Phenome-nadal

Ok, I will try not to sound like a Wikipedia article on Rafael Nadal. I will try. But what can you say about a player who at 24 has won 5 Roland Garros titles, second only to Bjorn Borg. Nadal did not drop a set in the 2010 French Open tournament. He did that in 2008 as well. Amazing control on the points. With his knees intact, he proved to be unbeatable.

Prior to this clay season, Nadal was in a title drought.11 months without a title. During this period he had many issues - his knees wearied down, he had an abdomen strain, his parents were divorced and the so-called critics wrote him off. Nadal has past his peak they said. And now that is history. Monte Carlo, Rome and Madrid master events saw him dominate his opponents like never before. He beat Roger Federer in Madrid finals in straight sets. And that continued into Roland Garros. Straight sets was the buzz word. Soderling, with whom Nadal had a rather turbulent relation since their Wimbledon clash in 2007, was dismissed in straight sets as well. So much for a guy who handed Nadal his only defeat in Paris in 2009.

I am eager to see how Nadal performs in Queens that began this week and eventually in Wimbledon. He can stamp his authority on the game now that he just acquired the 'Red Slam'. I am the kind of guy who sympathizes with the grasshopper on some occasions. Though I fondly admire Roger Federer, I admire Nadal's spirit no less. Vamos Rafa!

Andre Agassi's OPEN: An Autobiography

Andre Agassi has always been one of my favorite tennis players and will remain so. More so, after the controversial autobiography that hit stands today. Contrary to some, I see no reason why Andre should not come up with his autobiography at this point. I feel he had got the time to look back and make sense of his life. He knew he made some mistakes and put an effort to come out clean. It is easy to comment on a book or a person but spare a thought for that individual. Agreed, it is absolutely wrong to hide the 'meth' episode and lie to ATP. Lesser individuals may not have survived that scare. As the book claims, Andre was reborn then. Till then he hated tennis. He hated tennis as a kid, hated tennis as a teen and in 1997 after he hit an all-time low rank of #141, that's when he had to choose. Choose between a professional career in tennis or mundane enjoyments of life. And to the delight of millions of tennis fans, he chose tennis. Else, we wouldn't have witnessed some of the best tennis matches and his magical returns.

In the hindsight, it all makes sense. I recall watching Agassi with his mane (which was infact a postiche!!!). He was more of a showman than a tennis player. I haven't seen the much talked about Australian Open 1996 semi-finals which Agassi claimed to have tanked, but I have seen couple of other matches during the same time. 1992 Wimbledon comes to mind first. That five set final again Goran Ivanisevic was just talent at its best. And en route the final he blasted Boris Becker and John McEnroe. But I never noticed his 'lack of intensity' or his 'dislike for tennis'. But as a tennis fan, you can definitely feel Agassi's pain in the 1995 US Open loss to Pete Sampras. Agassi termed it as an uber-loss. And post 1998 when he rose from ashes to #1, his game was there for all to see. His passion was evident. I fondly remember 1999 in which he won all three grand slams sans Wimbledon. (And then there was Pete! 6-3 6-4 7-5)

Though I haven't yet read the book, it looks like one more thing (in addition to not confessing drugs) that I will not like about 'OPEN' is that it is overtly straightforward in expressing Agassi's views on his rivals. Especially Pete Sampras, whom I equally admire. Agassi's satirical comment on Sampras' dullness is in poor taste. So are his comments on Chang, Muster, Nastase. But I guess the quotes can be put into perspective by viewing them as feelings of the immature Agassi (pre-1997). Post 1998, a different Agassi evolved and I doubt he would have thought of his rivals as described in the book.

As a final word, I feel OPEN is, as the name suggests, an outpour of Agassi's emotions that have accumulated over the last 39 years. No wonder he said living this book was cathartic. I came across some articles where some curious readers had questions if Agassi took drugs during Grand Slams and if meth or other drugs contributed to his victories. Those are ludicrous questions. I don't think you can question the talent of Agassi. It was always a question of mental strength and he gained control of himself post meth-episode. Also, 'meth' as described in websites and in the book, is an performance depressant and would have adversely affected him during matches, if at all he took them. So, current players need not necessarily crucify him. Instead, I think the book serves as a good lesson to all budding tennis professionals what to do and what not to do.

Roger Federer - An Alpine Craftsman.

Roger has done it. He eclipsed Pete Sampras' 14 grand slams record in style. And one statement which was sort of a question till today became a grand statement - Roger Federer is indeed the greatest tennis player ever. I have been following tennis for quite sometime now and have watched almost all of Pete and Andre. I watched matches from the past - Bjorn Borg, McEnroe, Edberg and others. Two characteristics that set Federer apart are the ease in which he plays either from baseline or serve-and-volley and his ability to improvise at big points. His all-court expertise is what has transformed him into such a threat. And all these coupled with excellent agility and control.

It is difficult to compare players across different eras but I think it is definitely alright to assess their games in relative context. And it would be blasphemous not to mention Rafael Nadal when you speak of Federer. Nadal made Federer clamber in his quest for tennis immortality. Twice Nadal stopped Federer from reaching the golden slam (four grand slams in a year). And stopped is an understatement. Nadal was ruthless against Federer at Roland Garros in 2007, 08 against a motivated Federer. If Federer has retained his World Number One after today's one, a lot has to be attributed to Nadal's injury too. Nothing to undermine Federer's greatness. Again, being fully fit and agile is part of being a tennis pro and hence Federer has to be congratulated. Kudos to him.

It is nice to see Federer to see at the top of the pack. But I'd rather see Federer compete and work to win rather than have walk-overs. I'd rather see him battle out with Nadal or others from the crowd than see him decimate them. And that is why we need Nadal back. My gut says Nadal will come back stronger than before. He plays tennis of the highest intensity and quality and is more a slogger as opposed to Federer who is an architect. Nevertheless, a slogger versus an architect is more enthralling to watch than an architect versus an architect or a slogger versus a slogger. My thoughts go out to Andy Roddick who has played the best match in his career. 14-16 in the final set is too close. Andy was just points away from a well deserved Wimbeldon crown. He was awesome and never gave up. The fact that he dropped his serve only in the last set indicates fatigue.

Anyways, today is Federer's day. Other have to wait.

Federer reigns.

As expected (and as I hoped), Federer won US Open and with that created record of sorts. He is the first player in the history of tennis to win five successive titles at two different grand slam events (Wimbledon & US Open). 6-2 7-5 6-2 showed how stark the difference was between Federer and Murray, a first-time grand slam finalist. Federer started the match with an ace and from then it is history.

There is something I always believe is true about Roger Federer. He is the best tennis player ever. I admired Borg, Sampras, Agassi but none so much as I did Federer. That is because of his versatility. His all-court mastery coupled with extraordinary athleticism and determination puts him way across the rest (excluding Rafael Nadal, who is not very far off). But Nadal has lots to prove and achieve to even be compared with Federer. He has a long way to go and the more tougher part is remain consistent as Federer to be considered as a great player. Federer was stung by mononucleosis which affected the way he played over the last couple of months but it is a great time to come back and prove your fans and detractors wrong. Isn't it?
All said and done, I still do not like Federer winning in straight sets. I like to see someone (Nadal for instance) stretch Federer into 5-sets like in this year's Wimbledon final. And then I like to see Federer win. That extracts the best tennis from Federer. Some of his shots under pressure are a treat to the eye. The angles that his cross-courts create are mind-boggling. That is what I yearn to see from Federer - high quality tennis and not 6-0 6-0 6-0 domination stuff.

A thing of beauty is a joy forever. And so is Federer's tennis.

Federecession

Roger Federer, synonymous to perfection in tennis, is in a recession and this is obvious. 2 grand slam finals, 1 grand slam semi-final, 2 ATP titles and 47-12 singles record in 2008 is great for mortals but not so for Federer. What's more disconcerning is the way he is losing. It is one thing to lose to Rafael Nadal, who by the way is on cruise control, and is totally different and dismaying to lose to Simons and Blakes of the world. But the writing is clear that Federer is not in command of his game (I wouldn't use 'no longer' yet). The beating at Wimbledon was more than what the scoreboard read. It inflicted a greater damage on his confidence and mindset. Nadal grabbed Wimbledon's keys from Federer's closet, ofcourse when the latter was watching.

For someone familiar with Federer's game, there is one aspect in his game that looks to be strikingly unfamiliar. His volleying. Federer is one of the unique players who is equally strong in serve-and-volley and baseline styles. All-court mastery is his forte and that enables him to chip in classy backhand crosscourts and equally poised shots at angles that others can merely dream of. But after Roland Garros 6-0 whipping and more so after Wimbledon's epic five-setter Nadal has managed to breach into Federer's confidence, a territory untouched for about 5 years. He was thus brought down from his pedastal and looks like a pale shadow of himself ever since.

Agreed, every champion has to fall and change in guard is inevitable. But tennis is not yet ready for a change in guard. I was revetted to my screen when Federer conquered Pete Sampras, another favorite of mine, in 2001 Wimbledon. I was so craving for Sampras to hold and it was deja-vu in 2008. This time it was Federer who was hanging. Hats-off to Rafael Nadal. One great quality in Nadal is his never-say-die spirit. There were moments in Nadal-Federer encounters where Nadal looked lost. Other players gave up. But, what sets Nadal apart is that he simply never gave up and in turn, forced Federer to give up. These matches were huge tests of persistence and mental strength in addition to skill. But as the saying goes, will is greater than skill. Ultimately, both of them bring great tennis to fans and what else do we want.

I personally hope Federer rediscovers his touch and brings back his magic to US Open. Last week he lost his World #1 ranking (which he held for a record 237 weeks) and I hope this ranking doesn't topple further. Since beginning of 2004 (till early 2008) he has compiled a match record of 315-24 => 92.9% win percentage which shows how indelible his stamp was on the tennis circuit. This menancing record has started to liquidate. Though it is only Nadal (in top 10) who has a better one-on-one record against Federer others are fancying their chances against the wounded tiger. I am eagerly waiting in anticipation to see how strong Federer's resilience is. And I am pretty sure he is not a rabbit caught in headlights.

Vamos Rafa..... !!!!

When is a tennis match called a classic? It is when you cannot decide whom to applaud the most - the winner or the loser. And yesterday's Wimbledon's final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal is right up there as an all-time classic.

I have never had such a dilemma as to whom I wish should win. Deep in my heart, I am always a die-hard Roger fan. His class and composure cannot be matched. Period. But, back in 2005 when Nadal outclassed Federer in Roland Garros semi-final, I had a feeling that Nadal will be the one who can constantly challenge and outshine Federer in years to come. My feeling fortified in their subsequent clashes - Miami, Monte Carlo and Roland Garros again. Check out this link that highlights Federer-Nadal rivalry. But when Nadal demolished Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0 in the 2008 edition of French Open, I was shocked. 6-0 against Federer, no matter what surface, is truly remarkable and exceptional. The last time Federer lost a set 6-0 was in 1999 when he was 18 and was a non-entity.

Then the big thing happened. But, many saw it coming. Bjorn Borg was one. He tipped Nadal to win 2008 Wimbledon. I believed that after 2008 French Open final. I did not want Federer to lose, especially at SW19 where he won 5 Wimbledon titles in a row. But the way Nadal played, I did not want him to lose either. Had Federer won a 6th consecutive title, he would have been the first to do so in 122 years of Wimbledon history. But destiny had other ideas. Federer's 65 grass-court victory run (40 of them at Wimbledon) finally ended. And a new run has begun. I won't term it as change of guard. Not yet. But definitely phenomenal. Beating Federer on grass, in Wimbledon, in 5 sets is phenomenal. Nadal is now on a 24-match grass-court victory streak and has won French Open and Wimbledon back to back. How many times can he repeat it?

The Federer-Nadal rivalry has only beefed up with this match. Nadal is now 545 points shy of Federer's 6600 ATP points as World No. 1. With only US Open left this year, Nadal has a very good chance to dethrone Federer (again). I don't think I will see such a match again, where every point was fiercely competed and every stroke elegantly matched. I am also happy that Federer has true competition now and that will extract the best tennis out of him. And what is more blissful than watching Federer on the flow. But if Federer is an paint brush, Nadal is a sledge hammer. If Federer is an alpine craftsman, Nadal is a gladiator. And that adds beauty to their rivalry. I look forward to many more such encounters. And before I sign off, here is congratulating Rafael Nadal for his magnificient 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8), 9-7 Wimbledon victory. He was leading 5-2 in the third set. From Federer perspective, only solace is - How would 6-4 6-4 6-2 have been?

Vamos Rafa........