Joe Bucked by Comedian on Premiere of his Show June 30, 2009
Posted by Paul in : Uncategorized , 2comments
With the end of two major pro sports in North America coming to a head a couple of weeks ago, the national sporting landscape had all of a sudden become quite bare. Major League Baseball is expected to take center stage for the next couple of months, before football fervor picks up in early August, with training camps opening up and early fantasy drafts occurring around the country. But in the 162-game grind of baseball, no one game is necessarily going to grab you by the collar and compel you to watch….
Enter Joe Buck. When it was announced that Buck would step into Bob Costas’ rather large shoes and host his own talk show on HBO, most sports fans thought the Show might be a welcome diversion, particularly on a slow Monday night. Little did we know it was going to become one of the most talked about show premieres in HBO Sports’ history. Joe Buck started with the sports landscape all to himself, and ended up being bullied by a stand-up comedian with greater verbal firepower and a penchant for creating chaos.
The segment pitting Artie Lange and Joe Buck overshadowed the whole program and created such a stir in the media and at office water coolers, that I felt compelled to let the dust settle before commenting fully. A lot of theories and commentary were thrown around post-”Joe Buck Live” premiere. I’m going to try to clear the air, wade through the off-the-cuff ruminations, and give you a more balanced, comprehensive view on the happenings that night, a couple of weeks ago. Consider this a cold, rational post-mortem, after all of the initial emotion and chatter has passed….
Artie Lange, to many viewers (including the New York Times) stole the show, as he wouldn’t let Buck regain command of his interview. Buck just was unable to maintain control of the chaos that Artie kept bringing. You could sense the awkwardness created by Lange, and he largely overshadowed the other two guests–Paul Rudd and Jason Sudeikis–on set with him during the segment.
Since the segment happened, many theories have been floated about Lange’s show hijacking. One of the most prevalent ones that’s been uttered has people stating that the segment had been orchestrated to create buzz. This is simply not true. The Show doesn’t have another episode until September. The time lapse is too great to imagine that any buzz created a few months prior would somehow last in a collective American psyche known for its caffeinated ways and short attention span. Also, if I’m any portion people reader, I can say with full certainty that Buck was truly uncomfortable during the whole fiasco. If you’re afraid to take my word for it, just look at the still below, and dare tell me this is manufactured uncomfortableness from Joe Buck. I think not!
Buck had a mix of too much pride, a desire to fight back verbally without possessing the required ammunition to match Lange, and an inability to handle such a guest. Aikman’s broadcasting counterpart largely wants to work in a controlled atmosphere. You hear it in his cadence, his delivery, and the way he broadcasts overall. The man is all about control, and a lack of zaniness. When delivered a plateful of complete mayhem, he was at a loss for the right words and demeanor that would have perhaps quieted the heavy set comedian.
Also, let’s tell it straight: to those that will tell you that this type of intervention is expected by Lange must be smoking something more potent than what the comedian was lighting on set during his fiasco. I’ve heard Lange on different airwaves, and despite his being a little edgy, he was respectful to the host, and quite frankly, very funny. It’s one thing to kid or chide the host of the Show. Sometimes, it’s even expected to create dialog or an amicable/jocular atmosphere, as the guest and host start their interaction. It’s a totally different proposition to come out and steal the Show from the host by embarrassing him. And that’s what Artie Lange did three Mondays ago.
Let’s make this clear: while many have not liked Joe Buck, finding him too smug or arrogant, I have liked him on my sports telecasts. He gives you a good broadcasting presence and a clean message. And he’s great at getting the most out of his analysts, whether it’s Tim McCarver, Troy Aikman, or someone else. The interesting thing was going to see whether Buck could flourish in this new type of format. He would have to be an interviewer, in a live setting. The show is set up to be conversational and relaxed, on a nice but casual set, with a distinctive New York feel. Everyone knows that Buck was going to be stepping in large shoes; following the legendary Bob Costas on HBO, with his own sports interview show. While he may be good during broadcasts, because he doesn’t get in the way of the sport he’s bringing to you, I found him lacking both the dynamism and the engaging nature necessary to generate great conversation. I found myself asking for more, from the interviews. It’s almost like he was playing it close to the vest, not wanting to expound too much, or provoke entertaining sizzle.
The topic of his show is “Celebrity in Sports”. Booking Favre as his first guest not only guaranteed him an audience on his premiere episode but delivered a little sizzle, considering how much attention the former Green Bay signal-caller has been getting in the past few months, and how little he had talked to the media. Favre was able to tell us that his coming back to play for the Vikings would hinge on how his arm felt. He asserted having undergone surgery with Dr. James Andrew a couple of weeks ago. Now, the debate is about whether or not his arm will feel okay for him to announce his return to the Vikes. Subsequent reports from ProFootballTalk.com and Minnesota radio stations have told us there is a deal in place between Favre and the Vikings. Provided Favre’s arm continues to feel better, the team is to hold a press conference on July 3rd, declaring the Ol’ Gunslinger’s arrival in Minnesota. Reportedly orchestrated at that time to evade a larger media circus, as we enter the 4th of July weekend, I’m having a hard time believing that Chris Mortensen [insert your favorite NFL information man here] would not interrupt his family BBQ to catch a plane to cover such a media-worthy happening. But I digress…. Despite a little slip of tongue from Brett, which seemed to have been choreographed and thus wasn’t much of a value-add, there was little new information revealed to the American public. I found Buck unable to get his marquee guest to tell us something we wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. And that, folks, is the mark of a great interviewer….
Perhaps the larger lesson here is that we should give the multi-dimensional sports broadcasters most credit than they are already given. For every Bryant Gumbel who finds great comfort in a controlled television studio with rehearsed segments, but ends up telling you that “Al Gore” is running between the tackles, when calling live NFL action, there are the Bob Costas’, Dick Enbergs, Jim Nantzs, Al Michaels’ or Ted Robinsons of the world who can flourish in any type of sports setting. Whether they are conducting a green jacket ceremony in Butler Cabin, calling the action at Roland Garros alongside John McEnroe, describing another highly-rated NFL game on a Sunday afternoon, interviewing a provocative sports personality on the latest steroids scandal, delivering another essay on Wimbledon’s tradition, or hosting the studio show for Sunday Night Football in Prime Time, these men are never fish out of water, regardless of how bright the lights are, what medium is to be dealt with, or the format constraints from which to operate…. Maybe just maybe, we could give Joe Buck a little more room to grow in this new role, as an accomplished interviewer. Then again, I might be asking too much from the American public. We’ll probably just get back to our Starbucks and Twitter, and forget about this Joe Buck guy until he reappears onto our television screens in the month of September. We’ll probably give him another shot then, wondering what will define his Show for us. For now, it’s been all about a spotlight hijacking and the creation of awkward moments on our boob tube….
Wimbledon 2009: The Fortnight Ahead June 20, 2009
Posted by Neil in : Uncategorized , 3comments 
The most hallowed grounds in tennis is still reeling from the announcement by Rafael Nadal on Friday that he will be unable to defend his crown due to a knee injury. This has buoyed the chances of three men in particular as Wimbledon is set to begin on Monday. Andy Roddick is now a prohibited favorite to get to the semifinals. The Scot Andy Murray now has a much clearer path to get to the final and send Great Britain into a bigger tizzy then when Susan Boyle was on stage in “Britain’s Got Talent”, as he attempts to become the first Brit since Fred Perry in 1934 to win a Grand Slam title. Roger Federer might benefit the most from Nadal’s absence. He has a chance to win a second straight Grand Slam without having to go through his Spanish nemesis. If he takes home the title in two weeks, he will go down as the greatest player of all time (GOAT), having surpassed Pete Sampras by winning a 15th Grand Slam title. This is an incredibly interesting men’s draw. Here is my analysis:
Top Half
1st quarter:
Andy Roddick got a perfect draw here. He is the #6 seed and was in Rafa’s quarter. Juan Martin Del Potro has taken Nadal’s spot in the draw, but Roddick gets through to the semis. The match to watch in this quarter is a second round encounter between unseeded Lleyton Hewitt and #5 seed Juan Martin Del Potro. Lleyton is playing his best ball in a couple of years coming into this fortnight. The former Wimbledon champion moves well on the grass, and will dispatch the lanky Argentine in 5 tasty sets. No matter what, I like Roddick to get through a fairly pedestrian first 4 rounds and then take out Del Potro or Hewitt in the quarters.
In this section, also watch for #25 seed Dmitry Tursunov and #23 seed Radek Stepanek. These two players are two of the most fun-loving players on the Tour. They both love the slick lawns at the Big W and are capable of beating Del Potro and/or Hewitt to reach the quarters before falling to Roddick.
2nd quarter:
Most intriguing section of the draw. This is the Andy Murray section. He is coming off his first grass court title when he hoisted the largest trophy in tennis in winning Queen’s. However, while playing brillantly, the weight of Great Britain is on him, and he has a draw littered with early landmines. My mouth is already watering over a Murray-Kendrick 1st round encounter on Centre Court. The brash American plays his best ball on the lawns as evidenced by him taking Rafa to the brink a few years ago. The cocky Fresno native will relish the opportunity to spoil the British late afternoon tea party at the outset of the event. Murray will likely survive, but Kendrick will land some strong body blows in the 4 or 5 set encounter.
It continues to get more difficult for Murray in Round 2. How about big serving Latvian Ernestis Gulbis? If the furry Scot is lucky to survive that encounter, then he could meet the most dangerous qualifier in the draw. Remember Taylor Dent? He is back and survived the gauntlet of the qualies. He could prove to be as stiff a test as Ron Jeremy (or Stan Van Gundy) proves to be to the actresses he works with.
If Murray gets to Round 4 then #14 seed Marat Safin awaits. The mercurial Russian was given a nice seeding by the All-England Club in his final Championships. Safin was a semifinalist last year having dispatced Novak Djokovic in Round 2.
If Murray can battle his way through 4 rounds then he can take a breather in the quarters. I predict his opponent (if he gets that far) will be #33 seed Nicholas Kiefer. The ornery German loves the grass and will take out #8 Gilles Simon and #10 Fernando Gonzalez to reach the last eight. The newly minted seed (Kiefer was previously unseeded until Nadal’s withdrawal) does have a brutal first two rounds as well. He must take out “The Magician” Fabrice Santoro in Round 1, followed by the winner of Russian Mikhail Youzhny and former Wimbledon quarterfinalist Juan Carlos Ferraro in Round 2. However, I like Kiefer to run the gauntlet and get to the quarters against Murray. In that round, he will surely be outclassed in 3 sets.
I like Murray to get to the semis, but he faces a brutal path to get there. That is why I am predicting that Andy Roddick will reach his 3rd career Wimbledon final. ARod will either defeat a depleted Murray or Safin to reach the title round.
Bottom Half
3rd quarter:
This is the weakest quarter in my opinion. I am forecasting a quarterfinal between #24 seed Tommy Haas and #4 Novak Djokovic. These two will meet in a rematch of their Gerry Weber Open final in Halle where Haas upset the Serb. This time I like the tables to be reversed and for Novak to defeat the German en route to a semifinal appearance. Djokovic should be wary of Round 3 where he will face either #28 Mardy Fish or Janko Tipsarevic. That is the only dangerous landmine though for him en route to his eventual quarterfinal win over Haas.
Tommy will survive a 5 set 3rd round war over #11 Marin Cilic and then take out #29 Igor Andreev in Round 4, who will have dispatched of #17 seed James Blake in the 3rd round (that is if Blake can survive the tricky Frenchman Marc Gicquel in the second round). Djokovic will dismiss Haas in 4 and will await Roger in the semis.
4th quarter:
A flat out dream draw for Roger. No dangerous grass courters in the 1st 3 rounds. He will face little quizzes from lefty Spaniards in Round 4 and the quarters but will mow down #21 Feliciano Lopez in the 4th and #7 Fernando Verdasco in the quarters. Roger will not need to go 5 in any match to reach the semis.
Of note in this section, watch out for a luscious matchup. Buckle your seat for an intriguing 3rd round encounter between #22 Dr. Ivo Karlovic and #9 Joe-Willy Tsonga. However, this is Fed’s quarter coming off his triumphant title in Paris. Roger will then dispatch Djokovic in 4 or 5 delicious sets in the semifinals.
Championship:
The decade at Wimbedon will close with the 3rd Championship round installment of Roddick-Federer. While the American has played well in his previous 2 Wimbledon finals against Federer, he is simply overmatched by the Swiss’ artistry. Roger in 4. Expect a lot of emotion and tears from Federer come Sunday, July 5th, as by dusk he will have etched himself as the best player in history. He will set the mark of 15 Slam titles by the close of the fortnight. Expect Pete to come to the finals if Roger is playing for the title.
Whether It’s Beef or Basketball, Kobe Means Excellence June 17, 2009
Posted by Neil in : Uncategorized , 3commentsA quick reaction to the Lakers 15th NBA championship:
Let me preface this whole entry by declaring that I cannot stand the Lakers. From Jack Nicholson’s annoying courtside antics and Diane Cannon’s weathered face to the annoying “We Love LA” that blasts from the Staples Center when the Lakers triumph, I despise the Purple and Gold that inhabit the most sterile arena in sports. I can’t stand Lamar Odom’s demeanor and the fact that he is largely a waste of talent. Luke Walton and Paul Gasol irk me as well. However, I have nothing but admiration when it comes to Phil Jackson, and especially Kobe Bryant.
Phil is the greatest coach in the history of team sports. Not just because he has 10 titles and is not afraid to flaunt that lofty stat, but because he is the ultimate zen master. Barbara Streisand should want Jackson to woo her, and forget about Andre Agassi’s courtship some 15 plus years ago.
Jackson may not be one of the top 5 X’s and O’s coaches in the game. Who cares? NBA coaching is about managing personalities. Phil has managed the biggest in the history of the game. Don’t undercut his accomplishments by claiming that he had MJ, Shaq, and Kobe for his 10 titles. He should be celebrated for having the ability to captain a ship through the most volatile of rough waters and maximizing the best possible outcomes for his often cantankerous teams.
While Jackson’s 10th title is certainly history making and attention grabbing, I am most intrigued by Kobe. While he is not the saint he would like you to believe he is in his personal life, I have as much respect for him as for anyone I have ever seen on an NBA hardwood. He validated his whole career on Sunday night by leading HIS team to the title in impressive fashion. He is only 30 (MJ won his first title at 29), and has 4 Larry O’Brien trophies. While MJ is the most revered player in the history of the sport (with apologies to Wilt Chamberlain and his impressive harem), I maintain that Kobe may end up being the best player in the history of the NBA for the following reasons:
1) He is a better shooter than Jordan: MJ was a master at finding ways to score, as is Kobe. However, Kobe’s shot is much purer and has unlimited range. Give Kobe any opening and the Black Mamba will bite you.
2) He won a title without a superstar running mate: Scottie Pippen is one of the most underrated players in history. Sure, he was voted to the Top 50 All-Time team, but he played his whole career in MJ’s shadow. Kobe had Shaq for his first three titles, but the second best player on the Lakers this year was Gasol. Jordan won every title with Pippen. Kobe had a lot of talent around him this season, but no true great Robin like MJ always had to help him out in crunch time.
3) He will end up with more titles: Kobe is only 30. He and MJ are the two hungriest players I have ever witnessed in the sport. I expect Kobe to play a minimum of 8 more years. With the Lakers being young and good (if Andrew Bynum can continue to improve and most importantly stay healthy), I expect a minimum of 2 more championships for Kobe. If he does that, then he equals Jordan. If he wins 3 more, I think he must be considered the best ever to lace them up.
While Kobe may eventually go down as MJ’s equal or superior in the record books, there is one area where Kobe will never equal MJ. Jordan was the most marketable athlete in history. He brought the NBA to the world stage and that is why so many foreign players are now in the NBA and contributing to the wonderful growth of the sport. Jordan is one of the biggest brands in the history of marketing. Kobe while certainly not a slouch in raking in endorsements, will never have that same global appeal and business acumen. Partly because of Eagle, Colorado, but mostly because there can only be one “Air Jordan” and Kobe is following too closely in time to his trendsetting predeceesor.
There is one thing that Kobe needs more than anything to be remembered in the same sentence with Jordan on the court. A defining moment. MJ had many. Slam dunk contests with ‘Nique, 63 points at the Boston Garden in the playoffs, his return to MSG after playing baseball for a few years, and most of all, his push-off of Byron Russell and memorable jumper to defeat the Utah Jazz in the NBA Finals for his last title when he was sick as a dog. Kobe has 4 titles, but not one defining Finals moment. Sure, he scored 81 points at home against the Raptors in the middle of a season. However, he needs to leave NBA fans with a couple (or at least one) unforgettable playoff moments if he ever wants to get the same respect from basketball fans as MJ.
Someone Please Muzzle Manny! June 11, 2009
Posted by Paul in : Uncategorized , 2comments
Look, I’ve always been a supporter of Manny’s attitude. His nonchalance has often allowed him to perform at his best in the clutch. That quality has also enabled him to inject the right amount of levity in any clubhouse he’s been a part of…. With so many high-paid athletes either taking themselves too seriously, or worse, not delivering when they are asked to, Manny is a breath of fresh air.
With that backdrop in mind, Ramirez decided to address reporters for the first time in a while, after popping his head into the Dodgers’ clubhouse, before Tuesday night’s game at Chavez Ravine. Here are his comments, in his brief exchange with the press:
“I don’t want to be a distraction for this team,” Ramirez said. “What happened, happened. I spoke to [owner] Frank McCourt, I apologized, I spoke to Joe, my teammates and I’m ready to move on.
“I didn’t kill nobody, I didn’t rape nobody, so that’s it, I’m just going to come and play the game.”
Let me preface my observations with the following: I’m a big proponent of the first amendment. And I give most people a large leash as it pertains to self-expression. Few things offend or bother me. I am thankful we have folks like Howard Stern, that constantly push the envelop, as it pertains to the freedom of speech.
Now, having said that: putting one’s actions in the context of rape and murder is just plain inane and ridiculous. Using those two horrible actions in contrast to your infraction, in order to have it pale in comparison, is a ploy that not only is not working; it’s creating the opposing effect. The general public feels like their intelligence has been insulted. What Manny did certainly doesn’t approach the atrocity of both crimes that were cited. But to think that we’re going to brush things aside because one puts those out there, as some kind of explanation or rationale is just plain idiocy. It shows a total lack of forethought, self-awareness, and judgment.
No one can truly tell you that they are totally surprised about this type of commentary by Ramirez. He’s been known for having a loose mouth for a long time. What I’m most amazed at in this press relations snafu is that his handlers hadn’t decided to prepare a statement in the event he would choose to talk to reporters. I know that Manny doesn’t like to follow scripts. But how does someone as sharp as Scott Boras allow for this to happen? Boras is a as strong a strategic thinker as there is, when it comes to his clients. How does he allow one of the biggest assets in his client portfolio to routinely open his mouth and embarrass himself? Not only is it purely bad public relations, these are the types of comments that will limit Ramirez’s ability to sign additional endorsement deals, which directly affects Boras’ bottom line. If I was the most powerful agent in Baseball, I would make sure to have a seasoned PR person at Manny’s side every single time there was an opportunity to speak publicly. Or, as an alternative, have him wear one of Michael Vick’s ankle bracelets. Any time, he strays from a prepared statement, one of Boras’ minions can zap him remotely, “gently” steering him back to political correctness….
Are Top Tennis Players Too Stubborn? June 5, 2009
Posted by Paul in : Uncategorized , 2comments
One individual’s stubbornness is another person’s determination. You’ve heard the saying when speaking of most top-performing athletes: that “resolve”, a “single-minded determination”, an unflinching “focus” on the task at hand. Those traits are usually associated with top sports stars. Those characteristics get magnified when you talk about individual sports pursuits. There is no teammate to communicated with. No team chemistry to be had. You’re on an island, and you’re supposed to look within yourself in order to obtain optimal performance. In tennis, you’re supposed to track and follow a yellow ball throughout each point. The ball is in constant movement, and tracking it through bad bounces, different spins, wind conditions, all the while chasing it around the court, takes focus rarely seen in other sports. But could this trait ever end up being a double-edged sword? Can the quality that makes you so focused on one goal, also create blinders that can end up costing you when it comes to overall awareness? Could well-developed neuronal pathways wire you in a certain way that predisposes to being more closed-minded than others?
Let’s take a close look at a player who has been known for his bullheadedness: American stalwart Andy Roddick. Andy–who has just tied the knot with swimsuit model Brooklyn Decker–has long been considered one of the most competitive players on Tour. Most tennis pundits will tell you that he’s been one of the best at getting the most out of his ability. It’s undeniable to most keen observers that the Austin resident possesses limitations in his game. His often one-dimensional game has been criticized for lacking nuance, or texture. Tennis commentators have frequently gone after Roddick for not being able to switch to a Plan B, if things turn for the worse in an encounter. But who better characterizes the workmanlike approach to tennis than A-Rod does these days? Could one call Roddick the construction worker of the ATP Tour? He carries a big sledgehammer of a serve, with a sturdy ground game, anchored by an incredibly heavy forehand. But when it comes to subtlety, in the relationship sport that is tennis, the Texan often finds himself outclassed, unable to participate in the deft art of sophisticated conversation. Much like well-versed trial attorneys, other players the likes of Andy Murray and Fabrice Santoro have learned how to get the upper hand in the dialog of tennis exchanges. A well-placed interjection, an objection, or a change of pace often earns them points down the road. Roddick is often content to keep hammering away, even if that means losing the argument in the end, when it comes to more refined tennis repartee. Although this strongheaded-ness often enables him to put his blinders on and demolish lesser opponents, it has frequently cost him dearly when dealing with players that have managed to diffuse his power and that possess more options in their games.
Looking no further than Your Sports NightCap’s home tournament, Roddick went down in consecutive years (2006 & 2007) in the semifinals of the SAP Open at the hands of Andy Murray. In a tremendous display of brain versus brawn, unfolding in front of our very eyes, Murray was able to make Roddick look powerless. Standing several feet behind the baseline, Andy Murray was able to deaden the sting of Roddick’s first serve delivery with his soft hands, and bunt returns back deep to start rallies in a neutral position. From there, the craftier Scot was able to impose his will, with his natural variety and exquisite feel around the court. In both encounters, Roddick was left without an answer. And it didn’t seem like he tried to adapt his game, and change things up. Had he decided to pick off those floating returns from Murray at net, Roddick would have stood a chance to take the advantage in most points where he was serving. Instead, he was content to try to pound his heavy forehand from the back of the court, as Murray had managed to return yet another one of his stinging first serve deliveries. A-Rod was more racehorse at post time than chameleon in the rain forest. Full-speed ahead with blinders on, he lacks the capacity to adapt his game to his surroundings and opponent….
Another symptom of A-Rod’s intransigence can be linked to his hiring of coaches, over the past few years. When Roddick first started working with Jimmy Connors, it was an odd pairing to most observers. Connors, known as an irreverent maverick on the court, didn’t seem to be the type that would curtsy to a player’s wishes, when working with him. At first, most thought that there would now be two very large egos in the Roddick Camp, making it difficult to get things done, if both personalities butted heads on several fronts. As we all know, Jimbo’s coaching experience was next to null. Plus, there’s significant empirical evidence that suggests the greatest players don’t necessarily make for the best coaches. Jimmy has never been thought of as a dynamic communicator, or even remotely patient enough to be a good teacher. That’s why most tennis thinkers were scratching their heads, when this high-powered tennis marriage first came together. Some started formulating theories about Roddick; that A-Rod could have gone with lesser names, but couldn’t because he wanted to respect the individual whose coaching voice he’d be hearing.
After several months of a part-time coaching relationship, where brother John filled in the gaps, the Connors-Roddick coach-pupil relationship was now over. Connors had been reticent to travel to all of the events on the ATP’s calendar; most particularly the smaller ones, in far-flung locations. Despite having greatly benefited from mentoring provided by the 8-time Grand Slam champ–most notably on his backhand wing–Roddick finally realized that he really wanted a constant companion and mentor while traveling on Tour. His older brother had done an okay job for a while. But a familial voice, particularly that of an elder sibling was tough to hear full-time and completely acquiesce to…. Andy needed a change. He needed someone he was going to respect from the start.
Enter Larry Stefanki, who is now rightly credited for pushing Andy through a renaissance of sorts with his game. Stefanki brought more than just a deep savvy for the game and a past of mentoring young males to the top: he carried some of the best coaching credentials on Tour, having taken both Kafelnikov and Rios to the summit of the rankings mountain. Not to mention stints with the likes of John McEnroe, Fernando Gonzalez, and Tim Henman; all players that greatly improved under Stefanki’s tutelage. And Larry had played the game at a high level himself, reaching a career-high ranking of 35, and taking home one singles title and three in doubles. He was not the teacher that just couldn’t cut it in the real world. He was the guy that applied his years of experience as a pro, in helping his students sharpen their skills and get the best out of themselves. That trackrecord spoke to Roddick, because as stubborn as the man can be, he must have known that he would have respect for his coach, right from the get-go. Stefanki instantly laid down the ground rules. And A-Rod has responded by getting himself leaner, watching his nutrition, and putting up all the hard work during the tennis off season. He’s handsomely rewarded with one of the best early seasons of his career. Just this week, the American #1 managed to make it into the second week for the first time, at what used to be a terrifying setting for him: Roland Garros. His fitness and movement are at career-bests despite being considered one of the Tour’s veterans, as he turns 27 in August of this year. And a little more texture seems to be surfacing from his game….
Let’s now move to examine the case of the man who has long inhabited many of Roddick’s nightmares. Roger Federer is the latest and most glaring casualty of his own stubbornness. The Swiss Maestro has just had a few years of virtual domination over the Tour; a span of tennis brilliance perhaps never seen in the history of the game. From 2004 to early 2008, Federer had an 87% win percentage, claimed 11 of the 17 Slams partaken in, failing to reach the semis only once. Until his loss to Novak Djokovic in the semifinal round of the 2008 Australian Open, Roge had reached 10 straight Major finals; taking 8 of them, losing only twice at the French Open to bête noire Rafael Nadal. Plain and simply, Federer has always prided himself in succeeding at the ultimate game of Survivor. Perhaps no sport tests an athlete’s mental and physical capacities simultaneously, as much as tennis. And Federer has taken pride in succeeding at it all alone. He’s the ultimate self-sustaining sportsman. No need for a large entourage of handlers, yes-men, or hangers-on, who are usually largely there to inflate a professional athlete’s ego. Roger has been a throwback, in the way he’s won, in many ways. While other top players have had their “camp”, populated by coaches, trainers, stringers, masseuses, managers, agents and PR people, Roger usually hits the road with his full-time PR person and new bride Myrka Vavrinec, who will soon give birth to their first child in September. That’s it! Somehow, the traditionalist in Roger must get some pleasure out of triumphing over opponents while not carrying a huge overhead. He’s a one-man band; the lone maverick who makes things happen by digging within himself instead of relying on others.
There have long been whispers why Federer hasn’t wanted a steady coach around. And for a while, during his years of dominance, that question was brushed away as few could imagine what value-add would bring to his game. Roger was already playing out of this world. What could a coach possibly bring to the table, for a man that is already sitting atop of the tennis world? But I can vividly recall when these background conversations finally took the forefront. Federer had just lost this year’s Australian Open final to Nadal that included a 5th set collapse, where the Swiss player completely disappeared. In the immediate post-mortem on the television broadcast, ESPN Tennis Analyst Patrick McEnroe coldly dissected the loss by strongly suggesting that Roger perhaps needed a new voice to turn things around, in his suddenly stagnating career. 2008 had still provided a variety of rationales for Federer’s sub-par season. The former #1 had prepared poorly due to a case of mononucleosis at the beginning of the year. Others pointed to an overcrowded 2007 schedule that had Roger not only play a more than full platter of tour tournaments, but also engage in a series of exhibitions against Sampras in South East Asia, in what was supposed to be the beginning of Fed’s off season. He had been a few points away from winning two majors. Perhaps the talk of his decline were overblown in 2008. But when he went down in Melbourne, in that fashion, even conservative experts the likes of Patrick McEnroe were starting to think that Federer needed a change in his camp….
And yet, what has Roger Federer decided to do? Has he desperately sought the help of the slew of capable coaches who would have jumped at the opportunity of coaching him? Did he pick up the phone and call tennis legends like John McEnroe, who had offered publicly to advise Roger during this tougher time? No. Like several times during this career, Roger stayed the course and told us that he didn’t need somebody at his side. He now finds himself in the finals of a Nadal-free Roland Garros; with the best shot at capturing the title that has long been out of his grasp. I’ve never disputed that Federer has a complete game. Or that he knows how to play tennis with the best of them. That’s often been his argument to the press, when he’s been asked about recruiting a coach. In fact, I’ve often said that Federer might well possess the most complete and diverse color palette of shots, with which to paint on the canvas that is the tennis court. But at these stratospheric levels of the game, it sometimes comes down to some fine-tuning. With a high-performance car like a Ferrari, the difference between winning or losing comes down to tweaking a few valves, loosening up the suspension for a race track, or changing to the right octane fuel. The same goes for top athletes. It may come down to as little as getting better rest, or waking up on the right side of the bed. As small a thing as added confidence provided by better practice habits, or a tiny tactical adjustment, or a different mental philosophy in approaching an opponent…. Could Federer benefit further from a confidant that will bring him such a thing? Could Roddick have improved at an earlier time in his career, had he been more receptive to certain coaches? Perhaps. One trait seems to have been at the center stage in all of this: stubbornness. But could these guys have risen to their respective levels and assured themselves large chapters in tennis’ history, without the trait? Probably not.
