The miracle that is Federer

(I think this is a timely addition to the Djokovic post I posted yesterday. This piece on Federer was written after the 2010 Year Ending Cup (though it is known by a different name nowadays). That match set me thinking why watching Federer play is so different from watching anyone else play).

It isn’t just the records, though he has so many of them. It isn’t the range of shots, though he combines the force of the ballistic with the grace of the balletic in his shots.

It is the fact that when he sees an open court and a neutral ball, he thinks of possibilities that escape anyone else. That he chooses to attack when it would be so easy to stay back and defend. An incredibly romantic notion of “attack, attack, attack” playing out before our eyes.

It is this aspect of his genius that we will remember Federer for the most, all the moments when you couldn’t believe what you were seeing. Like, for example, the impossibly angled backhands that flew from his weaker wing yesterday, which left a fellow great watching on in stupefied amazement as they flew past him.

That is Federer for you- not just a winner of titles, not just an amasser of records, but someone who reminds you of the transfiguring power that genius has, when its glory can seemingly cause a change in the weather and illuminate a dark night with its light.

And it is for this that we must be eternally grateful to Federer.

That he won so much, and yet reminded you every single time that when played in the right manner, the beauty of this sport transcends such petty earthy considerations as winning.

That such a great player was also a sorcerer with the racket, that somebody who won so much also cast a magic spell at the same time.

That, almost miraculously, he could, when at his irresistible best, be both brutally devastating and captivatingly poetic at the same time!

Can you give me the exact score so I can go down to the bookies?

Here's my report from that match :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A77661020

bogbrush wrote:Can you give me the exact score so I can go down to the bookies?

poster has not realised the typo yet

Yeah I wondered about that.

6 numbers for Saturday too please OP...

Oh, I did realise the typo. Very oblique hint from BB though.

Despite Federer slowing down now, his footwork is still amazing. He probably walks about an inch over the surface, in thin air, gliding.

Would love to see a chronicle of the 780+ matches he has played so far as a video compendium.

Good article TA.

Yeah, it's been said before but it's almost balletic.

Of the great players I've watched I can't think of another with the same gentle movement. When I think about virtuosity I always go back to McEnroe , but he didn't have that same quality.

Krishnan was as good as McEnroe in my view but without the agression and the willingness to win. A master of timing and caressing the ball. He was amazing to watch and when he played Edberg in that 5 setter USO semi (or 1/4F) people said for a long time it was the best match ever.

Tenez, i think you are referring to Ramesh Krishnan. He won juniors W. I was a child when his father, Ramanathan K was a player. He had a formidable BH, I recall hearing from some teacher. Wish we had TV in the 60s. Are there any DVDs available that one could buy or rent.

Yes I meant Ramesh. A beautiful player to watch who made the game look as easy as McEnroe but he was quite chubby, even at his peak, and was relying solely on his talent and certainly did not have the winning mindset of McEnroe. But what a talent! I checked since and in fact was surprised that his 5 setter v Edberg was in round 32 only. I was convinced it was in the latter stages. But on the day he could beat anyone...almost.

Manojchandra wrote:Tenez, i think you are referring to Ramesh Krishnan. He won juniors W. I was a child when his father, Ramanathan K was a player. He had a formidable BH, I recall hearing from some teacher. Wish we had TV in the 60s. Are there any DVDs available that one could buy or rent.

Lest we forget, one of the defeats in McEnroe's 82-3 season in 1984 is to Vijay Amritraj in Cincy. At one point, I recall, the A(mritraj), B(org), C(onnors), that is the ABCs being discussed. The Amritraj brothers (Vijay and Anand) played very good doubles.

R64 Vijay Amritraj (IND) 70 L 7-6, 2-6, 3-6

Mecir (the Cat) was another very graceful mover.

Edit: Many other Indians, Premjit Lal (led Laver 2 sets - 1969 Wimbledon Grass R64 Laver, Rod 3-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-0, 6-0 ), Chiradeep Mukherji, Naresh Kumar...

Oh! I thought Vijay was a Jamnes Bond actor not a tennis player.

The miracle that is going to be Bernard Tomic

I have to give credit to Fed, from about 1998-2004 I didn't watch much of the ATP tour. I really wasn't a big fan of the big serve style of Roddick or the workmanlike style of Lleyton Hewitt. I watched on and off during that period. Federer's elegant game brought me back to the sport. And as a result of the interest Fed created I became a regular viewer again. He isn't my favorite player, but at his peak and at times still today he is wonderful to watch.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The miracle that is going to be Bernard Tomic

JM = GJ ??!

bogbrush wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The miracle that is going to be Bernard Tomic

JM = GJ ??!

Soderling is still missing from the Aussie Stud rhetoric.

laverfan wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The miracle that is going to be Bernard Tomic

JM = GJ ??!

Soderling is still missing from the Aussie Stud rhetoric.

If you were a Sod fan wouldn't you be keeping quiet right now?

bogbrush wrote:

laverfan wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The miracle that is going to be Bernard Tomic

JM = GJ ??!

Soderling is still missing from the Aussie Stud rhetoric.

If you were a Sod fan wouldn't you be keeping quiet right now?

Wish Magnus Norman comes back and helps Sod?

Great article tennisanorak. At times, I am still mesmerized by the play of Federer, even now that his body is suffering the effects of the dominant period of 2003-2007.

The question is will there ever be a player who can even come close to the sheer artistry that is Roger Federer. I have heard Grigor Dmitrov's name being thrown around, but he has not been able to really make his mark on the game yet.

Please, tennis gods, can you please bless the tennis world with another Roger Federer.

Kemet he is definetly a generational type of player. I think eventually we will see a player that breaks a lot of Roger's records and attains that level of dominance, but there is no predicting it. Could be in 10, 20, or more years.

socal1976 wrote:Kemet he is definetly a generational type of player. I think eventually we will see a player that breaks a lot of Roger's records and attains that level of dominance, but there is no predicting it. Could be in 10, 20, or more years.

The thing is it is not so much the dominance, it's the manner in which he has gone about it. His movement around the court at his peak is exquisite and there is really nothing he can't do. It still amazes me that he beat Pete Sampras, a the holder of the most Wimbledon titles, playing serve-volley tennis back in 2001. I know he eventually became a baseliner, but he proved that he can play serve-volley tennis also.

Well kemet, in terms of serve and volley we won't see much of that in the future. I think S and V will always be a variation now and a change of pace, not so much a dominant style that can be made to work on every single point like what we saw with Mac and Edberg. But maybe a player as graceful and as gifted in terms of shot making, there definetly will be another one, but that shot maker of sublime quality and grace could be a long time coming.

Good article.

People tend to forget how good the guys of the past were.

That Sampras used to regularly serve at over 130 mph and his second serve often exceeded 120 mph.

How deft Edberg and J Mac were at the net.

There are countless examples.

However, I still hold that Roger Federer at his peak played tennis at a level never seen before and not seen since.

He was totally awesome.

Like some computer generated tennis player.

Something from the matrix; the way he would hit winners from anywhere, often seemingly impossible shots.

He was fast as Nadal and every bit as durable.

Some of his perfomances were mind blowing (Agassi TMC 03, Hewitt USO 04, Gasquet W 06, Roddick AUS 07, Nadal TMC 07 etc). The best part was that Roger was so consistently brilliant that it became normal for him to perform at that level. He did it week in and week out for years.

And of course the most beautiful and elegant player of them all.

A game of style and substance.

Never has a player combined such beauty with such unprecedented success.

Well said Emancipator!