A Historic Night Down Under? Roger That February 4, 2009
Posted by Neil in : Uncategorized , 1 comment so farThe 2009 Australian Open final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal will go down as one of the most historic matches in tennis history. Not only was Federer denied a chance at garnering his 14th major title and tying Pete Sampras, but his epic 5th set collapse and subsequent emotional breakdown during the trophy presentation made this match one of the most memorable in the great history of the sport.
Here are the highlights of the behind-the-scenes e-mail banter that ensued from the cast and crew of Your Sports NightCap:
Yours truly (Neil Berman), starting the banter off after a long night of tennis:
I am still half asleep after staying up to 6am and watching all the coverage (and every ball struck) from last night. It was one of the first times in my life, I was really rooting hard for Federer. He should have broken at 4-4 (had 0-40) or 5-5 (2 more break points) in the 3rd. He was too tentative on these break point opportunities, which has been the problem historically for him against Rafa when he has break chances. If he breaks late in the 3rd and goes up 2 sets to one, Rafa was physically on the ropes at that point, and Fed would have triumphed in 4.
Anyway, much credit to Rafa for being able to play 9+ hours and 10 sets in about 48 hours. However, that 5th set was sad to watch. I was geared up for another classic Wimbledon-like 9-7 in the 5th, yet Fed “couldn’t handle the moment” (P-Mac quote) and “capitulated” (Killer Cahill quote) to Nadal in the 5th. That was the worse set I have ever seen Fed play.
It was disappointing to see the greatest player of all time handle one of the defining moments of his career in that fashion. Bud Collins made a decent point after the match. Can Fed really be considered the best ever if he is getting dominated in the prime of his career by another player? I maintain that Fed is the most physically talented player I have ever seen, and was the best during a short definitive 3 year span.
Rafa now has 6 GS titles by 22, Fed only had 3 by that age. While there was banter last night of Nadal challenging Pete (or the new record established by Fed), I don’t think that will happen. I think Nadal will end up at around 12. The physical nature of his game will force him to retire at about 27 in 5 years. I guess he could challenge if he sweeps the next 5 French’s and picks off some Big W’s and hard court majors.
The craziest and most intriguing thing about last night was the presentation. It was the most interesting one I have ever seen in any sport. Rod Laver hands Fed the runner-up trophy, and Fed steps to the mic. He is completely overcome by emotion and is rendered speechless and begins bawling. The sheer emotion of the moment was the most captivating tennis moment in my opinion since Pete cried on that same court (except it was a different surface PT, both having some rubber in them, the old court having more though) against Courier in that epic QF.
The coolest thing was when Nadal came over to comfort him. It looked like Nadal genuinely felt bad and took pity on his rival. He put his arm around Fed and apologized for beating him. This trophy ceremony was even greater than the 5 set encounter, and was one of the best moments in tennis history and certainly goes along with the Wimledon match as the defining moments of this rivalry.
I think Fed needs a coach (I am borrowing this from P-Mac’s post-match analysis last night). There were so many strategical errors last night that cost Fed the match. Positioning on his 2nd serve return on the break points being first and foremost. If he had a voice like Stefanki or BG, I think that would make the differene in some of these matches with Nadal.
Our WMD (Nicholas Griffith) was next to chime in:
Excellent points, and very well written. I too was rooting hard for Federer, and was almost crushed to see him lose in 5 hard sets after so many chances. I agree 100% with your analysis. I do feel that Fed would benefit a ton from a coach. Although I’ve never heard Federer analyze tennis matches, I would assume that he has one of the best strategic minds out there. He’s probably up there with Gilbert, Stefanki, P. Mac, Gullickson, etc, even if he may not be as articulate as some in that group. However, all of the great tennis players have had coaches during their careers, and it’s probably time for Fed to get one permanently. As we all know, tennis is a game of inches both literally and figuratively. These 5 set epics that Fed is losing can easily be decided by 3 or 4 crucial points, maybe less. If a guy like Stefanki in Fed’s corner could help even a little bit, it could potentially be enough to turn the tide in some of these disheartening losses that he’s been subjected to at the hands of Nadal. A top-notch coach could be the missing link in allowing Fed to annihilate existing tennis records.
I too was impressed by Nadal’s act of kindness towards Federer when he was breaking down into tears. I think it demonstrates a classiness that transcends and enriches their already vibrant rivalry. The pantheon of tennis greats were no doubt impressed by this throwback to their “golden era.” But don’t forget that between Fed’s 09 breakdown and Pete’s episode during the 95 courier match, Federer broke down in 06 when handed the trophy by none other than Rod Laver. As an amateur tennis historian, I must say that it’s refreshing to see someone pay so much respect to the history of the game. This year Federer’s voice began cracking when he thanked the “legends” for coming out, and told them, “You know how much this means to me.” This shows an undying respect for Laver, a virtue shared by both him and Sampras.
As for where this puts Federer in the GOAT battle (we really need another word for this), it’s difficult to say. Bud Collins’ point is well taken in that it’s difficult to consider Federer #1 if he’s being consistently beaten by Nadal. Federer, at age 27, is at or very very close to the prime of his game. Sure, a lot of those losses are on clay, but an increasing number of them are coming on other surfaces. So Federer has an arch nemesis. Big deal. If Pete were around, he wouldn’t have gotten far enough at the French to even have had the opportunity to lose to Nadal. On the other hand, I feel that Pete wouldn’t have lost to Rafa in the grass and hard court finals. Then again Pete never dominated the way the Federer did for the those 3-4 years when he amassed the bulk of his majors…even if the competition at that point wasn’t overwhelming. Enter Mr. Laver. In Rod’s era, 3 of the 4 majors were played on grass, and had draws whose caliber of talent pales in comparrison to today. Remember, not all players entered these tournaments back then, even after tennis went open in 1968. But his 2 calendar slams and 12 majors will secure him a place in this discussion for tennis eternity.
So how do we sort this melee of facts into something rational and devoid of emotion? The real answer is we probably never will, until somebody so insanely good comes along that the analysis is reduced to a no-brainer conclusion. In the meantime, tennis analysts, coffee table debaters, and armchair experts across the globe will continue to sift through the data in an attempt to reach a conclusion. Screw apples and oranges, this is like trying to convert timeless literature from Sanksrit, Arabic, and Russian all into English before picking a winner. This debate will remain unanswered unless something spectacular happens in Roger’s remaining years.
Our Resident Tennis Expert, Payam Tabar, was next:
I’ve never seen any of the men cry when they’ve lost…not like that. Only Jana Novotna comes to mind!!!! It obviously meant a lot to Fed, but seriously…I don’t think highly of him shedding his tears like that. Yea, it meant A TON to him…but it also did to Nadal…he doesn’t get any brownie points from me on this one. I’d understand if he shed the tears when he sat down in the seat after shaking hands…but during the presentation??? I think that’s weak, I’m sorry to say…stole a bit of Rafa’s thunder, in my opinion, just like Djokovic/Henin’s retirement did…kind of takes away from Rafa’s huge accomplishment. But regardless, I’m glad he made the comments that he made once he was able to control himself…he was a class act in the end, as usual…and so was Rafa, as usual.
As for GOAT…you guys know where I stand here. Competition is key…and Nick pointed that out. Losing to one guy over and over again can certainly raise question marks to be called the GOAT…I’ll leave it at that, as I can talk forever about this topic. But I still do agree that he is the greatest to ever hold a racket…no one has been able to consistently produce incredible shots like Fed.
I don’t think a lack of a coach is Fed’s problem. He has the tools to beat Rafa and has showed that in every match. It’s not like he’s gotten his ass whooped every time…if that was the case, then I’d think coaching would help. But he’s too close…he simply needs to convert a few of those break points (maybe even just one more) and more importantly, SERVE better!!! (and that’s where I have to agree with Nick again about Sampras not losing to Nadal…I don’t think he EVER would, except on the clay). Fed needs to serve MUCH better…otherwise, Nadal will neutralize the point immediately and he will then continue to put pressure on Fed’s serve every time he steps up to the line…and we saw that from the beginning in this match. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Federer serve that poorly in ANY match…and in a slam final against Nadal???…please.
In the end, Fed will get his 14 and will beat it…he’ll just have to wait a bit longer. But for now, he’ll have to get a taste of his own medicine and lose to the same guy in the finals over and over again a la Andy Roddick (that was for you, Neil!!!)….and that again points to the GOAT debate (that was for you, Paullie 
)
My volley back:
I do disagree with your point about the coaching though. The fact that Fed is so close is my reasoning that he needs a coach to put him over the to against Rafa. If he would have been more agressive on his 2nd serve return, and converted 1 of the 5 break point opportunities he had at 4-4 or 5-5 in the 3rd he would have won.
RTE’s response:
I hear ya. But I don’t think those break points would’ve been so costly if he was serving better in the first place. There were many breaks of serve in the match, but I mean, Fed got broken 7 times…for the player that he is and the style of play he brings, he should not be broken that many times. So, this in turn, put more pressure on Fed to convert those break points…and when he kept losing them, it put even more pressure on him for the next one…which led to wild forehands sailing out; something we have rarely seen Federer do.
As far as Federer being more aggressive, I’ve said it many times before…this guy needs to quit hanging out at the baseline and get in more often, whether if it’s on a serve return, a serve and volley, or simply standing more aggressively in the court to pick up any short ball. That’s why I think Pete would easily handle Nadal with the relentless serve and volley / chip and charge tactics. Fed refuses to do this…he’s been criticized over and over again for not doing it at Wimbledon and now it’s affecting him on even the slower surfaces. Perhaps a coach can tell him to do this…but we’ve heard him say it himself when he was playing those EXOs against Sampras: he doesn’t feel comfortable coming up that often and certainly doesn’t feel too comfortable serve and volleying on a regular basis…even though he’s great at it!!!
Oh well…maybe he’ll learn on his own…maybe he won’t.
Our WMD’s take:
As for Fed needing coaching, I agree with Neil (and I put this in the previous email) that the closeness of his losses to Nadal argues for a coach. Sometimes its easy to lose sight of the fact that tennis matches can hinge on a couple of crucial points. In my tournament this weekend, I had points for 6-2, 5-1. I ended up winning the match in the third set. A similar streak happened in the Aus Open, albeit on a much grander stage. But the concept is the same…It’s competition, and dangerous opponents can put together streaks of winning games. You have to CAPITALIZE when possible, or else. Fed should get a coach, even if its just someone to bounce ideas off of. Obviously he doesn’t need a lot of fine-tuning, but a solid “voice of reason” and another perspective on Nadal could just give him the tiny boost he needs to take Nadal.
As for Federer being more aggressive, I’m not sure we can just say this is the optimal move. Remember that rackets today benefit the passer more than the volleyer. Often times net rushers have to rely on well-placed balls that don’t have a lot of pace (think half volleys and volleys when you’re stretched). Modern equipment makes it easy to blow these balls by volleyers in a way that wasn’t possible even as recently as Pete’s era. Also, Federer doesn’t have monster serve like other more aggressive players have had. But I do agree that a few extra sojurns to the net behind his massive forehand could be a good idea…but he’ll have to pick his spots well.
