he knows, keeping Rafa in the point and eventually comitting an unforced error. And it looks like he knew he made a tactical mistake, because he promptly approached the net in the next two points and won them both. But had he done that at 4-2, he would've put all the pressure back on Nadal, who would've been serving down 4-5.
It's clear Rafael has gotten into his head. There's a stigma attached for the Majorcan he's not able to shake at the moment. He should have beaten him in Rome, and he should have won in Paris. Instead, he lost them both. It's becoming clear Roger's mental toughness isn't as strong as we thought it was. He's becoming passive when he should be aggressive, staying at the baseline when he should be closing in and finishing points. Getting to net was a wise strategy; he won 73% of his net approaches Sunday. On clay!
Nadal, to his credit, has the heart of a lion. The man refuses to give up and fights through everything. It's amazing. He won that title through sheer strength of will rather than any inspired play (his -3 differential was his worst since his opening match). There's no way I'm going to criticize a man that's 14-0 at Roland Garros. What he is doing is obviously working.
Federer, though, has some questions to answer. His backhand was simply awful (reminescent of his pre-major champion days). It's fairly obvious he has trouble handling high shots to his backhand side. That's a classic problem of the one-handed backhand. But running around it is not the answer; he needs to take that ball earlier, spend more time on the practice court, or even slice a few of those back. That ineffective backhand led to him going for more than he should've on his forehand side, which led to more errors (his differential was -16!) He also needs to stick to strategy that works. Looping, spin-heavy shots to Nadal's backhand, keeping the pace of the point contained, keeping Rafael in the middle of the court, and finishing points at the net when able. Rafa wants to get into a wild slugfest. Most importantly, he is he going to respond to losing in a Grand Slam final for the first time?
Labels: Grand Slams
Served Up by Monty at 6/11/2006 07:31:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home