Roger Federer wins the first set without much strain, but
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga roars back in the second, putting on an
impressive display of grit and forehand power in the late games and
the tiebreak, holding off match points and putting the defending
champion on the defensive with his serve and volley game. It is the
final in the last tournament of the year, the London Masters
(officially the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, made possible, as
you guessed, by Barclay’s, where I do not have an account). There
is a five million purse (in dollars) and the distinction of being
the best of the field, who for this event are the top eight ranking
players in the world.
Roger calms down and takes charge of the match early in
the third set, setting the pace and the style with those
sharpshooter forehands down the line, as opposed to Jo’s cannon
balls. You cannot be too careful with him, given as he is to great
spurts of fantastic athleticism combined with unerring power — as
Federer learned only too painfully in this year’s Wimbledon
quarter-finals. But when you see Federer playing with such
accuracy, you remember what made him the dominant, unbeatable
player during most of the last decade and you ask yourself where he
has been recently, this year in particular, the first since 2002
that he has not won a single major (one of the four Grand Slams)
event.
The truth of course is that he has been very near the top
and has had a very good year by any standard you want — except
his. A great many players, including Jo-W. Tsonga, would be very
happy to have made it to the quarters, semis, or final of every
major, and to have topped it off with a brilliant run during the
fall season (also referred to as the season-finals, depending on
whether you are talking about the earth or the sport, and this sort
of confusion is not irrelevant to what is wrong with sports in
general these days). This run took him from a happy hometown win at
the Basel Indoors after the disappointing U.S. Open (where he beat
Tsonga in the quarters in straight sets and then blew a lead that
included a match point to Djokovic in the semis), to victory at the
Paris Masters (over Tsonga, straight sets again), and now this, the
famous season-ending ATP Masters final of finals, where only the
top eight ranked players compete. Going into the final, his 100th,
Federer holds a tie for the record number of wins here,
five.
Tsonga, who is from Le Mans, a small city on the Loire
river famous for a 24-hour automobile race and its ancient downtown
neighborhoods, is only an inch and a few pounds bigger than
Federer, whose own height and strength are somewhat hidden on TV by
his elegance and agile movements. (But where would we be without
the tennis channel, the sport’s C-Span? We’d be watching football.)
At 30, Federer does not seem any less the cheetah of a few years
ago. Frankly I am not sure why so many people insist you are over
the top at age 24 or something — though compared to him in the
past couple weeks, the mid-20s No. 1 and 2, Novak Djokovic and Rafa
Nadal, certainly did look over the top and ready for the rest home,
even, as did Andy Murray, who lost his No. 3 rank to Federer when
he withdrew after his first match here, pain in the groin
reportedly.
We live in a time when people assume athletes flame out
just as they are finding their potential, even as they go about
desperately pretending they are still kids. Look at the way people
dress, listen (or try to) the music they favor, the movies they
watch, the simian patterns of speech (actually unfair to simians),
the irresponsible ways they spend money they do not have, the
avoidance of responsibility, the blaming everybody else for
everything. Moreover, this young-tennis-champ notion is not even
accurate — it is easy to think of players in every era who lasted
much longer than the current crop (Federer and a handful of others
excepted) — Agassi, Laver, Gonzales, Tilden… and on the ladies’
side, too, Martina Navratilova, Margaret Smith Court… It must have
something to do with the hysterical mode that has seized so much of
our cultural life. Expansion teams, post-seasons, scandals,
incomprehensible regulations, the price of tickets: why, in
London’s O2, another reason why I am thankful for the tube, they
were selling seats for up to 300 pounds per. Match, I mean. You
would think 300 pounds would get you the whole tournament and all
the fish ‘n chips you can eat, plus hotel. But no.
Federer, at any rate, is one of the most superbly
conditioned athletes today. It is quite clear to anyone who has
watched him in competition that he has one of these
once-in-a-generation athletic talents, a man like Pete Rose, say,
or Willie Mays, or John Elway or Joe Namath or — to sum it up in
one name — Michael Jordan. He does things that are not supposed to
be possible, the line drive forehands while springing backwards,
the inside-out shots in order to place it where your opponent least
expects it, the on-a-dime service aces, the nerves, ice-cool,
unflappable. A slight frown, a mild shake of the head is the most
you will get out of Roger Federer when he is playing below his own
standards. The shoulders fall just a quarter inch, the eyes, if you
can catch the glint, seem just a tiny bit dull. Put it this way, he
is not Bjorn Borg, but he is no Johnny-Mac, either.
The condition of Federer’s body, however, contrasts
brazenly with the visible physical and mental exhaustion observed
in his main rivals, Novak Djokovic and Rafa Nadal. David Ferrer,
who with Rafa and a few other caballeros will be carrying
Spain’s colors against the Argentines this week in Sevilla, told an
interviewer after losing out in the round-robin point system
(understood by few, acknowledged by all), “I’m tired. Tired. I’m
really, really tired. I’m very tired.” The man must be flat-out
tired.
Nadal said he just did not have his head in it any more.
Federer must have agreed when he crushed him at the O2 by the
unheard of score of 6-3, 6-0. Djokovic confessed that he had
neither physical nor mental energy. He had a great year — three
majors —, but now body and mind both, poof. When you get down to
the hard analysis, the London Masters, where the best play the
best, was not exactly the best tournament of the year, drama-wise.
There were excellent moments, such as Tsonga’s heroic from-behind
effort in the second set of the final which pushed the match to a
decider (and made Federer decide to put an end to any Mister Nice
Guy notions he entertained), but you could tell they were all…
tired.
Except the man who defines tennis. And this being the time
of year when you consider The State of Everything, you have to ask
yourself what this means. Is the Tour just too draining for
ordinary top players? Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal all had to plead
injuries at various events to explain withdrawal or shellacking.
Tennis is not a contact sport. Is there just too much of it — too
many tournaments, in too many time zones? Is there something flawed
in the tennis “season” — in fact a year-long program of events
major and minor that necessarily lessens the value of each one of
them? How is it that the Davis Cup, which used to be an event
almost on par with the World Series, getting attention from people
with no other interest in the sport, is almost a forgotten footnote
on the annual sports calendar?
Of course everyone is tired at the end of the season. Tony
LaRussa was tired a few weeks ago, as was Ron Washington. What is
different about tennis? What is different is that here, the last
man standing is the only man who could still stand, and that is,
face it, weird, no matter what exceptional qualities, and they are
many, Roger Federer possesses.
With the 2011 Tour over, there is now a month of rest,
unless you are a Spaniard or an Argentine, before the competition
is renewed in Australia with the Brisbane International in the
first days of the new year, warming up for the Australian Open at
Melbourne in the middle of January. Rod Laver thinks there are
still some majors with Roger Federer’s name on their trophies, and
hints he is betting the Aussie Open could be the first of these.
Federer, who now holds the record (six) for the Masters Final, and
who added the Paris Masters to his long list of triumphs just a
week before when he beat Tsonga, may yet surprise us, demonstrating
that his loss of the No. 1 ranking was only a momentary lapse. The
others can start eating vitamins.
Dick Nome| 11.28.11 @ 6:09AM
Who is Roger Federer?? Never heard of him. The Masters is a tounament played in Augusta, GA in April or so I thought. What is this??
big bob| 11.28.11 @ 9:14AM
Love your observations and comments. Brings out the worst in the uneducated masses who drool over OWS but can't grasp what a drop shot is!! Federer is an anomaly and a rare athlete. It was a joy to watch him play this past week. Can't wait for the Australian Open, (Not golf btw).
David T| 11.28.11 @ 10:04AM
Thanks Mr. Kaplan. I appreciate your tennis commentary, but I can't stand Federer, even though he's undoubedly the greatest ever to have played the game. He's just too much into himself. Give me a Nadal any day.
Mike Hawk| 11.28.11 @ 11:15AM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Mistral| 11.28.11 @ 12:13PM
Roger Federer is a true champion - he is gracious in victory and rare defeat. He is always very laudatory about his opponents and assumes nothing. He sensibly paces his season and can take a break when circumstances indicate. he plays tennis like no other and combines grace, elegance, accuracy and power in his style. There are a few more tournament victories in him yet and he may well add to his already more than impressive palmares of Grand Slams. He is still the man to watch next season. Bravo Roger!
Clint| 11.28.11 @ 2:34PM
Somebody Lost Their Fedora ?
Mike Hawk| 11.28.11 @ 3:11PM
That's the Italian guy, I think.
Alfredo Fettucine| 11.28.11 @ 6:01PM
Borsalino.
Mistral| 11.29.11 @ 5:34AM
Roger Federer has raised millions of dollars for charity but he does not boast about it. He is as discreet about that as he is about his tennis prowess.
Maybe if he were a big-mouthed, boastful libidinous militaristic Rambo-type and American, some you here would approve of him.
mjfin| 11.29.11 @ 2:44PM
Puts paid. Please.
Nobody in the entire country except pretentious literary snobs uses the phrase "puts paid". One might say instead "puts an end to" or "crushes", or something similar.
William Buckley, one of my favorites, used to say things like "puts paid" and could not avoid using the word "inform" at least once in every article he wrote to convey the relatively obscure meaning of "give form to" rather than the popularly understood meaning of the word describing a tattle-tale.
Perhaps my favorite Buckleyism is "Going down to the sea in ships", which was nonsense even in the 18th century. No one in any sense ever goes "down to the sea" in a ship. Sorry. You go out to sea in a ship. I go down to the sea in my Mustang. But that was Buckley and in him it was a charming eccentricity, and one not to be taken seriously.
I hope these comments help put pay to the use of that wretched phrase.